View Full Version : Tracking the steady deletion of the Palestinians - will Greater Israel be achieved?
Oh an Israel Palestine bunfight! How we love them. So when do we predict that Greater Israel will become a reality?
Palestinian Home Demolitions Increase (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-18247330)
"Wood-fired barbecue was our speciality. Delicious," says Ramzi Kasiyah as he picks his way gingerly over a pile of rubble and twisted metal. Broken glass crackles under his feet."We had a beautiful terrace. Now I have nothing."
Up until a few weeks ago Ramzi was the proud owner of the Palestinian Al Mukhrur restaurant just outside Bethlehem in the occupied West Bank. Now he presides over what looks like a bomb site, a grey scar in a beautiful, small valley, still lush from the winter's rains. At the beginning of May, Israeli forces flattened the restaurant. Ramzi shows me a mobile phone video of huge yellow diggers smashing through the roof, as he and his staff looked on helplessly "12 years' work was gone in 5 minutes," he says.
His adjacent house where he lives with his wife and children is still standing. He says the Israelis told him they would be back to demolish that within the month.
http://www.arabnonviolence.org/system/assets/uploads/articles_imgs/Global_warning._Palestine_is_disappearing[1]_.jpg
Greyblades
05-31-2012, 22:35
His adjacent house where he lives with his wife and children is still standing. He says the Israelis told him they would be back to demolish that within the month.
Man, I know there is history but the Israeli's are being real dicks about this.
Greater Israel was achieved long ago. Even before I was born. Now it's just a matter of getting all PRC on the land they've conquered.
The European Union would seem to agree.
It issued a statement earlier this month, saying that Israel's settlement policies alongside the eviction of Palestinians was threatening "to make a two-state solution" impossible.
Well no :daisy:! It's like they don't realize that's the gods dammed point.
a completely inoffensive name
06-01-2012, 07:08
I don't think the situation will change until the Israeli's get everything they want. The Palestinians have already fought in the public sphere with that flotilla and support from neighboring countries, and it ended up changing nothing because the US public loves Israel and the US is the superpower.
Palestinians, who are that besides the second fattest people of the world with a swimming pool per person ratio that would shame the Gucci grannies in Florida. It kinda doesn't help if you got to kill them wherever you find them and that even a rock will cry out that there is a jew hiding behind it. Nice guys. If they would be capable of something the jews would already be dead. Bless the significant IQ gab between arabs and jews. They are just too stupid to do what they want to do.
Blame the IQ gap? Blame the Saudi government, blame Hosni Mubarak and Anwar Sadat, blame the corrupt Arab states for making deals with Israel while at the same time pretending to fight for the Palestinian cause. But don't blame the Arab peoples, they are one of the greatest victims of our time. Do you think these uprisings were coincidental?
If you want to know what's wrong, read Ghassan Kanafani's "Men in the Sun".
Blame the IQ gap? Blame the Saudi government, blame Hosni Mubarak and Anwar Sadat, blame the corrupt Arab states for making deals with Israel while at the same time pretending to fight for the Palestinian cause. But don't blame the Arab peoples, they are one of the greatest victims of our time. Do you think these uprisings were coincidental?
If you want to know what's wrong, read Ghassan Kanafani's "Men in the Sun".
Poor guys. Always the same, get a burst of sudden jihad syndrome, get bombed -> 'I can has peace?'. Then they remember that they must kill them wherever they find them and they have a new burst of sudden jihad syndrome. They have nothing to blame but theirselves for being a pest.
Uhuh, because Kanafani was a jihadi.
He was a socialist-marxist, just for your information. Palestinian nationalism is not the same as jihadism.
Uhuh, because Kanafani was a jihadi.
He was a socialist-marxist, just for your information. Palestinian nationalism is not the same as jihadism.
They don't WANT a state because they would become the subject of terrorism themselves. The problem is that they must kill them wherever they find them. Arabs will never accept a jewish state on what they see as their land no matter what. Build a wall and shoot back, it's as good as it gets.
The problem is that they must kill them wherever they find them
Nice, quoting Qur'an out of context. How about the greatest of Palestinian activists, Christian Edward Said? Doesn't really work on him, does it?
Arabs will never accept a jewish state on what they see as their land no matter what
Yeah, only they did (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oslo_accords).
The context thing always makes laugh, the context of the qu'an is a relentless campaign of war and genocide
Ibn-Khaldun
06-01-2012, 10:56
The context thing always makes laugh, the context of the qu'an is a relentless campaign of war and genocide
That could be said to Bible as well...
That could be said to Bible as well...
There is a difference, in the qu'ran it's an imperitive 'you must do this'. And yeah the bible sucks as well, but for any reasonable person the Qu'ran should suck bowlingballs through a straw as it sucks that badly.
Why don't you just get to the point and talk about Palestinian nationalism rather than just quoting the Qur'an to support your flimsy claim? Because to be fair, that's exactly the same tactic those ihadis are using.
Why don't you just get to the point and talk about Palestinian nationalism rather than just quoting the Qur'an to support your flimsy claim? Because to be fair, that's exactly the same tactic those ihadis are using.
I already did, they don't want a state. For good reason, if they get the state they will be a target themselves. If Hamas is getting more moderate they will just open up a can of Islamic Jihad who are much much worse. Hamas or Fatah will be the target themselves, having a state is their doom so they will do everything they can to not let that happen. They may be crazy but not suicidal.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
06-01-2012, 13:56
Blame the IQ gap? Blame the Saudi government, blame Hosni Mubarak and Anwar Sadat, blame the corrupt Arab states for making deals with Israel while at the same time pretending to fight for the Palestinian cause. But don't blame the Arab peoples, they are one of the greatest victims of our time. Do you think these uprisings were coincidental?
If you want to know what's wrong, read Ghassan Kanafani's "Men in the Sun".
The government is a reflection of the people. Egypt held elections for President and the two front runners were Army-backed and Islamist-packed - the socialists and democrats barely got a look in. So lets stop pretending the Arab peoples are not partly to blame.
What's wrong is Israel has a larger technological and military base, and they hate the Arabs as much as the Arabs hate the Israelis. Neither will forgive the opther for any slight so the conflict will continue until their the scale are considered exactly balanced OR one side is destroyed.
Right now it looks like the Palastinians are done for, so you can expect calls from within Israel to cross the Jordan within our lifetimes because Idaho's map only represents about 25% of "Greater Israel".
Skullheadhq
06-01-2012, 15:04
Funny that those maps show deserts inhabited by no-one as Palestinian lands. Besides, the Palestinian people never existed, they are just arab nomads .
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
06-01-2012, 15:35
Funny that those maps show deserts inhabited by no-one as Palestinian lands. Besides, the Palestinian people never existed, they are just arab nomads .
To your first point: They weren't always deserts.
To your second: Who was living in Jerusalem before Israel was created? Pixies?
Skullheadhq
06-01-2012, 16:14
To your first point: They weren't always deserts.
To your second: Who was living in Jerusalem before Israel was created? Pixies?
In 1948 the deserts were uninhabited.
In 1948 there lived 100.000 Jews, 40.000 muslims and 25.000 Christians (http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/jerupop.html) in Jerusalem. The website might be biased, but sources for the numbers are given.
Ah, you mean when the Aliyahs had already happened?
Or did you honestly think Jewish immigration to what is now Israel was a post-1948 thing?
Skullheadhq
06-01-2012, 17:08
Ah, you mean when the Aliyahs had already happened?
The statistics show that muslims haven't been the majority as far as those statistics go back, that is 1844.
Skullheadhq
06-01-2012, 17:13
Wait. Muslims or Arabs?
Muslims. The christian Arabs have been counted with the christians. However, not all christians are arabs. There are the Georgians and Greeks as well. Muslims would have Turks calculated in it as well. So no arab majority.
So what exactly are trying to argue here?
Skullheadhq
06-01-2012, 17:17
So what exactly are trying to argue here?
That arabs don't have the right to rule Palestine and Jerusalem since they were and are the minority. That the Jews have a better claim. That maps like in the OP are silly and are lies.
Well, it's not true.
Arabs formed a majority of over 80 percent back in 1931. Source: Cleveland, William L. A History of the Modern Middle-East. pp. 255
Are you really sure you want to continue arguing?
Skullheadhq
06-01-2012, 17:38
Well, it's not true.
Arabs formed a majority of over 80 percent back in 1931. Source: Cleveland, William L. A History of the Modern Middle-East. pp. 255
Are you really sure you want to continue arguing?
The Municipality of Jerusalem says something different.
Well, it's not true.
Arabs formed a majority of over 80 percent back in 1931. Source: Cleveland, William L. A History of the Modern Middle-East. pp. 255
Are you really sure you want to continue arguing?
What he says is true Hax, most of what you calll palestinians are simply Jordanians.
That's totally okay, because I've heard nonsense from all kinds of people.
What he says is true Hax, most of what you calll palestinians are simply Jornanians.
Ah, and what do you think Jorn -- Jordan is?
Jordan war was incredibly nasty, I would have fled myself
You're missing the point.
The mandates that were created in the early 20th century divided the Arab world up in lines that to that point, hadn't really existed. Self-identification as a "Jordanian" or an "Iraqi" was absolutely pointless, as there was no "Jordan" or "Iraq". These states that were essentially western inventions were built on fault lines that made independent rule more or less impossible. Look at the borders of Lebanon, Jordan, Iraq, and Kuwait. These are not natural boundaries. In essence, these borders were chosen for two reasons: firstly to decrease the economic stability and prosperity of a country, and secondly to inflame religious or ethnic tensions. Jordan is a prime case of the former, Iraq and Lebanon examples of the latter.
Egypt was something of an oddball, as it was heavily (and I mean seriously) influenced by western philosophy in the 19th century and was more or less independent for most of its time.
What did exist in this area at that time was the Ottoman province of Syria. It stretched roughly from north of Antioch up to the Sinai.
In any case, what I'm really trying to say is that you can't slap 20th century notions of nations and nation-states on this area. People identified around their family, their tribe, or their clan. There's absolutely no doubt about it that in the 19th and early 20th century, the area known as Israel was indisputably inhabited by a large majority of Arabs. It's undisputable.
What you miss is arabs not being my equals
As you wish, Lord High Commissioner. Would you insist that we start shooting those savages at Dinshawy now, my Lord; we can have tea and crumpets on the porch later.
You're missing the point.
The mandates that were created in the early 20th century divided the Arab world up in lines that to that point, hadn't really existed. Self-identification as a "Jordanian" or an "Iraqi" was absolutely pointless, as there was no "Jordan" or "Iraq". These states that were essentially western inventions were built on fault lines that made independent rule more or less impossible. Look at the borders of Lebanon, Jordan, Iraq, and Kuwait. These are not natural boundaries. In essence, these borders were chosen for two reasons: firstly to decrease the economic stability and prosperity of a country, and secondly to inflame religious or ethnic tensions. Jordan is a prime case of the former, Iraq and Lebanon examples of the latter.
Egypt was something of an oddball, as it was heavily (and I mean seriously) influenced by western philosophy in the 19th century and was more or less independent for most of its time.
What did exist in this area at that time was the Ottoman province of Syria. It stretched roughly from north of Antioch up to the Sinai.
In any case, what I'm really trying to say is that you can't slap 20th century notions of nations and nation-states on this area. People identified around their family, their tribe, or their clan. There's absolutely no doubt about it that in the 19th and early 20th century, the area known as Israel was indisputably inhabited by a large majority of Arabs. It's undisputable.
From what I found when I tried to google is that Ottoman Syria (which was a description of an area rather than an acutal territory sub-division) might have covered all of the Levant. But that the modern nations in that area were created by either uniting Ottoman Vilayets (~province) and Sanjacks (districts or counties) or splitting them off unto themselves. Iraq was created from the Vilayet's of Musul, Baghdad, and Basra. Syria is from the Vilayet of Damascus, most of Halab, and the northern half of Beirut (the southern half being split off into Lebanon). The area that Israel/Palestine now occupies was the Sanjak of Kudüs-i Şerif. Jordan was the Sanjak of Transjordan. And I'm not disputing your point about whom the peoples in that area would identify with (or whom the ethnic majority would have been). That's a commentary on the general failure of the Ottoman empire in the 19th century. My point is that this wasn't like Africa where nations were created willy nilly with no regards for what was already in place. Britain and France simple took over centuries old pre existing Ottoman territorial sub-units. Now granted the Palestinian people were created by the British. I mean Kudüs-i Şerif isn't much of a name to a European Imperialist. And Judea or Outrmer would be insulting to the locals. So that leaves the name of the Roman province for the area, Palestine. So it is fair to say that the Palestinians didn't exist before the 20th century. And it's also fair to that they've always been there.
Really this conflict on that tiny patch of worthless desert is between the returning descendants of people who left after their kingdom was forcefully subjugated by an ancient empire. And the descendants of those who didn't, and were assimilated by that empire. And the other successive empires that passed through.
From what I found when I tried to google is that Ottoman Syria (which was a description of an area rather than an acutal territory sub-division) might have covered all of the Levant. But that the modern nations in that area were created by either uniting Ottoman Vilayets (~province) and Sanjacks (districts or counties) or splitting them off unto themselves.
This is true to the extent that the provinces and sanjaks were something along the lines of guidelines to the mandate powers. However, this does not mean that these sanjaks, provinces or mandates constituted autonomous political communities during Ottoman governance or that the new administrations didn't fiddle with the boundaries, which I'll address in your point about Iraq.
Syria as you rightly note was a descriptive term for an area, rather than a province (like Holland, or the Mid-West).
Iraq was created from the Vilayet's of Musul, Baghdad, and Basra. Syria is from the Vilayet of Damascus, most of Halab, and the northern half of Beirut (the southern half being split off into Lebanon). The area that Israel/Palestine now occupies was the Sanjak of Kudüs-i Serif. Jordan was the Sanjak of Transjordan.
The notion of a vilayet is completely different from that of a state; . Furthermore, whole parts were cut from the vilayat of Basra: the Iraqi state controlled no more than 58 kilometres of coastline near the Persian Gulf; during Ottoman times, the Shatt al-Arab and the ports near Basra were part of the vilayet of Basra. They were completely cut off.
Speaking about the Transjordan, and I'm just going to quote here: "Transjordan was, even more than Iraq, a British creation. It was a the most unnatural of all the new states, corresponding to no historical province or local community." (Lapidus, Ira M. A History of the Modern Middle East, p.
The mandate of Palestine was not a distinctive administrative entity: it was divided between the provinces of Beirut, Damascus and the special administrative unit of Jerusalem.
And I'm not disputing your point about whom the peoples in that area would identify with (or whom the ethnic majority would have been). That's a commentary on the general failure of the Ottoman empire in the 19th century.
I completely agree with the first part of your statement; however, the failure of the Ottoman state is just one thing, and we shouldn't forget that Britain and French were actively undermining Ottoman authority in the region for their own benefit. The Ottoman state was well-aware of its shortcomings and was actively trying to deal with it. The Ottoman ethno-religious administration may or may not have contributed to the increase of tensions at a later point, but don't blame the Ottomans too much.
My point is that this wasn't like Africa where nations were created willy nilly with no regards for what was already in place. Britain and France simple took over centuries old pre existing Ottoman territorial sub-units.
Not really, they actively messed with it and had no qualms in messing with it to such a degree that political stability would be more or less impossible. Maybe they used Ottoman subdivisions as guidelines, but they basically created provinces that were already problematic. Don't forget that a province and a state are two very different things.
Now granted the Palestinian people were created by the British. I mean Kudüs-i Serif isn't much of a name to a European Imperialist. And Judea or Outrmer would be insulting to the locals. So that leaves the name of the Roman province for the area, Palestine. So it is fair to say that the Palestinians didn't exist before the 20th century. And it's also fair to that they've always been there.
Well, always is a long time. I'd put Arab settlement of the area around the time of the Nabateans, and large-scale migration in a post-Islamic era (like 600 CE). But it's a long time and the area was basically completely Arabised. It's like saying the French should go back to Germany or Denmark, because they were part of a 6th century mass migration.
Hooahguy
06-01-2012, 19:56
A few months ago there was a picture I saw of two Israeli MP's relaxing on a couch that belonged to a Palestinian family that was recently evicted.
It was very disgusting.
At least to me.
Kralizec
06-01-2012, 20:24
Well, it's not true.
Arabs formed a majority of over 80 percent back in 1931. Source: Cleveland, William L. A History of the Modern Middle-East. pp. 255
Are you really sure you want to continue arguing?
The Municipality of Jerusalem says something different.
Jerusalem ≠ the entire area of historical Palestine
:coffeenews:
So that leaves the name of the Roman province for the area, Palestine. So it is fair to say that the Palestinians didn't exist before the 20th century. And it's also fair to that they've always been there.
Correct; the name "Palestinians" itself was new. The people themselves were not, they had lived there for many centuries.
When the Brits started dividing the general area the concept of "Jordanian" was just as artificial as that of "Palestinian". So the argument that Palestinians are actually Jordanians who have no business living on the west Bank is not only ridiculous, it is internally inconsistent.
This is true to the extent that the provinces and sanjaks were something along the lines of guidelines to the mandate powers. However, this does not mean that these sanjaks, provinces or mandates constituted autonomous political communities during Ottoman governance or that the new administrations didn't fiddle with the boundaries, which I'll address in your point about Iraq.
Syria as you rightly note was a descriptive term for an area, rather than a province (like Holland, or the Mid-West).
Ofcourse not. The Ottoman's were the basis for Absolutist government that emerged in Europe post Renaissance.
The notion of a vilayet is completely different from that of a state; . Furthermore, whole parts were cut from the vilayat of Basra: the Iraqi state controlled no more than 58 kilometres of coastline near the Persian Gulf; during Ottoman times, the Shatt al-Arab and the ports near Basra were part of the vilayet of Basra. They were completely cut off.
I wasn't really speaking EXACTLY THE SAME! More like if you squint you can see they follow the general pattern. But your right that the Iraqi coast and the Ottoman coast were very different. Britain did give land to Iran.
Speaking about the Transjordan, and I'm just going to quote here: "Transjordan was, even more than Iraq, a British creation. It was a the most unnatural of all the new states, corresponding to no historical province or local community." (Lapidus, Ira M. A History of the Modern Middle East, p.
Most of it's territory would have fallen into the Vilayet of Damascus. But the Ottoman border into the Arabian desert was ill defined at best. It's the reason the Northern borders of Saudi Arabia is all straight lines.
The mandate of Palestine was not a distinctive administrative entity: it was divided between the provinces of Beirut, Damascus and the special administrative unit of Jerusalem.
The French and British negotiated on how to divide the spoil that was Ottoman Syria. So I mean that most of what is Israel/Palestine today, and Mandate Palestine before, comes from the Sanjak around Jerusalem.
I completely agree with the first part of your statement; however, the failure of the Ottoman state is just one thing, and we shouldn't forget that Britain and French were actively undermining Ottoman authority in the region for their own benefit. The Ottoman state was well-aware of its shortcomings and was actively trying to deal with it. The Ottoman ethno-religious administration may or may not have contributed to the increase of tensions at a later point, but don't blame the Ottomans too much.
Well for most of the 19th century Britain propped up the Ottomans. The Crimean war was fought to keep the house of Osman in the Topkapi palace after all. As was the British occupation of Egypt.
Not really, they actively messed with it and had no qualms in messing with it to such a degree that political stability would be more or less impossible. Maybe they used Ottoman subdivisions as guidelines, but they basically created provinces that were already problematic. Don't forget that a province and a state are two very different things.
Well they were buildings nations and did impose European style of territory demarcation, and indirectly nationalism, on an area that knew little about such things. Political stability wasn't impossible by default though. That usually happened due to whom the British put in charge (re the Hashemite family in Iraq and Jordan), or simple walked away from a terrotist ridden back water (Palestine). Or the French attempting to legislate ethnic equality in areas where the Ottomans had tried to keep them separate. But on the flip side Lebanon exists as the French though the Amorites would be better off in their own nation.
Well, always is a long time. I'd put Arab settlement of the area around the time of the Nabateans, and large-scale migration in a post-Islamic era (like 600 CE). But it's a long time and the area was basically completely Arabised. It's like saying the French should go back to Germany or Denmark, because they were part of a 6th century mass migration.
The thing about those large scale migrations is that unlike in North America they didn't usually have a huge impact on the people there from a genetic stand point. Memetically they were major shifts. Testing in Britain has showed that bodies fished out of bogs are genetically almost the same as those who live there now.
classical_hero
06-02-2012, 07:54
To your first point: They weren't always deserts.
To your second: Who was living in Jerusalem before Israel was created? Pixies?
The Jews were living in Jerusalem before Israel was re-created. There has been a continued presence in Jerusalem of Jews, even when the rest of the area they were forced out. They have always valued Jerusalem and Jerusalem is just some city to be kept away frm the Jews for the Arabs. They have no longing for the city.
Jerusalem ≠ the entire area of historical Palestine
:coffeenews:
Correct; the name "Palestinians" itself was new. The people themselves were not, they had lived there for many centuries.
When the Brits started dividing the general area the concept of "Jordanian" was just as artificial as that of "Palestinian". So the argument that Palestinians are actually Jordanians who have no business living on the west Bank is not only ridiculous, it is internally inconsistent.
They are actually Jordanians, they fled there during the war. Tell me, how could they have sustained such a population without the money injections they get now
They have always valued Jerusalem and Jerusalem is just some city to be kept away frm the Jews for the Arabs. They have no longing for the city.\
And you base this on what, exactly?
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
06-02-2012, 12:31
The Jews were living in Jerusalem before Israel was re-created. There has been a continued presence in Jerusalem of Jews, even when the rest of the area they were forced out. They have always valued Jerusalem and Jerusalem is just some city to be kept away frm the Jews for the Arabs. They have no longing for the city.
The Jews were only ever "forced out" of Jerusalem, and as you pointed out they came back.
The dispersal is a myth really - the "Arabs" living in Jerusalem and Bethlehem etc. will be at least partly descended from Jews who stayed and later converted to Islam or Christianity.
So meh to the whole idea of the "Return" - for most of history the Jews lived in Europe probably because A: they were born there and B: it really wasn't all that bad for 99 out of every hundred years.
That's not to say they weren't oppressed, oh no, but the Holocaust is singly responsible for the establishment of the State of Israel.
Having said that - the Jews are there now and evicting them would be no better than what they have done to the Palastinians.
Who cares, it's tiny. That little piece of earth they surely should be allowed to call their own. The real reason lefties hate Israel is because the jews make it painfully clear that people aren't equal. Jews are superior to arabs in every way and that has got to hurt if you are 100% sure that it's all about the chances you get. But no matter how much money is thrown at the Palestinians, no matter how much schools you build, they will always live in the desert. Jews have an avarage IQ of 110 and arabs of 85. Arabs are just too stupid.
ICantSpellDawg
06-02-2012, 13:24
This is terrible. Israel should be shamed of itself.
Jews have an avarage IQ of 110 and arabs of 85. Arabs are just too stupid.
And that's (if it's true in the first place) somehow the arabs' fault or what are you saying?
And that's (if it's true in the first place) somehow the arabs' fault or what are you saying?
No need to help them, it's hopeless because they are retarded by our standards. With all the education in the world they will still be of no use to us. Starving them by not feeding them is kinda too harsh for my tastes but my willingniss to help them forward kinda ends there.
No need to help them, it's hopeless because they are retarded by our standards. With all the education in the world they will still be of no use to us. Starving them by not feeding them is kinda too harsh for my tastes but my willingniss to help them forward kinda ends there.
Well, you assume that IQ is the cause and poverty the effect but you may just have it backwards. It's proven that depressed mothers handle their children in a rather suboptimal way for example, and stimulus is also a major factor in a child's development, and thus, intelligence. Your way of saying "well, that's just how it is and nothing ever changes" is evidently completely wrong. By that standard Europe should have never developed from how it was in the dark ages etc.
Additionally you can't expect a huge shift within a few years, from the dark ages until today took us about a millennium after all.
And if we're talking about aid money thrown at people, I'd guess Israel receives a lot more, it's also not like they built all the military equipment they used to conquer and defend the land themselves.
Well, you assume that IQ is the cause and poverty the effect but you may just have it backwards. It's proven that depressed mothers handle their children in a rather suboptimal way for example, and stimulus is also a major factor in a child's development, and thus, intelligence. Your way of saying "well, that's just how it is and nothing ever changes" is evidently completely wrong. By that standard Europe should have never developed from how it was in the dark ages etc.
Additionally you can't expect a huge shift within a few years, from the dark ages until today took us about a millennium after all.
And if we're talking about aid money thrown at people, I'd guess Israel receives a lot more, it's also not like they built all the military equipment they used to conquer and defend the land themselves.
Their low IQ is why I won't help them because it is of no use, but I also just don't like them because they have to kill them wherever they find them. I just have nothing positive to say about their desert-ideoligy it is not welcome.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
06-02-2012, 16:08
Their low IQ is why I won't help them because it is of no use, but I also just don't like them because they have to kill them wherever they find them. I just have nothing positive to say about their desert-ideoligy it is not welcome.
Your assumption is that the IQ difference (if true) is innate, and not the result of a lack of education, not to mention poor nutrition.
Your assumption is that the IQ difference (if true) is innate, and not the result of a lack of education, not to mention poor nutrition.
Poor nutrition you have got te be kidding me, they are the second well-fed people in the universe and surroundings, hardly surprising since they feed upon most of our oh so generous aid budget. And yeah it is true they are really that dumb.
Kralizec
06-02-2012, 18:15
They are actually Jordanians, they fled there during the war. Tell me, how could they have sustained such a population without the money injections they get now
So as soon as a refugee becomes...well, a refugee, he loses all moral claims to his house and his land?
The West-Bank was annexed by (Trans)Jordan and the Gaza strip by Egypt after the 1948 war and were still populated by Palestinian arabs. Some also fled to other regions (including Jordan proper) but they never assimilated into the local population and kept their own identity. Read up on black september, for example.
Who cares, it's tiny. That little piece of earth they surely should be allowed to call their own. The real reason lefties hate Israel is because the jews make it painfully clear that people aren't equal. Jews are superior to arabs in every way and that has got to hurt if you are 100% sure that it's all about the chances you get. But no matter how much money is thrown at the Palestinians, no matter how much schools you build, they will always live in the desert. Jews have an avarage IQ of 110 and arabs of 85. Arabs are just too stupid.
Don't project your racist ideas on others to create strawmen.
Feel free to call me a racist but keep in mind that I don't like that
And the other war in Jordan
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lebanese_Civil_War <- that one
You are a racist, however. Israel has had a clear vision of a state and a country since its inception, whereas Palestine has been a mess - it has never had a strong state, something which Israel has had since the beginning.
If there had existed such a relevant genetical IQ gap, the history of the modern state of Israel would not start at 1948, it would go centuries back. Truth is though that the Arabs, just like the Romans before them, took the area by force without too much trouble. The present day balance is unique to the present day.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
06-02-2012, 21:54
Poor nutrition you have got te be kidding me, they are the second well-fed people in the universe and surroundings, hardly surprising since they feed upon most of our oh so generous aid budget. And yeah it is true they are really that dumb.
Well, what about the Palstinians I went to university with?
In any case "calories" does not equate to "nutrition".
Feel free to call me a racist but keep in mind that I don't like that
And the other war in Jordan you totalidiot
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lebanese_Civil_War <- that one
Saying that a certain set of people is inherently inferior and deserves to be discriminated against is the textbook definition of racism. If you don't like being called a racist don't be one.
Yeah and thank you very much
For you boohoohoo's http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ_and_Global_Inequality
You don't have to like it
a completely inoffensive name
06-03-2012, 05:58
I'm loving this thread right now.
Kralizec
06-03-2012, 09:02
Yeah and thank you very much
For you boohoohoo's http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ_and_Global_Inequality
You don't have to like it
Did you read the book you're referring to?
I didn't. In any case, I don't dispute that there are IQ differences between different countries, but I won't accept that it's geneticly determined until other possible explanations have been ruled out. PVC already mentioned nutrition (and that being fat is not the same as being well fed). Another obvious one is education - especially in the early infant stages; when brain plasticity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain_plasticity) is the greatest. Even a one year delay in education can slow down intellectual development so much that a person will have to try extremely hard to catch up with his peers (as evidenced with deaf children in regards to language)
Oh, and if you're calling an ethnic group inherently less intelligent than others (which is speculative at this point) and whatsmore, not equal to yourself, then people are going to call you a racist. Don't like it? Tough luck.
:coffeenews:
I am starting to dislike you
More for ya http://www.dagelijksestandaard.nl/2012/05/‘lager-iq-vertraagt-integratie-allochtonen’
Skullheadhq
06-03-2012, 09:57
I couldn't help myself:
http://hetserpent.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/000_shout_racist_by_imaksim-d3advfe.jpg
Note: Only use img tags on images you have uploaded via imgur, imageshack, etc. Many sites have hotlink protection.
Yeah and thank you very much
For you boohoohoo's http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ_and_Global_Inequality
You don't have to like it
The fact of the matter is your views are the very definition of racist, like I said. That doesn't disprove your views, it just means that the word "racist" describes them. Getting offended by being called a racist implies that you think racism is bad, while simultaneously holding racist views. So in my opinion you're contradicting yourself.
The fact of the matter is your views are the very definition of racist, like I said. That doesn't disprove your views, it just means that the word "racist" describes them. Getting offended by being called a racist implies that you think racism is bad, while simultaneously holding racist views. So in my opinion you're contradicting yourself.
Ok that is fair I guess, but the term has long been polluted too much with the implication of hatred it now has a mind of it's own. I do not want to be associated with it's current meaning because it's way off from what I mean, I really wouldn't deserve such a label. I am incapable of hate but also of political correctness
Well, to come back to the original problem, what people are saying is basically that the reason Palestinians have such a low IQ and are so fat is that Israel is denying them education and proper food. And to that you reply because they're fat and not well educated, Israel should deny them more until they go extinct. But why? If you don't hate them, why do you not even consider the possibility of Israel giving them access to better food and education and thus slowly increasing their IQ and decreasing their obesity over time?
all you do is state that this would never work based on your assumption that their culture/religion will never let it work that way. That's like a 12th century Morrocan saying "Well, Europe is a barbarian stinkhole that will never develop because of their aggressive religion and culture and we should just kill them all." Yet today we celebrate all the scientific and cultural developments we've made since then.
So please give me an explanation of how exactly you can assume that Palestine will always stay this way no matter what changes or just stop these assumptions based on some eights sense of yours that says things never change.
Oh, and assuming that only about other people is rather racist, yeah.
It's a leftist myth that they don't have any food. Try finding me some pics of starving Palestinians. They have a longer life expectancy than the Turks.
And no wonder they are the second fattest people on the earth and surroundings. http://www.google.nl/search?um=1&hl=nl&tbo=d&authuser=0&biw=1024&bih=644&tbm=isch&sa=1&q=gaza+market&oq=gaza+market&aq=f&aqi=g-L1&aql=&gs_l=img.3..0i19.12707.21658.1.22418.33.0.28.5.5.0.0.0..0.0...0.0.fc-pi77P90w
Now how did all of that get there
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
06-03-2012, 13:48
It's a leftist myth that they don't have any food. Try finding me some pics of starving Palestinians. They have a longer life expectancy than the Turks.
And no wonder they are the second fattest people on the earth and surroundings. http://www.google.nl/search?um=1&hl=nl&tbo=d&authuser=0&biw=1024&bih=644&tbm=isch&sa=1&q=gaza+market&oq=gaza+market&aq=f&aqi=g-L1&aql=&gs_l=img.3..0i19.12707.21658.1.22418.33.0.28.5.5.0.0.0..0.0...0.0.fc-pi77P90w
Now how did all of that get there
Not "no food" Frag - crap food.
There's a difference.
Not "no food" Frag - crap food.
There's a difference.
There is a difference between a lie and how things are. There is hardly an Arab country where the life expectancy is better, how can that be please tell me. Better than in Turkey in fact, I got Pali friends (yes) who go there on holiday every year. It is not what you are told it is.
Concentrationcamp Gaza
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DU5NmRkaIt4&feature=youtube_gdata_player
More
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ZrdQx3BtVo&feature=youtube_gdata_player at least spending it wrong no
Concentrationcamp Gaza
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DU5NmRkaIt4&feature=youtube_gdata_player
There is a comment on that video:
Hamas thugs have now destroyed the Water Park after the Hamas government shut it down in August because men and women were seen mixing together.
Greyblades
06-03-2012, 14:35
Good lord, I was going to call hamas a bunch of douchbags, before I realized it would be an insult to all genital sanitation devices.
There is a comment on that video:
I know, kinda the problem no, it's just hopeless. They builda sea attraction-park with the money that was meant for schools and when it's done it got blown up by Jihadis. It COULD have been hilarious but it just lasts too long to be funny
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
06-03-2012, 14:43
There is a difference between a lie and how things are. There is hardly an Arab country where the life expectancy is better, how can that be please tell me. Better than in Turkey in fact, I got Pali friends (yes) who go there on holiday every year. It is not what you are told it is.
Concentrationcamp Gaza
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DU5NmRkaIt4&feature=youtube_gdata_player
More
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ZrdQx3BtVo&feature=youtube_gdata_player at least spending it wrong no
Obesity tracks with poor education and lack of job opertunities - not access to calories.
Rich people tend to be thinner than poor people despite being able to afford more calories.
In Gaza you have a country which gets a lot od aid food (like rice) but has limited opertunities to, say, grow it's own fruit or raise it's own cattle. So food is imported, and the imported food is processed.
It's not "Arabs are stupid" it's social economics.
Yes, Palastinians are fat, much fatter than (say) Jordanians, possibly twice as fat. Given that you think Jordanians and Palastinians are basically the same people (and ethnically that's fairly true) they should be as fat as each other, itf it's inate stupidity.
The fact is though, the Jordanians have abetter society, and fewer fat people.
I think the very existence of Edward Said essentially disproves the idea of that "all Arabs are stupid".
I think the very existence of Edward Said essentially disproves the idea of that "all Arabs are stupid".
Edward Said deserves a lot of respect, he is a true descendant of humanists like Averoes
So for pity's sake, what exactly is it you're trying to argue here?
Hamas is abusing the collective suffering of the Palestinians in Gaza and have fallen into pure nepotism; Fatah is ruling autocratic ally over the West Bank and has succeeded in bullying other Palestinian movements into silence while at the same time have completely lost their legitimacy; Israel has its own problems, including enormous housing shortages and a growing ultra-Orthodox community.
And while all of this is happening, Palestinian houses are being demolished and their basic human rights are being denied and you're not only accepting this denial, you're actually defending it and somehow claiming that all that's going wrong, is actually their fault.
You say that Edward Said deserves respect, but you're doing nothing but disrespecting him by collectively accusing the Arabs of idiocy. It's undefendable.
Sarmatian
06-03-2012, 19:45
Yeah and thank you very much
For you boohoohoo's http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ_and_Global_Inequality
You don't have to like it
Actually Frag, this proves the exact opposite of what you think it proves...
It proves that IQ has all to do with education and not much with genes.
You are right about Hamas being the problem of course.
Actually Frag, this proves the exact opposite of what you think it proves...
It proves that IQ has all to do with education and not much with genes.
I never said that
Sarmatian
06-03-2012, 20:00
I never said that
Well, when you state that some people are inherently stupider than other, it can only be about genes...
Or were you trying to say that their IQ is lower on average because of poor education and living conditions?
Well, when you state that some people are inherently stupider than other, it can only be about genes...
Or were you trying to say that their IQ is lower on average because of poor education and living conditions?
I haveabsolutely no idea
You are right about Hamas being the problem of course.
Hamas is a problem, not the problem.
The rise of Hamas is more of a consequece than being the cause of the problem. What exactly constitutes the problem is still being debated, but I'm urging strongly towards the complete isolation on both the political as well as the physical level of the Palestinians. Look at South Lebanon, look at the uprisings in Jordan in 1970. They've been ghettofied, they're being treated as outsiders and it's nearly impossible for them to fit into their new societies.
The right of return won't work, for the very simple reason that the houses that many of the refugees still hold their keys to either don't exist anymore or have been redistributed to Jewish settlers. It's a shame, but it won't work. Israel won't go anywhere, we're dealing with fourth generation immigrants here who simply know Israel as their home. It's impossible.
What is possible, in my opinion, is the reassessment of Palestinian Arabs living in Israel (and I'm willing to include Gaza and the West Bank here). For me, the only viable solution is a one-state solution within the state of Israel, potentially keeping the status of a Jewish state, with full rights for Palestinian Arab citizens. The two-state solution, especially the one proposed after Camp David would be disastrous for the Palestinians.
At this moment, there's some misconceptions that we seriously need to get rid of:
1) This is a religious conflict. Really, it's not. It's got much more to do with nationalism than with anything else. We're talking Arabs and ethnic Jews here, not Muslims and religious Jews. Anyone willing to contest this I'm willing to talk to.
2) Jews and Muslims have always been in conflict with one another. Historically impossible to defend; skirting over more than 1 300 years of Judeo-Islamic history, and even after the initial Jewish settlements of Palestine from 1880's onwards, intercommunal conflicts didn't start until the late 1920's and 1930's. Opposition (regardless of its nature, both violent and non-violent) was directed towards the British, not towards Arabs or Jews.
3) It's an endless conflict. It's really not, I think it's not that difficult to find a solution, but only if both sides are interested in conceding some of their demands.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
06-03-2012, 20:57
So for pity's sake, what exactly is it you're trying to argue here?
Hamas is abusing the collective suffering of the Palestinians in Gaza and have fallen into pure nepotism; Fatah is ruling autocratic ally over the West Bank and has succeeded in bullying other Palestinian movements into silence while at the same time have completely lost their legitimacy; Israel has its own problems, including enormous housing shortages and a growing ultra-Orthodox community.
And while all of this is happening, Palestinian houses are being demolished and their basic human rights are being denied and you're not only accepting this denial, you're actually defending it and somehow claiming that all that's going wrong, is actually their fault.
You say that Edward Said deserves respect, but you're doing nothing but disrespecting him by collectively accusing the Arabs of idiocy. It's undefendable.
Perhaps Frag thinks it's "the Islam" that makes them stupid?
But I think his comment about Edward Said is somewhat backhanded in any case.
Still - let us consider, the first things the Israelis destroy are not the houses, oh no, it's the businesses.
Classic scorched earth tactic, destroy the means of production and leave the people to starve and eat themselves up.
I was actually going to refer to the destruction of businesses as well, but I forgot about it. Thanks for pointing that out, too.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
06-04-2012, 00:07
I was actually going to refer to the destruction of businesses as well, but I forgot about it. Thanks for pointing that out, too.
It's what I would do if I wanted to destroy a people and their will to resist.
The Isreali state is smart - and possibly evil.
Add to that the crippling taxes levied on the Palestinians by Fatah, and yeah, it's no wonder that Hamas gets elected in Gaza.
Perhaps Frag thinks it's "the Islam" that makes them stupid?
But I think his comment about Edward Said is somewhat backhanded in any case.
Still - let us consider, the first things the Israelis destroy are not the houses, oh no, it's the businesses.
Classic scorched earth tactic, destroy the means of production and leave the people to starve and eat themselves up.
Islam absolutely is a factor, yes I believe that, true and no apoligies for thinking so
Edit, episode 13484578854678669765887543899, 3 jewish youth, one girl, beaten up by 10 people who are an enrichment of French culture with iron stakes and hammers while screaming ullahah akhbar. Nope, it's not the islam. Despite the fact that they have to kill them wherever they find them according to the direct word of god
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.