> In article <480a6916$0$30219$4c368faf@
roadrunner.com>,
> "Jerry Okamura"
hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
>>>> In article <480927ed$0$5716$4c368faf@
roadrunner.com>,
>>> "Jerry Okamura"
hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> In article
>>>>>
74.223.185.199.nw.nuvox.net]>,
>>>>> Coffee in Madrid wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> In article
earthlink.com>,
>>>>>> "torresD" hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Carter said ignoring a large segment
>>>>>>> of the Palestinian people would make
>>>>>>> it impossible to achieve peace.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The bigger the population that is included... the quicker the road
>>>>>> to
>>>>>> peace.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It would be as easy as Ireland.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> All the terrorists everywhere drop their weapons and go back to
>>>>>> their
>>>>>> families.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Coffee everywhere
>>>>>
>>>>> and Britan would still be fighting in Ireland, if they hadn't talked
>>>>> to
>>>>> the Irish.
>>>>
>>>> Don't you think there is a diffence when the government is the one who
>>>> is
>>>> willing to talk to someone like the IRA and when someone who was part
>>>> of
>>>> the
>>>> government, decides to talk to them, when their government does not
>>>> believe
>>>> that is the solution to the problem?
>>> Let's both be clear that the Irish and Palestinian problems are the
>>> same: stolen land.
>>
>> What is the definition of "stolen land"?
>
> Land taken by force. The Brits foresaw a land where Jews and Muslims
> would live side by side. Zionist saw a mono-cultural state with only
> Jews.
>>>
>>> It would be far better if our government would take an even handed
>>> approach in dealing with the Israelis and the Palestinians. It isn't
>>> just the present administration that exonerates Israeli abuses and
>>> vilifies Palestinian nationalism but that they are a bunch of crooks
>>> does exacerbate the problem.
>>
>> "If" a group of people want you exterminated from the world, what should
>> you
>> do? Allow yourself to be "exterminated"?
> Jews and Muslims have lived together in Palestine for a thousand years.
> If Jews had wanted to buy Arab property, they would have been accepted.
> but Zionists claimed Palestine as God given. Palestinians should be
> called the resistance. It is against international law for a country to
> expand itself through conquest. I see no problem with a one state
> solution that lets Palestinians return to their homes that they were
> chased from n 1948. If the houses were purchased, obviously there would
> be no claim. If the occupant of your property will not leave,
> extermination seems appropriate. I am not talking about Jews leaving
> Palestein. I'm referring to the return of property which was seized
> militarily. See: The Lemon Tree: An Arab, a Jew, and the Heart of the
> Middle East,
>
http://www.amazon.com/Lemon-Tree-Arab-Heart-Middle/dp/1596913436/ref=pd_b
> bs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1208741474&sr=1-1
> Bank robbers don't want to be exterminated either. Screw 'em.
>>> Since the U.N. General Assembly is stifled in its' protests of Israeli
>>> actions towards the Palestinians and the objections of Carter, Bishop
>>> Tutu, Noam Chomsky, and Cynthia McKinney go unlistened to (McKinney was
>>> unseated in her congressional campaigne due to AIPAC money) it is only
>>> fitting that Carter give voice to the voiceless. When you read about
>>> Palestinians in corporate owned newspapers, they are characterized as
>>> terrorists or militants, not nationalists. Our news doesn't inform. It
>>> comes pre-chewed and fully digested, and tells you what to think
>>> instead
>>> of giving you the facts and letting you make up your own mind.
>>
>> What should you call people who are trying to kill other people?
> What should you call those who resist military occupation? The
> "resistance". This is an international right.
>>>
>>> The problem is that the entirety of the middle east is inflamed with
>>> Israel's actions against the Palestinians, including the populations of
>>> our client states Egypt and Jordan (number 2 and 3 in American foreign
>>> aid). Look at the cancerous map on McKinney's web site
>>>
https://mckinney2008.com/PRESIDENT/index.php?option=com_content&task=view
>>> &id=109&Itemid=1 . Look at the Irgun article in Wikipedia
>>>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irgun and look at the Irgun emblem. The
>>> map
>>> shows the land claimed by the organization for the Jewish state, which
>>> corresponds to current Israel, West Bank, Gaza strip and Jordan.
>>
>> When you go to war with someone, and that person defeats you, what do you
>> expect the winner to do?
> Who went to war with whom? Under international law the conqueror has not
> right to land. I presume you think "law" is a good thing.
The arabs when they attacked the nation of Israel. They lost, and Israel
like countries throughout our history, claimed some of the territory they
captured in that war.
>>>
>>> Most of the refugees in the West Bank and Gaza were chased from their
>>> land, that is now claimed by the Zionists, or are their descendants.
>>
>> Well, yes. That is what happens when you lose. American Indians were
>> also
>> "chased" from their land, weren't they? What is the difference?
> No difference, that was, is, genocide. Are you suggesting that because
> genocide took place in the past that it be condoned now and in the
> future. That will come as a bitter sweet victory to the Nazis who wre
> hung at Nuremburg.
Genocide requires that killing of someone. It is not genocide when people
are "chased" from the land they are on.... As for the Nazi's, some were
hung frist and foremost because they lost the war (winners who commit war
crimes are not punished) and because they actually killed people.
>>>
>>> Someone must let the Palestinian voice be heard. If Carter can do it,
>>> then Lord love him.
>>
>> There is nothing fundamentally wrong with being heard. As long as it
>> accomplishes the goal, which is to end the killing.
> In this country it is the First Amendment, no ifs, ands, or buts. It
> doesn't have to accomplish anything, squat. It is our right to speak and
> be heard. No prerequisites.
In this country there is no absolute freedom of speech. It comes with
strings attached. You have the freedom to speak, as long as your speech
does not kill someone. For instance, you cannot yell fire in the crowded
theater (an exercize of your freedom to speak), people panic and die as a
result, and expect that you will not be punished for you exercizing you
freedom to speak. You cannot say that you are going to kill the President
of the United States, another use of your freedom to speak, and not expect
that some law enforcement type won't take you into custody and perhaps
charge you with a crime.
>
> What has happened is a conspiracy based on Euro-guilt for the 1500 years
> of Christian nation's bigotry that justified pillaging, and confiscation
> of Jewish property, and for the uncounted number of Jews who were
> murdered resisting this theft.
What has that got to do with the conversation about Carter?
>
> The British who had no ownership of Palestine, except to see that law
> and order was maintained, proposed to give part of it to the Jews as a
> home land. This was supported by the United Nations. It was to be a
> bicultural state with Jews and Arabs (Christian and Muslim) living side
> by side. After the terrorist bombing of the King David Hotel (British
> HQ), the British, their empire over, withdrew, leaving the Palestinians
> to the not so tender mercies of the Zionists.
Ditto
>
> Again, Jews and Arabs lived side by side for over 1000 years. If the
> Jews had come to purchase property, as Scandinavians now do in the south
> of France, there would have been few problems. But the Zionists came as
> conquerors to ethnically cleanse Palestine. How else do you explain the
> emblem of the Irgun, one of the main Zionist terrorist groups?
>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irgun
> It shows Palestine and Jordan as the state of Israel.
>
Ditto
