Romy

^ Is wrong. < Don't believe in ghosts or any other form of afterlife. V Disagrees with me.

Countries you listed like Syria, France Britain have been long established but just have gone by different names and some different form of political status such as Syria has been called the Levant, Al Sham, Aram, etc, France use to be Gaul long ago, etc. Its different for Israel when the majority of your current inhabitants have been gone since 600BC and some people who follow the same religion decide to return 2500yrs later. 2) Actually if you want to play there first game, the Amorites, a name synonymous with the word Canaanite, were originally there, even stated in the Old Testament Syrians are the closest descendants of these people. People who use to occupy what is now Gaza strip and some of southern Israel were known as the Philistines, the people now called Palestinians. As for the very northwestern territory it belonged to Tyre, who are now the Lebanese, even when the kingdoms of Judah and Israel still existed. Also, what is now eastern Israel was often under the control of Edomites and sometimes Moabites would come, these people are now the Jordanians. So would you still like to argue there first with me? And don't argue the Jews were there before they went to Egypt because that isn't true, those were called Hebrews, deeming them Jews is a retrospection, even then it is believed Abraham came from a Mesopotamian city state, and the Amorites were already present. 3) Zionists are the Jews who want a Jewish state centralized around Zion, the temple mount, Jerusalem. Majority of Jews are not Zionists but they are sympathetic to their cause, seeing as how it led to the establishment of their current state. As for Anti-Zionist Jews, those are very rare, and most only speak against Israel because it has the Messianic star [of David] as its symbol/on its flag and they believe since there isnt a Messiah on the throne [Originally before the Christian idea, Messiah is someone of an anointed one of the line of David] it is not the same as the state of Israel that God established, therefore it is basically a mock-state-of-God. 4) First of all, Im not surprised. Im Lebanese. I know the facts. However I respond to your question with this question: Do you blame the Native Americans who attacked the expanding Americans who tried to take their land? And by the way youre wrong. Lebanon did not officially send troops, it was Pan-Arab sympathizers in Lebanon, the official government never sent troops as the official head of state is a Maronite and the Patriarch commanded they stay neutral with Israel unless Israel makes an offense. What external observers do not realize is that there are two factions in Lebanon (well really theres like seven, but Im not going to get into that) theres the pro-Hezbollah which are the Muslims who support Pan-Arabism and then theres the pro-Kataeb, the Christians who just want to be left the [bleep] alone. 5) Jews from the Middle East, some of the nicest people I have met and known. Some good friends of mine are these people. Good people. But those who support the state of Israel are imperialists who support the acquisitioning of land at others expense. Even if we completely disregard the Palestinians now, they took over Southern Lebanon (the Christian factions who were in control at the time were pro-Israel, although they refused to secede the land back), then the Israelis also took Golan Heights from Syria, thats just an insult right there. And they were suppose to stop expansion of Israeli settlements in Palestinian territory, but theyre still to stop. I have Palestinian friends, Christian too, they were pulled out of there houses and told to get the [bleep] out because their property now belonged to Israel. 6) Im aware of this, but people from Greater Syria (AKA the Levant) call themselves Semites, because they are legitimately genetically Semitic. 7)So I hope now it makes more then 1 bit of sense. as you said. For comfort purposes I have numbers your answers and accordingly numbered my responses to your answers. 1) Notice that all the countries you've named, whether were there for centuries or not, have the very same things in common- Their people share the same language, history, culture, etc. The Jews are no different than that. Also, a question I'd really love you to answer- If we take into account the absurd biased opinion that Israel is unjust in every way, what do you expect? That Israel would just fold up and leave? What of all the citizens? Where would they go? 2) You've already said it all. Hebrews were there first, even before they came back from Eygept. A little "did you know?": Jews are descendants of the Judah tribe, 1 of the 12 that together formed the Hebrew 'populace' (the twelve tribes are- Reuben, Simeon, Levi, Judah, Issachar, Zebulun, Dan, Gad, Naphtali, Asher, Ephraim, Manasseh and Benjamin, The Benjamin and Levi tribes "joined" the Judah tribe and have together formed what you know today as Jews). Those that came back from Eygept were Hebrews. Let me requote you here, serveral times- "Syrians are the closest descendants of these people.", " People who use to occupy what is now Gaza strip and some of southern Israel were known as the Philistines, the people now called Palestinians.", "Syria has been called the Levant, Al Sham, Aram, etc", "As for the very northwestern territory it belonged to Tyre, who are now the Lebanese" Have you noticed what all these quotes have in common? Population X are the descendants of Population Y. Jews, by all means, are descendants of the Hebrews, and if the Hebrews were there first, so were the Jews. So would you still like to argue there first with me? 3) I'm not sure you know what you're talking about. Judiasm and Zionism have contradicting principles and because of that many religous Jews are now Anti-Zionst (I even had a school project on that few years back). Also, your definition of Zionism isn't much different than the one I presented (it's actualy more accurate, but it still makes sense- People with the same language, history, culture and idiology wanting to become a nation.) Not unlike Poland, a relatively "young" country that only recieved it's right to form a nation after WWI, even though the population itself existed much earlier. Would you say Poland doesn't deserve it's territory and right to be a country? 4) No, I don't blame them for fighting Spain. I would like to point some differences here though- Spain went out looking for territory and gold, basicly trying to expand itself- the Native Americans were defending themselves against the weird soldiers with the 'thunder sticks'. Israel, first of all, couldn't have tried to expand itself because in order expand you must first exist- and that's what they were trying to do- become existant. Secondly, Israel is not only outnumbered by it's neighbors, but it is was much weaker because it was a country in it's first days, and the citizens had to both fight for their country, and build it, at the same time. Also, I assure you Israel would become a nation of peace with anyone who wants it. Personaly, I think it's wrong (let's not get into that though), but Israel would willingly live in harmony with it's neighbors if they only ask (you have proof for that- Jordan and Eygept). Also, sorry for my mistake. Not that the information was crucial to our discussion, but still sorry. 5) "But those who support the state of Israel are imperialists" Sorry, but do you even know what the meaning of Imperialism is? According to Wikipedia- "Imperialism is considered the control by one state of other territories." How is Israel one state controlling other territores? It couldn't have because it was formed where it is right now and have not sent forces with the intention of conquering any land or recources. As for their taking over Southern Lebanon and the Golan Heights. First of all, all land conquered by Israeli forces was conquered within war that was initiated by the conquered. Secondly, Israel had conquered much, much more than what it has in it's possesion. Israel had given up land in the favour of promised peace (that actualy wasn't always achieved, which means Israel had given up territory in the favour of lies about peace i.e. nothing). For instance, during the Yom Kipur war, you might know it as حرب أكتوبر , Israel reached about 35 KM away from Damascus, and 101 KM away from Cairo. 6) That still doesn't change the 'accepted' definition of Antisemite. 7) Nope, not really. It actualy makes less sense now. Edit: That is not only insulting and offensive, but is also absolutly preposterous. ISRAEL'S INTENTION IS NOT TO CONQUER IT'S NEIGHBORS. It may be new to you, but Israel would go very far in the name of peace. I had already mentioned in this post that I don't believe in these values of peace with those who seek to only harm you and make you go elsewhere, at any price. But Israel is *almost* all for it. Throughout the years, Israel had given up territories again and again, territories that were conquered during wars Israel did no even initiate, thinking peace would be achieved that way. At most (you could say all, as some cases are contriversial, but let's settle on most) cases, Israel was doing wrong when giving up territories, because it achieved nothing, defnietly not the peace it had longed for. never have I thought I'd see the day a member of the Tip.it community would accuse Israel for being alike to Hitler, or compare them. I'm well aware that this accusation is nothing new, but I thought the Tip.It community is more mature than that. [/hide] You selectively take things and bend them out of context. You were like you said it yourself the Hebrews were there first, when I then later go on to say Amorites were in the land of that region prior to Abram(Abraham). So I can see you have the ability to read, but also the desire to only read and refer to sections instead of a whole idea. I find it funny how you say what, Israel and its citizens are to just fold up and leave? Where would they go? The Jews had no problem crushing the Palestinians and throwing them out of their own lands, so I'm sure the Jews can have the same done to them. You also go on a big rant about what I say is nonsense, etc. and then have the nerve to be so immature as to compare Israel with Hitler. It is you, madam, that is the immature; for the multitude of insults you fling and then expect no rebuttal on a statement and then feel insulted when one expresses their opinion. And as for who ever called me a media sheep? Seeing as how my family is not only from the region, but lorded over some of it for a short time (a few hundred years), and having the experience with speaking with both Jews from the Middle East and other Arabs, it is you who is a media sheep. I have primary sources. You have what? The ideal the media gave you that " rool nummer one, everyonez in da middle east is a muslims. rool nummer... sefen, them muslims is bad, we gotts ta shoot em, shoot em good! Help er friends in da hur country of Iseral!" [Which is the same stupidity that has made the US support a banished Saud, Osama bin Laden, and he has proven his alliance, no?]. To me it sounds like you couldn't counter my points and decided to pick what you like best, answer it, and for the rest just call me immature. As for your supposed opinion. Well, when an opinion is based 99% on hatred, is mostly unfounded and is sticking to what it sees as facts, I believe it is okay to call it immature. Funny, it seems like you do as you judge against others. I will no longer post in this thread, I'd rather not be discredited and called immature by someone of extreme arrogance. You see it as arrogant. I'm merely stating facts.

No you didn't, you bombed their villages and what's left of their schools and hospitals. Massive war crimes were committed, and white phosphorus was used. Stop being apologetic to your war criminal government; not like the US is any better with our torture regime not being investigated in favor of political expediency, though. and also maby the reason they were bombing you is, oh i don't no, destroying their olive fields, forcably removing people from their homes so israelies can move in, demolishing mausques (sp?) that are dozens of years old because they can't find the building permit? And we could just keep going on and on. I can assure you that destroying their olive fields wasn't the reason Sderot was bombed, that's just plain rediculous. Both because it wasn't civilians that launched the bombs, it was the Hamas, and because the reason- is the Hamas' principles... "Forcably removing people from their homes so Israelis can move in"?! I'm shocked, who told you this? Not only is it not true, but during the 'Hitnatkut program' in the summber of 2005, Jewish and Israeli citizens were taken out of THEIR homes (by the Israeli government) so that Palestinians could move in, and in the promise to achieve peace. (As you probably already know, no peace was achieved). Oh, you may also like to know that Israel preserves all religous and historical places and even has several laws that protect such places.

Yep, to help give the Kadima party's poll numbers a boost before the election, and to test Barack Obama to see if he would be any different before he was in office; they got in what they could before his inauguration. It's so nice to see you justify the slaughtering of nearly 1,000 civilians in a region where over a third are children 14 and younger. And don't even tell me that Hamas broke the ceasefire first: http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1050426.html and another: http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1050460.html And even if they attacked first, 3 civilian deaths compared with nearly a thousand; that's a stark difference. As Zbigniew Brzezinski stated, if you can't minimize civilian casualties in a region with these sorts of population densities, then you don't do what Israel did. To help the Kadima party's poll numbers boost? That's just absurd, you've just proved you have no idea what you're talking about. The vast majority of the Kadima party's voters are leftists (which would mean they're against Oferet Yetzuka...) I can assure you that this operation did not boost any Kadima votes. As for the slaughter. The Hamas had planted rocket launchers and large amounts of ammo in the homes of many Gaza strip civilians, the very same rockets are launched (at Sderot) on a daily basis. So what do you suggest? Letting them keep shooting at innocent Israeli citizens only so there wouldn't be a chance Israel would attack the Gaza residents? Until then Sderot was constantly attacked for EIGHT years. The Israeli forces left the Gaza strip after Israel was given the promise that the attacks would stop, and guess what? 3 days later they renewed their attacks. But Israel wouldn't go on another operation there, because the world already accuses Israel for war crimes and whatnot. As for the 1,000 civilians, let me ask you this- Did you know that many of them were used as human shields by the Hamas? As for your sources, check your facts. i read them and they're mostly biased and not basing their facts on anything to qualify them.

Countries you listed like Syria, France Britain have been long established but just have gone by different names and some different form of political status such as Syria has been called the Levant, Al Sham, Aram, etc, France use to be Gaul long ago, etc. Its different for Israel when the majority of your current inhabitants have been gone since 600BC and some people who follow the same religion decide to return 2500yrs later. 2) Actually if you want to play there first game, the Amorites, a name synonymous with the word Canaanite, were originally there, even stated in the Old Testament Syrians are the closest descendants of these people. People who use to occupy what is now Gaza strip and some of southern Israel were known as the Philistines, the people now called Palestinians. As for the very northwestern territory it belonged to Tyre, who are now the Lebanese, even when the kingdoms of Judah and Israel still existed. Also, what is now eastern Israel was often under the control of Edomites and sometimes Moabites would come, these people are now the Jordanians. So would you still like to argue there first with me? And don't argue the Jews were there before they went to Egypt because that isn't true, those were called Hebrews, deeming them Jews is a retrospection, even then it is believed Abraham came from a Mesopotamian city state, and the Amorites were already present. 3) Zionists are the Jews who want a Jewish state centralized around Zion, the temple mount, Jerusalem. Majority of Jews are not Zionists but they are sympathetic to their cause, seeing as how it led to the establishment of their current state. As for Anti-Zionist Jews, those are very rare, and most only speak against Israel because it has the Messianic star [of David] as its symbol/on its flag and they believe since there isnt a Messiah on the throne [Originally before the Christian idea, Messiah is someone of an anointed one of the line of David] it is not the same as the state of Israel that God established, therefore it is basically a mock-state-of-God. 4) First of all, Im not surprised. Im Lebanese. I know the facts. However I respond to your question with this question: Do you blame the Native Americans who attacked the expanding Americans who tried to take their land? And by the way youre wrong. Lebanon did not officially send troops, it was Pan-Arab sympathizers in Lebanon, the official government never sent troops as the official head of state is a Maronite and the Patriarch commanded they stay neutral with Israel unless Israel makes an offense. What external observers do not realize is that there are two factions in Lebanon (well really theres like seven, but Im not going to get into that) theres the pro-Hezbollah which are the Muslims who support Pan-Arabism and then theres the pro-Kataeb, the Christians who just want to be left the [bleep] alone. 5) Jews from the Middle East, some of the nicest people I have met and known. Some good friends of mine are these people. Good people. But those who support the state of Israel are imperialists who support the acquisitioning of land at others expense. Even if we completely disregard the Palestinians now, they took over Southern Lebanon (the Christian factions who were in control at the time were pro-Israel, although they refused to secede the land back), then the Israelis also took Golan Heights from Syria, thats just an insult right there. And they were suppose to stop expansion of Israeli settlements in Palestinian territory, but theyre still to stop. I have Palestinian friends, Christian too, they were pulled out of there houses and told to get the [bleep] out because their property now belonged to Israel. 6) Im aware of this, but people from Greater Syria (AKA the Levant) call themselves Semites, because they are legitimately genetically Semitic. 7)So I hope now it makes more then 1 bit of sense. as you said. For comfort purposes I have numbers your answers and accordingly numbered my responses to your answers. 1) Notice that all the countries you've named, whether were there for centuries or not, have the very same things in common- Their people share the same language, history, culture, etc. The Jews are no different than that. Also, a question I'd really love you to answer- If we take into account the absurd biased opinion that Israel is unjust in every way, what do you expect? That Israel would just fold up and leave? What of all the citizens? Where would they go? 2) You've already said it all. Hebrews were there first, even before they came back from Eygept. A little "did you know?": Jews are descendants of the Judah tribe, 1 of the 12 that together formed the Hebrew 'populace' (the twelve tribes are- Reuben, Simeon, Levi, Judah, Issachar, Zebulun, Dan, Gad, Naphtali, Asher, Ephraim, Manasseh and Benjamin, The Benjamin and Levi tribes "joined" the Judah tribe and have together formed what you know today as Jews). Those that came back from Eygept were Hebrews. Let me requote you here, serveral times- "Syrians are the closest descendants of these people.", " People who use to occupy what is now Gaza strip and some of southern Israel were known as the Philistines, the people now called Palestinians.", "Syria has been called the Levant, Al Sham, Aram, etc", "As for the very northwestern territory it belonged to Tyre, who are now the Lebanese" Have you noticed what all these quotes have in common? Population X are the descendants of Population Y. Jews, by all means, are descendants of the Hebrews, and if the Hebrews were there first, so were the Jews. So would you still like to argue there first with me? 3) I'm not sure you know what you're talking about. Judiasm and Zionism have contradicting principles and because of that many religous Jews are now Anti-Zionst (I even had a school project on that few years back). Also, your definition of Zionism isn't much different than the one I presented (it's actualy more accurate, but it still makes sense- People with the same language, history, culture and idiology wanting to become a nation.) Not unlike Poland, a relatively "young" country that only recieved it's right to form a nation after WWI, even though the population itself existed much earlier. Would you say Poland doesn't deserve it's territory and right to be a country? 4) No, I don't blame them for fighting Spain. I would like to point some differences here though- Spain went out looking for territory and gold, basicly trying to expand itself- the Native Americans were defending themselves against the weird soldiers with the 'thunder sticks'. Israel, first of all, couldn't have tried to expand itself because in order expand you must first exist- and that's what they were trying to do- become existant. Secondly, Israel is not only outnumbered by it's neighbors, but it is was much weaker because it was a country in it's first days, and the citizens had to both fight for their country, and build it, at the same time. Also, I assure you Israel would become a nation of peace with anyone who wants it. Personaly, I think it's wrong (let's not get into that though), but Israel would willingly live in harmony with it's neighbors if they only ask (you have proof for that- Jordan and Eygept). Also, sorry for my mistake. Not that the information was crucial to our discussion, but still sorry. 5) "But those who support the state of Israel are imperialists" Sorry, but do you even know what the meaning of Imperialism is? According to Wikipedia- "Imperialism is considered the control by one state of other territories." How is Israel one state controlling other territores? It couldn't have because it was formed where it is right now and have not sent forces with the intention of conquering any land or recources. As for their taking over Southern Lebanon and the Golan Heights. First of all, all land conquered by Israeli forces was conquered within war that was initiated by the conquered. Secondly, Israel had conquered much, much more than what it has in it's possesion. Israel had given up land in the favour of promised peace (that actualy wasn't always achieved, which means Israel had given up territory in the favour of lies about peace i.e. nothing). For instance, during the Yom Kipur war, you might know it as حرب أكتوبر , Israel reached about 35 KM away from Damascus, and 101 KM away from Cairo. 6) That still doesn't change the 'accepted' definition of Antisemite. 7) Nope, not really. It actualy makes less sense now. Edit: That is not only insulting and offensive, but is also absolutly preposterous. ISRAEL'S INTENTION IS NOT TO CONQUER IT'S NEIGHBORS. It may be new to you, but Israel would go very far in the name of peace. I had already mentioned in this post that I don't believe in these values of peace with those who seek to only harm you and make you go elsewhere, at any price. But Israel is *almost* all for it. Throughout the years, Israel had given up territories again and again, territories that were conquered during wars Israel did no even initiate, thinking peace would be achieved that way. At most (you could say all, as some cases are contriversial, but let's settle on most) cases, Israel was doing wrong when giving up territories, because it achieved nothing, defnietly not the peace it had longed for. never have I thought I'd see the day a member of the Tip.it community would accuse Israel for being alike to Hitler, or compare them. I'm well aware that this accusation is nothing new, but I thought the Tip.It community is more mature than that. [/hide] You selectively take things and bend them out of context. You were like you said it yourself the Hebrews were there first, when I then later go on to say Amorites were in the land of that region prior to Abram(Abraham). So I can see you have the ability to read, but also the desire to only read and refer to sections instead of a whole idea. I find it funny how you say what, Israel and its citizens are to just fold up and leave? Where would they go? The Jews had no problem crushing the Palestinians and throwing them out of their own lands, so I'm sure the Jews can have the same done to them. You also go on a big rant about what I say is nonsense, etc. and then have the nerve to be so immature as to compare Israel with Hitler. It is you, madam, that is the immature; for the multitude of insults you fling and then expect no rebuttal on a statement and then feel insulted when one expresses their opinion. And as for who ever called me a media sheep? Seeing as how my family is not only from the region, but lorded over some of it for a short time (a few hundred years), and having the experience with speaking with both Jews from the Middle East and other Arabs, it is you who is a media sheep. I have primary sources. You have what? The ideal the media gave you that " rool nummer one, everyonez in da middle east is a muslims. rool nummer... sefen, them muslims is bad, we gotts ta shoot em, shoot em good! Help er friends in da hur country of Iseral!" [Which is the same stupidity that has made the US support a banished Saud, Osama bin Laden, and he has proven his alliance, no?]. To me it sounds like you couldn't counter my points and decided to pick what you like best, answer it, and for the rest just call me immature. As for your supposed opinion. Well, when an opinion is based 99% on hatred, is mostly unfounded and is sticking to what it sees as facts, I believe it is okay to call it immature.

What tripe. Israel has long supported security and imperialism over peace. Their government that is essentially headed by a fascist POS, Avigdor Lieberman, is not interested in peace. Israel is an oppressive government that is occupying land which does not belong to them; this includes the land circa 1967, and their illegal settlements. Their nation is essentially an apartheid state that should be rebuked by the world over, not supported or praised. Their war crimes are growing unbearable, and the fact that they never face punishment for them is probably worse. How people continue to defend their government after the siege on Gaza last December and January is beyond me. It doesn't matter, though, because they're only delaying the inevitable. Either the Israeli government can stop their settlements and make peace with the Palestinians, following the two-state solution and achieving their "Jewish state," or they can continue their expansion of settlements, boxing themselves in to be the only apartheid state in the region; so much for being the only democratic state in the region, eh, Lieberman? They're trying to do what China did with Tibet: send their settlers into the land and defacto annex it. One problem: the Palestinian demographic represents the region by overwhelming margins, and unlike the Tibetans with Hahn Chinese in their lands, the Palestinian culture and demographic cannot be overtaken by Jewish-Israeli settlers. I don't like to say Jewish when I talk about Israel because they're not synonymous, but most of the settlers are extreme Zionist Jews. So you have two choices, Israel, and this is not a false dichotomy: peace, or apartheid. Israel couldn't be imperialist for the mere definition of Imperialism. Imperialism (as I've already stated, read back) is the willing of a country to conquer land or recources (usualy oversea) for personal expansion purposes. Israel cannot expand itself to Israel, simply because that's where Israel was built. "Land which does not belong to them"- Mind you, the world voted FOR Israel when asked if it should get the right to independance. "1967"- The Six Days War, Israel went to war after knowing and confirming through the Israeli Intelligence that Eygept is about to commence an attack later that day. That's the only war Israel initiated against it's enemies, and with good reason IMO (the war would have started whether Israel initiated it or not, I see nothing wrong with gaining an advantage over your enemy, knowing it's about to attack). Also, Israel had conquered much, much, much more land (as I've already stated, again, read back) than currently is in it's possesion, and had given up most of it, with the promise for (yet to be achieved, if ever) peace. Israel never went to war in order to win any land, or recources, or anything else for that matter. All land conquered by Israel was conquered in war Israel did not even initiate (again, except for the Six Days War). "War crimes"- Now that's just absurd. I'm well aware of the war crimes you speak of, and can assure you 2 things- 1. When the citizens of your country get their homes blown up on a daily basis, and when suicide bombers would become something not uncommon against your country, it wouldn't give much for war crimes, it would take all of it's recources and stop the other side by any possible means. Israel wouldn't do that ofcourse (to my disappointment may I add) because it's so afraid of people like you who would call it inlegitimate and say "war crimes, war crimes!" all day long. IMO, Israel's war crimes are far too few considering the conditions. But Israel, once again, wouldn't do that because of the way the world views everything it does, bah. I'm only going to mention a name now, without even expanding on it- Gilad Shalit, you do the math (he's far from the first of it's kind by the way). 2. Yes, war crimes were made by Israeli forces, but many more by the other side, see Gilad Shalit again, and Sderot aswell. As for Oferet Ietzuka (the Gaza strip attack)- Once again I must mention Sderot and Gilad Shalit, did you know that the Hamas had placed rocket launchers and large amounts of ammo in the homes of citizens in the Gaza strip? So what would you do, not go there and tare apart the weapons? Let them keep shooting at innocent citizens (which they haven't stopped doing by the way)? Only so you wouldn't be accused for war crimes? As for making peace with the Palestinians- Israel is currently trying to. However, the other side is demanding pre-made agreements (to it's own benfit obviously) before agreeing to even discuss anything. Don't know about you, but when I'm out looking for peace, conditions to even discussing it don't seem legitimate to me. As for Lieberman- I believe he's a result of Israel's History. After you've given up much land conquered in wars initiated by the conquered, and have released thousands of criminals you caught right before they plant bombs all over, in the name of peace, and did not achieve said peace, it's faily possible that someone like him would arise. I don't agree with most of his opinions, but I can definetly see where he's coming from, and why so many go after him.

^ Not realleh... < Am known for my contrevesial opinions. V Isn't?

Deamy!

400.

Nothing is good when taken to the extreme. Definetly not beliefs, ways of life, and points of view.

Countries you listed like Syria, France Britain have been long established but just have gone by different names and some different form of political status such as Syria has been called the Levant, Al Sham, Aram, etc, France use to be Gaul long ago, etc. It’s different for Israel when the majority of your current inhabitants have been gone since 600BC and some people who follow the same religion decide to return 2500yrs later. 2) Actually if you want to play “there first” game, the Amorites, a name synonymous with the word Canaanite, were originally there, even stated in the Old Testament Syrians are the closest descendants of these people. People who use to occupy what is now Gaza strip and some of southern Israel were known as the Philistines, the people now called Palestinians. As for the very northwestern territory it belonged to Tyre, who are now the Lebanese, even when the kingdoms of Judah and Israel still existed. Also, what is now eastern Israel was often under the control of Edomites and sometimes Moabites would come, these people are now the Jordanians. So would you still like to argue “there first” with me? And don't argue the Jews were there before they went to Egypt because that isn't true, those were called Hebrews, deeming them Jews is a retrospection, even then it is believed Abraham came from a Mesopotamian city state, and the Amorites were already present. 3) Zionists are the Jews who want a Jewish state centralized around Zion, the temple mount, Jerusalem. Majority of Jews are not Zionists but they are sympathetic to their cause, seeing as how it led to the establishment of their current state. As for Anti-Zionist Jews, those are very rare, and most only speak against Israel because it has the Messianic star [of David] as its symbol/on its flag and they believe since there isn’t a Messiah on the throne [Originally before the Christian idea, Messiah is someone of an anointed one of the line of David] it is not the same as the state of Israel that God established, therefore it is basically a mock-state-of-God. 4) First of all, I’m not surprised. I’m Lebanese. I know the facts. However I respond to your question with this question: Do you blame the Native Americans who attacked the expanding Americans who tried to take their land? And by the way you’re wrong. Lebanon did not officially send troops, it was Pan-Arab sympathizers in Lebanon, the official government never sent troops as the official head of state is a Maronite and the Patriarch commanded they stay neutral with Israel unless Israel makes an offense. What external observers do not realize is that there are two factions in Lebanon (well really there’s like seven, but I’m not going to get into that) there’s the pro-Hezbollah which are the Muslims who support Pan-Arabism and then there’s the pro-Kataeb, the Christians who just want to be left the [bleep] alone. 5) Jews from the Middle East, some of the nicest people I have met and known. Some good friends of mine are these people. Good people. But those who support the state of Israel are imperialists who support the acquisitioning of land at others expense. Even if we completely disregard the Palestinians now, they took over Southern Lebanon (the Christian factions who were in control at the time were pro-Israel, although they refused to secede the land back), then the Israeli’s also took Golan Heights from Syria, that’s just an insult right there. And they were suppose to stop expansion of Israeli settlements in Palestinian territory, but they’re still to stop. I have Palestinian friends, Christian too, they were pulled out of there houses and told to get the [bleep] out because their property now belonged to Israel. 6) I’m aware of this, but people from Greater Syria (AKA the Levant) call themselves Semites, because they are legitimately genetically Semitic. 7)So I hope now it makes more then “1 bit of sense.” as you said. For comfort purposes I have numbers your answers and accordingly numbered my responses to your answers. 1) Notice that all the countries you've named, whether were there for centuries or not, have the very same things in common- Their people share the same language, history, culture, etc. The Jews are no different than that. Also, a question I'd really love you to answer- If we take into account the absurd biased opinion that Israel is unjust in every way, what do you expect? That Israel would just fold up and leave? What of all the citizens? Where would they go? 2) You've already said it all. Hebrews were there first, even before they came back from Eygept. A little "did you know?": Jews are descendants of the Judah tribe, 1 of the 12 that together formed the Hebrew 'populace' (the twelve tribes are- Reuben, Simeon, Levi, Judah, Issachar, Zebulun, Dan, Gad, Naphtali, Asher, Ephraim, Manasseh and Benjamin, The Benjamin and Levi tribes "joined" the Judah tribe and have together formed what you know today as Jews). Those that came back from Eygept were Hebrews. Let me requote you here, serveral times- "Syrians are the closest descendants of these people.", " People who use to occupy what is now Gaza strip and some of southern Israel were known as the Philistines, the people now called Palestinians.", "Syria has been called the Levant, Al Sham, Aram, etc", "As for the very northwestern territory it belonged to Tyre, who are now the Lebanese" Have you noticed what all these quotes have in common? Population X are the descendants of Population Y. Jews, by all means, are descendants of the Hebrews, and if the Hebrews were there first, so were the Jews. So would you still like to argue “there first” with me? 3) I'm not sure you know what you're talking about. Judiasm and Zionism have contradicting principles and because of that many religous Jews are now Anti-Zionst (I even had a school project on that few years back). Also, your definition of Zionism isn't much different than the one I presented (it's actualy more accurate, but it still makes sense- People with the same language, history, culture and idiology wanting to become a nation.) Not unlike Poland, a relatively "young" country that only recieved it's right to form a nation after WWI, even though the population itself existed much earlier. Would you say Poland doesn't deserve it's territory and right to be a country? 4) No, I don't blame them for fighting Spain. I would like to point some differences here though- Spain went out looking for territory and gold, basicly trying to expand itself- the Native Americans were defending themselves against the weird soldiers with the 'thunder sticks'. Israel, first of all, couldn't have tried to expand itself because in order expand you must first exist- and that's what they were trying to do- become existant. Secondly, Israel is not only outnumbered by it's neighbors, but it is was much weaker because it was a country in it's first days, and the citizens had to both fight for their country, and build it, at the same time. Also, I assure you Israel would become a nation of peace with anyone who wants it. Personaly, I think it's wrong (let's not get into that though), but Israel would willingly live in harmony with it's neighbors if they only ask (you have proof for that- Jordan and Eygept). Also, sorry for my mistake. Not that the information was crucial to our discussion, but still sorry. 5) "But those who support the state of Israel are imperialists" Sorry, but do you even know what the meaning of Imperialism is? According to Wikipedia- "Imperialism is considered the control by one state of other territories." How is Israel one state controlling other territores? It couldn't have because it was formed where it is right now and have not sent forces with the intention of conquering any land or recources. As for their taking over Southern Lebanon and the Golan Heights. First of all, all land conquered by Israeli forces was conquered within war that was initiated by the conquered. Secondly, Israel had conquered much, much more than what it has in it's possesion. Israel had given up land in the favour of promised peace (that actualy wasn't always achieved, which means Israel had given up territory in the favour of lies about peace i.e. nothing). For instance, during the Yom Kipur war, you might know it as حرب أكتوبر , Israel reached about 35 KM away from Damascus, and 101 KM away from Cairo. 6) That still doesn't change the 'accepted' definition of Antisemite. 7) Nope, not really. It actualy makes less sense now. Edit: That is not only insulting and offensive, but is also absolutly preposterous. ISRAEL'S INTENTION IS NOT TO CONQUER IT'S NEIGHBORS. It may be new to you, but Israel would go very far in the name of peace. I had already mentioned in this post that I don't believe in these values of peace with those who seek to only harm you and make you go elsewhere, at any price. But Israel is *almost* all for it. Throughout the years, Israel had given up territories again and again, territories that were conquered during wars Israel did no even initiate, thinking peace would be achieved that way. At most (you could say all, as some cases are contriversial, but let's settle on most) cases, Israel was doing wrong when giving up territories, because it achieved nothing, defnietly not the peace it had longed for. never have I thought I'd see the day a member of the Tip.it community would accuse Israel for being alike to Hitler, or compare them. I'm well aware that this accusation is nothing new, but I thought the Tip.It community is more mature than that.

Rofl! Hilarious!

370...

That makes not 1 bit of sense. First of all, the reason there are so many countries is that groups with certain things in common (whether it be language, idiology, religion, culture, history etc) would like to form a nation- Just like France, the USA, Russia, Syria, Iran, Iraq, Britain, and any other, really. Zionism, is exactly that. A group with the same religion, history, language, culture and possibly idiology aswell, working it's way on becoming a nation. Not to be petty, but considering the History part, Jews were "there first". Other than that, there isn't one other place in which Israel could build (and I'm not saying that without knowing. Before it was officialy decided that Israel would become a country where it is now, many have tried other places). Nowdays, there are those that call themselves Zionists and do whole other things- That does not mean they are Zionists, nor does it mean the meaning of Zionism has changed. And by the way, their numbers are much, much, much lower than you probably think, for 2 reasons: (1)because Judiasm, in a way, has many different principles than those of Zionism, which makes the vast majority of the religious either Anti-Zionist, or simply not Zionist. (2) Those who aren't religious are more than usualy not extremists either. Secondly, you make it sound like Israel had decided to camp there and just attack all of its neighbors. You might be surprised, but there isn't 1 war Israel initiated (perhaps except for The Six Days War, and that's because the Israeli Intelligence found out Eygept is planning on attacking Israel the next day). In addition, 1 day after Israel's Decleration of Independance, All Arab countries around it (Jordan, Eygept, Syria, Lebanon, and even the Arab Legion and Iraq) went to war against Israel. The Palmach, God knows how, succeeded in both making some of them retreat, and forming temporal agreements with the rest. Third, dare I ask what your problem with Israelis is? Oh, I'd just like to point 1 thing. All 3 main relgions' (Islam, Christianity and Judiasm) members are Semite by the original definition of the word. However, nowdays the word Antisemite means hatred towards Jews, and not all 3 main relgions.

I'm not too sure about that... With Iran building nuclear weapons and whatnot, and not for peace purposes, i'd say it's not unlikely for a third World War. Also, the way Iran is treated at the moment kind of reminds me of the way Chamberlain (and probably the rest of Europe) treated Nazi Germany.

390...

15-16-135-60313954 He has a point...

We're losing :ohnoes: !

I don't know about Christianity, but for Judiasm there is a very specific rule that can only be interpreted in one way- "Yehudi, al af shehata, Yehudi hu" which means that any Jew, whether have sinned or not, is a Jew, Or in other words, you're following your religion even if you're a sinner.

We're losing :ohnoes: !