[Paranoid]

Originally Posted by livius drusus

Honestly, maddog, I kinda think he was just using your post as a coincidental springboard, and that the "you"s were really all general plurals instead of referring to anything you had actually said.

Thank you for managing to make integrate his post into the topic of the thread, though.

Paranoid, this thread is not about who lived where when. It's about charges of anti-semitism in discussions of who lived where when. I'd be interested to hear your perspective on the actual topic here, but if you'd prefer to just talk about Israeli politics I'd be glad to split your, Clutch and Sauron's posts to a new thread.

I was merely responding to the claim that Israelis should be concerned for the plight of the dispossessed, brought up in this thread, and explainging why it was such a misleading term. Not meant as politics, but as background.

For Sauron's quotes: So you do admit some of the land was purchased. And some of the land was taken by squatters where no one else had laid claim to it. Since the British technically owned it (not YOU, and not the Palestinians), they could allow or deny squatter's claims by their own laws. And sure, Israel is building the wall farther out than the 1967 lines, to protect settlers out in the West Bank. Argue the route (agreed they should stick to the settlements and nto steal water and fields used today), the hardships, but not the design to protect settlers settling on land they won in a war prompted by the actions of others. The 1967 line will be breached, that's the reality.

On your 3 for 3 "wrong": (1) Some land was stolen, some was bought, some was squatted on where obviously unused. In return, Jews in Arab lands had their possessions and lands stolen, and were driven out of THEIR homes. Seems about a fair trade. (2) "Holy" land: you never addressed this, because you cannot. All muslim claims of holiness of the land were made up after 1900. It was a wasteland before that. (3) "Indigenous": Sure, they're part native. And part not, again you only cover one side of the story.

Mad Dog: the quote about crossing the line from human disagreement into racist monster was not specifically directed at you, it just serves to draw the line, a line that others on this board have clearly crossed, and one I would never cross. For example, I have extreme disagreements with some hyperfundamentalist Christians. But I would never deny them food and water and aid after a disaster, that would be immoral. Some other posters here have crossed that line, and are showing ugly green stripes of racism.

I think that comes back to the most important point, if you cannot find sympathy for the plight of another group, you have become a racist. I have great sympathy for the Palestinian people, and I feel great sadness that their leadership has in the past held their population and their children hostage to a cult of martyrdom. Arafat had an incredible opportunity with Barak to bring the Palestinian people their own state, an internationally-run East Jerusalem, and an end to all hostilities.

But in the end, he was hostage to his own ideological stubbornness, and he screwed his own people over. If he had shaken Barak's hand (even Barak would've had a hard time getting it through the Knesset), we would've had peace, and the world would've poured dollars into Palestine for rebuilding. Instead, he chose intifada. I mourn for the senseless violence he has caused, and hope that the new leadership will be better. Israel has no stepped rightward (in response to the intifada), but there are some indications that they may still be up for peace, and the judges are trying to lessen the impact of the wall.