Carbon
30-05-2007, 00:09
This is off-topic but, why does it say Zitat say? And Zitat von Carbon? Please explain...:confused:
Now on Topic:
Zitat von Carbon
- Jews have been promised land there, and it was their previous home before exodus and destruction of the kingdomwell, to be honest. The worst thing we can do is follow religious books when doing political praxis.
Many religious authorities (including jewish and christian) have also said that the Jews lost this promise when they didn't follow orders of their God (or killed His son or didn't listen to the Final Prophecy) - it is all just matter of interpretation of books which were written for something else
You do make logic there,(Politics and Religion should not interfere with each other), but where else should the jews go in post-world war II Europe? Europe is definitly not a safe place. Jews were accepted in the region, and so technically have become a group that has demands, and the demand is to establish the state of Israel. The rest is history.
- The country was created by an agreement of the great powers, who determine post-world war II global politicsvery legalisticaly said
Fact is that Arabs have lived there for centuries when Jews came (back) and started to occupy it. Other fact is that the land was changed from semi-desert to green garden
Another fact is that the plan of UN and "great powers"(how relative power is) was little different: there were supposed to be 2 states + neutral zone of Jerusalem. Palestinian state was (and still largely is) occupied partly by Israel, partly by Jordan and Egypt, Jerusalem was annexed by Israel and /alestinian state doesn't exist untill now - almost 60 years after the UN promise
You are right, the great powers (as in UK, US, France and USSR (not involved in the problem) or the victorious powers) wanted both states to exist, but corrupt Palestinian leaders did not approve of Israel being formed at all, and declined the offer, leaving only Israel as a choice for a state. But even then, Israel did not occupy the entire region, it was still divided. The region was occupied completely (along with Sinai and Golan heights) after several wars. Only until recently, was Palestine truley "created"(although there was no creation, it's just a collection of territories), but that is the consequence of war and corrupt leaders.
- Liberal democracy Israel is better than absolute monarchy Palestine that was planned there was not absolute monarchy planned in Palestine. Untill Palestinian nationalists around mr. Arafat and today mr. president Abbas appeared to be corrupted, the nationalists (with ability to achieve agreement with Israel and establish democratic principles in Palestine) were much more popular among the Palestinians than exptemists (Hamas etc.)
On the other side, Israel is not as liberal and democratic as european states (not even as USA). And people there know that soon they will have to decide wether be jewish (but not really democratic) state ot democratic (but not really jewish) state. Very hard to decide especially when you know that if the state would be democratic and not-jewish it will be just question of time when government of such hypothetical "non-jewsh democratic Israel" will force Jews to leave it
As far as I know it, there wasn't a plan made in the 40s for a reactionary Palestine, but there is now, are we discussing today's conflict or historical, or both? I was talking about recent conflict. Although we could discuss both.
- Although I am pro-Israeli, I still think there should be total peace, Israel has been planned out for quite some time before it's creation, I read somewhere that every British monarch in the 19th and early 20th century had been a zionist, need to clarify that, anyone give me proof on this? I don't think it is provable. Also I think it is absolutely irrelevant because it weren't the monarchs who were doing middle eastern policy of the UK.
Some of the people were "financed" from "zionist" money, that's without any doubt. But very closely after the WWII. they were as anti-zionist as it was possible after the things that happened to Jews under Nazi occupation in Europe
Throughout the entire 19th century and early 20th century, the return of the Jews to the Holy Land was widely supported by such eminent figures as Queen Victoria, King Edward VII, John Adams, the second President of the United States, General Smuts of South Africa, President Masaryk of Czechoslovakia, British Prime Ministers Lloyd George and Arthur Balfour, President Woodrow Wilson, Benedetto Croce, Italian philosopher and historian, Henry Dunant, founder of the Red Cross and author of the Geneva Conventions, Fridtjof Nansen, Norwegian scientist and humanitarian. The French government through Minister M. Cambon formally committed itself to “the renaissance of the Jewish nationality in that Land from which the people of Israel were exiled so many centuries ago". Even in faraway China, Wang, Minister of Foreign Affairs, declared that "the Nationalist government is in full sympathy with the Jewish people in their desire to establish a country for themselves."
I just needed some sort of source for the information and any other proof about this. About zionist money, I would like you to explain further on this, I could be mistaken your interpretation of something to a conspiracy theory.
Now on Topic:
Zitat von Carbon
- Jews have been promised land there, and it was their previous home before exodus and destruction of the kingdomwell, to be honest. The worst thing we can do is follow religious books when doing political praxis.
Many religious authorities (including jewish and christian) have also said that the Jews lost this promise when they didn't follow orders of their God (or killed His son or didn't listen to the Final Prophecy) - it is all just matter of interpretation of books which were written for something else
You do make logic there,(Politics and Religion should not interfere with each other), but where else should the jews go in post-world war II Europe? Europe is definitly not a safe place. Jews were accepted in the region, and so technically have become a group that has demands, and the demand is to establish the state of Israel. The rest is history.
- The country was created by an agreement of the great powers, who determine post-world war II global politicsvery legalisticaly said
Fact is that Arabs have lived there for centuries when Jews came (back) and started to occupy it. Other fact is that the land was changed from semi-desert to green garden
Another fact is that the plan of UN and "great powers"(how relative power is) was little different: there were supposed to be 2 states + neutral zone of Jerusalem. Palestinian state was (and still largely is) occupied partly by Israel, partly by Jordan and Egypt, Jerusalem was annexed by Israel and /alestinian state doesn't exist untill now - almost 60 years after the UN promise
You are right, the great powers (as in UK, US, France and USSR (not involved in the problem) or the victorious powers) wanted both states to exist, but corrupt Palestinian leaders did not approve of Israel being formed at all, and declined the offer, leaving only Israel as a choice for a state. But even then, Israel did not occupy the entire region, it was still divided. The region was occupied completely (along with Sinai and Golan heights) after several wars. Only until recently, was Palestine truley "created"(although there was no creation, it's just a collection of territories), but that is the consequence of war and corrupt leaders.
- Liberal democracy Israel is better than absolute monarchy Palestine that was planned there was not absolute monarchy planned in Palestine. Untill Palestinian nationalists around mr. Arafat and today mr. president Abbas appeared to be corrupted, the nationalists (with ability to achieve agreement with Israel and establish democratic principles in Palestine) were much more popular among the Palestinians than exptemists (Hamas etc.)
On the other side, Israel is not as liberal and democratic as european states (not even as USA). And people there know that soon they will have to decide wether be jewish (but not really democratic) state ot democratic (but not really jewish) state. Very hard to decide especially when you know that if the state would be democratic and not-jewish it will be just question of time when government of such hypothetical "non-jewsh democratic Israel" will force Jews to leave it
As far as I know it, there wasn't a plan made in the 40s for a reactionary Palestine, but there is now, are we discussing today's conflict or historical, or both? I was talking about recent conflict. Although we could discuss both.
- Although I am pro-Israeli, I still think there should be total peace, Israel has been planned out for quite some time before it's creation, I read somewhere that every British monarch in the 19th and early 20th century had been a zionist, need to clarify that, anyone give me proof on this? I don't think it is provable. Also I think it is absolutely irrelevant because it weren't the monarchs who were doing middle eastern policy of the UK.
Some of the people were "financed" from "zionist" money, that's without any doubt. But very closely after the WWII. they were as anti-zionist as it was possible after the things that happened to Jews under Nazi occupation in Europe
Throughout the entire 19th century and early 20th century, the return of the Jews to the Holy Land was widely supported by such eminent figures as Queen Victoria, King Edward VII, John Adams, the second President of the United States, General Smuts of South Africa, President Masaryk of Czechoslovakia, British Prime Ministers Lloyd George and Arthur Balfour, President Woodrow Wilson, Benedetto Croce, Italian philosopher and historian, Henry Dunant, founder of the Red Cross and author of the Geneva Conventions, Fridtjof Nansen, Norwegian scientist and humanitarian. The French government through Minister M. Cambon formally committed itself to “the renaissance of the Jewish nationality in that Land from which the people of Israel were exiled so many centuries ago". Even in faraway China, Wang, Minister of Foreign Affairs, declared that "the Nationalist government is in full sympathy with the Jewish people in their desire to establish a country for themselves."
I just needed some sort of source for the information and any other proof about this. About zionist money, I would like you to explain further on this, I could be mistaken your interpretation of something to a conspiracy theory.