billyG: Let us leave istrael & hamas 4 now,we hav our own damn problem in d north-east,which if we cnt manage it,jah 4bid! can claim more lives than istraeli-hamas conflict...

Our world has become a global village. Even as we are dealing with our own problem, world didn't leave us on our own except that we didn't accept the offer to help us on time.

shymexx: To get a better picture of why Ashkenazi Jews are converts, you need to check their history.

By 11th century, they were only 3% of the Jewish population worldwide.

Before the holocaust in the 20th century, they were 92% of the Jewish population worldwide.

Today, they're about 75% of the Jews worldwide - with the Kazan Jews from Russia taking another big chunk.

I don't know where the real Hebrew/Jews are, but today's ones are converts - and I believe most folks know that, hence they can't bring the argument to the UN that it's their ancestral land.

Ancestral land my as$

tgbaba:

As in they even did one documentary showing how isreal had been taking the land from palestine.
I hardly hear anyth bout the rocket shot into tel aviv.

Irrespective of your allegiance you should know that propaganda is part and parcel of war! The Arabs have only realized now through Aljazeraa and co that you have to control the narrative otherwise it becomes a single story told by the other party. It is the same reason why the Russians are telling the world that the Ukrainians shot MH17 airline thinking it was the plane in which Vladimir Putin was supposedly travelling... tgbaba, propaganda is an aspect of warfare.

The palestinians are just so unfortunate. All that has happened to them could have happened to Uganda or any other African country Israel rejected in 1948. During the WWII, Adolf Hitler killed more than 6 million Jews. Jews were sheltered and protected by different nations in d hand of Hitler. Palestine was one of such nations. Thousands of Israeli refugees were harboured and protected by Palestinian government. When the Israeli refugee population in Palestine was over a million, the then Palestinian leader complained that they could no longer accommodate d Israeli refugees. After the WWII, the Jews were asked where they would like to stay as a nation by the British. The countries suggested to them include Uganda, Palestine, and a few other African countries. At the end, the Jews chose Palestine. Britain and their allies supported them and used force to establish the State of Israel on Palestine land. It's so pathetic! If the Jews had chosen Nigeria in 1948, what could have been our fate today!

shymexx: To get a better picture of why Ashkenazi Jews are converts, you need to check their history.

By 11th century, they were only 3% of the Jewish population worldwide.

Before the holocaust in the 20th century, they were 92% of the Jewish population worldwide.

Today, they're about 75% of the Jews worldwide - with the Kazan Jews from Russia taking another big chunk.

I don't know where the real Hebrew/Jews are, but today's ones are converts - and I believe most folks know that, hence they can't bring the argument to the UN that it's their ancestral land.

but if the modern day jew were really converts(that is they are not real descendant of jews).. Why was hitler killing them in numbers.
Also explain what you mean by converts, do you mean, if today i convert to judaism, then it means i'm automatically a jew.

Missy89:
Yeah you have a point there. Palestinians have always wanted Jordan if they cant have a state in Israel. The aim of the Jordanian civil war was the remove the royal elite and replace them with the PLO leadership in fact but that failed because the US prevented it (it would cause a security problem for the young Israel)

The reason why the Saudis have to support Palestine covertly because it has to hedge since US foreign policy may change and if it does, Iran is going to be the major power in the region. but the majority support coming from Saudi Arabia is actually coming from the people who wants to see the House of Saud go as well. and it will only increase if the monarchy doesn't implement more moderate laws there.

Britain is actually the great manipulator that started promising everyone the land in the first place. I think if Uganda was the place they decided to take as their homeland, it would have been easier for them.

I believe Jordan was also part of the bigger Palestine, before colonisation and all the partitioning. Just as Gaza used to be part of Egypt. I believe that's why Israeli guilt will always be UK's problem. The UK didn't handle the problem well at all, from the get-go. The handwriting was on the wall, when the land was allocated to Israel, but those in power back then, turned a blind eye to it. I believe the UK thought it will always have leverage over Israel - however, the Jews had bigger plans. They outsmarted everyone - got enmeshed into the new world order, led by America. And with the holocaust guilt forever hanging over German heads - it was time to take over everything and create a powerful Jewish state in the Arabian desert.

Also, Uganda would've been a very bad choice. If it had been Uganda, best believe there would have been apartheid in that country, trust me. I believe Latin America was the better choice since the white population there have the same mentality as the Jews.

As for Saudi Arabian monarch, the American cover is better for their interests over Palestine. Most of the oil wealth in the country comes from the Shia region, and anything that will give the Iranians leverage, thus emboldening the repressed Shia population in Saudi Arabia is a NO NO. However, I doubt they will stand in the way of a Palestinian state, due to backlash from the Muslim/Arab world.

anyaekekehinde:
but if the modern day jew were really converts(that is they are not real descendant of jews).. Why was hitler killing them in numbers.
Also explain what you mean by converts, do you mean, if today i convert to judaism, then it means i'm automatically a jew.

Hitler's problem with them back then had more to do with how they controlled the banking system, and the money. They were the Jewellers of Europe back then.

It's just like Arabs of today. The Arab ethnicity has more to do with language and religion, than actual ancestry. Hence you have black and white Arabs.

lawali:

You failed to realise a golden rule of doing to others what you can accept back. This war can be traced back to 1948 when Isreal was made to occupy palestinian colony by the west. By then, palestinians were not terrorist and suicide bombers but many things change along the way. In as much as I will not support terrorism, truth must be said, who is more of terrorist btw isreal and paletinian? Check the map of that region from 1948 and you will realised how isreal has occupied palestinian land forcefully over time. Also killing them is also to aid more occupation. You talked about palestinian should not be independent inorder not to purchase nuclear weapons, but Isreal has and use other massive weapons on palestinian people. Any reasonable human cannot support what isreal is doing to Palestinian. Beyond religion differences, it is inhuman. The only way to peace is to be just, address the injustice and do to one another (Palestinian/Isreal) what you can accept.

If your knowledge of history started in 1948 then you far behind.

Missy89: Arab nations wont even accept a Palestinian state. especially Egypt, Jordan and Syria.

Don't mind them. Just as Saudi Arabia will never be comfortable with nuclear Iran.

AlPicapcI:


yes sir @op, go and read your Bible, the word that standeth sure, this conflict will never ever end until Jesus Comes......!!!!!!!!

Short and simple!

shymexx:

I believe Jordan was also part of the bigger Palestine, before colonisation and all the partitioning. Just has Gaza used to be part of Egypt. I believe that's why Israeli guilt will always be UK's problem. The UK didn't handle the problem well at all, from the get-go. The handwriting was on the wall, when the land was allocated to Israel, but those in power back then, turned a blind eye to it. I believe the UK thought it will always have leverage over Israel - however, the Jews had bigger plans. They outsmarted everyone - got enmeshed into the new world order, led by America. And with the holocaust guilt forever hanging over German heads - it was time to take over everything and create a powerful Jewish state in the Arabian desert.

Also, Uganda would've been a very bad choice. If it had been Uganda, best believe there would have been apartheid in that country, trust me. I believe Latin America was the better choice since the white population there have the same mentality as the Jews.

As for Saudi Arabian monarch, the American cover is better for their interests over Palestine. Most of the oil wealth in the country comes from the Shia region, and anything that will give the Iranians leverage, thus emboldening the repressed Shia population in Saudi Arabia is a NO NO. However, I doubt they will stand in the way of a Palestinian state, due to backlash from the Muslim/Arab world.

What i meant by good choice actually as to do with the fact the it would be easier for them to control. probably? than the middle east. Africans would only play the race card and wont probably fight.

There is a theory(conspiracy)that Britain was indebted to Rich European Jews because they helped to facilitate the US involvement in the second world war. and that's why they had to give up the land (what do you think?)

America's cover is better for the Sauds at the moment, but at a certain time, the US would still have to leave the region. either because China would already be a super power, oil is no longer relevant or Military spending would have to reduce (they all have the same effect.).

The Palestinian question is actually are problem for the Arabs. they cant reach an agreement on the issue.

The money the Hamas is using to buy arms ought to have been used to better the welfare of it's people instead of engaging in the war they CAN never win.

Missy89:
What i meant by good choice actually as to do with the fact the it would be easier for them to control. probably? than the middle east. Africans would only play the race card and wont probably fight.

There is a theory(conspiracy)that Britain was indebted to Rich European Jews because they helped to facilitate the US involvement in the second world war. and that's why they had to give up the land (what do you think?)

America's cover is better for the Sauds at the moment, but at a certain time, the US would still have to leave the region. either because China would already be a super power, oil is no longer relevant or Military spending would have to reduce (they all have the same effect.).

The Palestinian question is actually are problem for the Arabs. they cant reach an agreement on the issue.

Lmao @ Africans only playing the race card. In as much as we're soft, it definitely would unsettle the whole continent like apartheid did. And I believe they would have used the docility of Africans to conquer more territories, and put the whole continent in perpetual servitude - since almost all the countries on the continent are poor with no military.

Yes, the Rothschild family(they're of Ashkenazi Jewish ancestry) founded both Brits and Yanks during the war. And I believe both sides were indebted to them. I've got a story about that in my archives at home, I'll probably post it when I get home.

I believe that's why Saudi Arabia is maintaining neutrality, by not going against the Arab league, while still staying loyal to America's interest. And also the reason it's at the fore-front of the Shia vs. Sunni war, to keep the Sunni's on its side. However, it has no problem with a Palestinian state - ditto Egypt and Syria. Palestinians are Sunni's - and that was the reason why they fought two brutal wars against Israel. Only Jordanian monarchy has some reservations about a Palestinian state.

Furthermore, the only thing holding it back now is where exactly should be Palestine, and where's Israel. The Israeli's have built settlements everywhere - and they also don't want to give up Jerusalem. Also, I believe what the Americans are offering them isn't what they want, they want more compromise from Israel...but Israeli isn't backing down because it sees most of the places as conquered territories. Hopefully, we'll see a Palestinian state in this lifetime, so peace can reign.

shymexx:

Furthermore, the only thing holding it back now is where exactly should be Palestine, and where's Israel. The Israeli's have built settlements everywhere - and they also don't want to give up Jerusalem. Also, I believe what the Americans are offering them isn't what they want, they want more compromise from Israel...but Israeli isn't backing down because it sees most of the places as conquered territories. Hopefully, we'll see a Palestinian state in this lifetime, so peace can reign.

Its a systematic tactic of owning all the land at the end of the day. To be frank i don't think there would be a Palestinian state anytime soon for many reasons.

1. the Jews have use Christianity to gain the support of protestants (lots of them actually believe it is Israel's right) and see Palestinians as terrorists.
2. US political class has many influential Jews
3. Arabs don't seem to have one consensus.
4. Good PR campaign by Israel (Holocaust card)
5. Divide between both sides. (Hamas don't agree with PLO and Israel right wing don't agree with the moderates)
6. Semantics! (Israel keep saying Hamas doesn't recognize Israel right to exists.(no nation has a right to exists because the always come and go and only people do.) )
7. More semantics (Israel/US keep calling every accord the "PEACE PROCESS" so this means even when the terms are not favorable to Palestine(Oslo/camp David accords for example), rejecting it would make it look like Palestine doesn't want peace therefore annihilating it from world opinion.)

[quote author=MrOlai]The palestinians are just so unfortunate. All that has happened to them could have happened to Uganda or any other African country Israel rejected in 1948. During the WWII, Adolf Hitler killed more than 6 million Jews. Jews were sheltered and protected by different nations in d hand of Hitler. Palestine was one of such nations. Thousands of Israeli refugees were harboured and protected by Palestinian government. When the Israeli refugee population in Palestine was over a million, the

Palestinian shettered over 1millions jews? Oga plz tell me at what point in history did this take place? Gimme links if you have any

Barywhyte:

If you are not abdu, then ur name is terrorist. Thats a generic name tho

Y nt complete it. Abdul wat?. U wrote Islam Abdul before and I said that is nt my name. Is that difficult dor u to comprehend

I read this from another thread and I believe it will make you understand the conflict better
Myth #1 – Jews and Arabs have always been in conflict in the region.

Although Arabs were a majority in Palestine prior to the creation of the state of Israel, there had always been a Jewish population, as well. For the most part, Jewish Palestinians got along with their Arab neighbors. This began to change with the onset of the Zionist movement, because the Zionists rejected the right of the Palestinians to self-determination and wanted Palestine for their own, to create a “Jewish State” in a region where Arabs were the majority and owned most of the land.

For instance, after a series of riots in Jaffa in 1921 resulting in the deaths of 47 Jews and 48 Arabs, the occupying British held a commission of inquiry, which reported their finding that “there is no inherent anti-Semitism in the country, racial or religious.” Rather, Arab attacks on Jewish communities were the result of Arab fears about the stated goal of the Zionists to take over the land.

After major violence again erupted in 1929, the British Shaw Commission report noted that “In less than 10 years three serious attacks have been made by Arabs on Jews. For 80 years before the first of these attacks there is no recorded instance of any similar incidents.” Representatives from all sides of the emerging conflict testified to the commission that prior to the First World War, “the Jews and Arabs lived side by side if not in amity, at least with tolerance, a quality which today is almost unknown in Palestine.” The problem was that “The Arab people of Palestine are today united in their demand for representative government”, but were being denied that right by the Zionists and their British benefactors.

The British Hope-Simpson report of 1930 similarly noted that Jewish residents of non-Zionist communities in Palestine enjoyed friendship with their Arab neighbors. “It is quite a common sight to see an Arab sitting in the verandah of a Jewish house”, the report noted. “The position is entirely different in the Zionist colonies.”

Myth #2 – The United Nations created Israel.

The U.N. became involved when the British sought to wash its hands of the volatile situation its policies had helped to create, and to extricate itself from Palestine. To that end, they requested that the U.N. take up the matter.

As a result, a U.N. Special Commission on Palestine (UNSCOP) was created to examine the issue and offer its recommendation on how to resolve the conflict. UNSCOP contained no representatives from any Arab country and in the end issued a report that explicitly rejected the right of the Palestinians to self-determination. Rejecting the democratic solution to the conflict, UNSCOP instead proposed that Palestine be partitioned into two states: one Arab and one Jewish.

The U.N. General Assembly endorsed UNSCOP’s in its Resolution 181. It is often claimed that this resolution “partitioned” Palestine, or that it provided Zionist leaders with a legal mandate for their subsequent declaration of the existence of the state of Israel, or some other similar variation on the theme. All such claims are absolutely false.

Resolution 181 merely endorsed UNSCOP’s report and conclusions as a recommendation. Needless to say, for Palestine to have been officially partitioned, this recommendation would have had to have been accepted by both Jews and Arabs, which it was not.

Moreover, General Assembly resolutions are not considered legally binding (only Security Council resolutions are). And, furthermore, the U.N. would have had no authority to take land from one people and hand it over to another, and any such resolution seeking to so partition Palestine would have been null and void, anyway.

Myth #3 – The Arabs missed an opportunity to have their own state in 1947.

The U.N. recommendation to partition Palestine was rejected by the Arabs. Many commentators today point to this rejection as constituting a missed “opportunity” for the Arabs to have had their own state. But characterizing this as an “opportunity” for the Arabs is patently ridiculous. The Partition plan was in no way, shape, or form an “opportunity” for the Arabs.

First of all, as already noted, Arabs were a large majority in Palestine at the time, with Jews making up about a third of the population by then, due to massive immigration of Jews from Europe (in 1922, by contrast, a British census showed that Jews represented only about 11 percent of the population).

Additionally, land ownership statistics from 1945 showed that Arabs owned more land than Jews in every single district of Palestine, including Jaffa, where Arabs owned 47 percent of the land while Jews owned 39 percent – and Jaffa boasted the highest percentage of Jewish-owned land of any district. In other districts, Arabs owned an even larger portion of the land. At the extreme other end, for instance, in Ramallah, Arabs owned 99 percent of the land. In the whole of Palestine, Arabs owned 85 percent of the land, while Jews owned less than 7 percent, which remained the case up until the time of Israel’s creation.

Yet, despite these facts, the U.N. partition recommendation had called for more than half of the land of Palestine to be given to the Zionists for their “Jewish State”. The truth is that no Arab could be reasonably expected to accept such an unjust proposal. For political commentators today to describe the Arabs’ refusal to accept a recommendation that their land be taken away from them, premised upon the explicit rejection of their right to self-determination, as a “missed opportunity” represents either an astounding ignorance of the roots of the conflict or an unwillingness to look honestly at its history.

It should also be noted that the partition plan was also rejected by many Zionist leaders. Among those who supported the idea, which included David Ben-Gurion, their reasoning was that this would be a pragmatic step towards their goal of acquiring the whole of Palestine for a “Jewish State” – something which could be finally accomplished later through force of arms.

When the idea of partition was first raised years earlier, for instance, Ben-Gurion had written that “after we become a strong force, as the result of the creation of a state, we shall abolish partition and expand to the whole of Palestine”. Partition should be accepted, he argued, “to prepare the ground for our expansion into the whole of Palestine”. The Jewish State would then “have to preserve order”, if the Arabs would not acquiesce, “by machine guns, if necessary.”

Myth #4 – Israel has a “right to exist”.

The fact that this term is used exclusively with regard to Israel is instructive as to its legitimacy, as is the fact that the demand is placed upon Palestinians to recognize Israel’s “right to exist”, while no similar demand is placed upon Israelis to recognize the “right to exist” of a Palestinian state.

Nations don’t have rights, people do. The proper framework for discussion is within that of the right of all peoples to self-determination. Seen in this, the proper framework, it is an elementary observation that it is not the Arabs which have denied Jews that right, but the Jews which have denied that right to the Arabs. The terminology of Israel’s “right to exist” is constantly employed to obfuscate that fact.

As already noted, Israel was not created by the U.N., but came into being on May 14, 1948, when the Zionist leadership unilaterally, and with no legal authority, declared Israel’s existence, with no specification as to the extent of the new state’s borders. In a moment, the Zionists had declared that Arabs no longer the owners of their land – it now belonged to the Jews. In an instant, the Zionists had declared that the majority Arabs of Palestine were now second-class citizens in the new “Jewish State”.

The Arabs, needless to say, did not passively accept this development, and neighboring Arab countries declared war on the Zionist regime in order to prevent such a grave injustice against the majority inhabitants of Palestine.

It must be emphasized that the Zionists had no right to most of the land they declared as part of Israel, while the Arabs did. This war, therefore, was not, as is commonly asserted in mainstream commentary, an act of aggression by the Arab states against Israel. Rather, the Arabs were acting in defense of their rights, to prevent the Zionists from illegally and unjustly taking over Arab lands and otherwise disenfranchising the Arab population. The act of aggression was the Zionist leadership’s unilateral declaration of the existence of Israel, and the Zionists’ use of violence to enforce their aims both prior to and subsequent to that declaration.

In the course of the war that ensued, Israel implemented a policy of ethnic cleansing. 700,000 Arab Palestinians were either forced from their homes or fled out of fear of further massacres, such as had occurred in the village of Deir Yassin shortly before the Zionist declaration. These Palestinians have never been allowed to return to their homes and land, despite it being internationally recognized and encoded in international law that such refugees have an inherent “right of return”.

Palestinians will never agree to the demand made of them by Israel and its main benefactor, the U.S., to recognize Israel’s “right to exist”. To do so is effectively to claim that Israel had a “right” to take Arab land, while Arabs had no right to their own land. It is effectively to claim that Israel had a “right” to ethnically cleanse Palestine, while Arabs had no right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness in their own homes, on their own land.

The constant use of the term “right to exist” in discourse today serves one specific purpose: It is designed to obfuscate the reality that it is the Jews that have denied the Arab right to self-determination, and not vice versa, and to otherwise attempt to legitimize Israeli crimes against the Palestinians, both historical and contemporary.

Myth #5 – The Arab nations threatened Israel with annihilation in 1967 and 1973

The fact of the matter is that it was Israel that fired the first shot of the “Six Day War”. Early on the morning of June 5, Israel launched fighters in a surprise attack on Egypt (then the United Arab Republic), and successfully decimated the Egyptian air force while most of its planes were still on the ground.

It is virtually obligatory for this attack to be described by commentators today as “preemptive”. But to have been “preemptive”, by definition, there must have been an imminent threat of Egyptian aggression against Israel. Yet there was none.

It is commonly claimed that President Nasser’s bellicose rhetoric, blockade of the Straits of Tiran, movement of troops into the Sinai Peninsula, and expulsion of U.N. peacekeeping forces from its side of the border collectively constituted such an imminent threat.

Yet, both U.S. and Israeli intelligence assessed at the time that the likelihood Nasser would actually attack was low. The CIA assessed that Israel had overwhelming superiority in force of arms, and would, in the event of a war, defeat the Arab forces within two weeks; within a week if Israel attacked first, which is what actually occurred.

It must be kept in mind that Egypt had been the victim of aggression by the British, French, and Israelis in the 1956 “Suez Crisis”, following Egypt’s nationalization of the Suez Canal. In that war, the three aggressor nations conspired to wage war upon Egypt, which resulted in an Israeli occupation of the Sinai Peninsula. Under U.S. pressure, Israel withdrew from the Sinai in 1957, but Egypt had not forgotten the Israeli aggression.

Moreover, Egypt had formed a loose alliance with Syria and Jordan, with each pledging to come to the aid of the others in the event of a war with Israel. Jordan had criticized Nasser for not living up to that pledge after the Israeli attack on West Bank village of Samu the year before, and his rhetoric was a transparent attempt to regain face in the Arab world.

That Nasser’s positioning was defensive, rather than projecting an intention to wage an offensive against Israel, was well recognized among prominent Israelis. As Avraham Sela of the Shalem Center has observed, “The Egyptian buildup in Sinai lacked a clear offensive plan, and Nasser’s defensive instructions explicitly assumed an Israeli first strike.”

Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin acknowledged that “In June 1967, we again had a choice. The Egyptian army concentrations in the Sinai approaches do not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him.”

Yitzhak Rabin, who would also later become Prime Minister of Israel, admitted in 1968 that “I do not think Nasser wanted war. The two divisions he sent to the Sinai would not have been sufficient to launch an offensive war. He knew it and we knew it.”

Israelis have also acknowledged that their own rhetoric at the time about the “threat” of “annihilation” from the Arab states was pure propaganda.

General Chaim Herzog, commanding general and first military governor of the occupied West Bank following the war, admitted that “There was no danger of annihilation. Israeli headquarters never believed in this danger.”

General Ezer Weizman similarly said, “There was never a danger of extermination. This hypothesis had never been considered in any serious meeting.”

Chief of Staff Haim Bar-Lev acknowledged, “We were not threatened with genocide on the eve of the Six-Day War, and we had never thought of such possibility.”

Israeli Minister of Housing Mordechai Bentov has also acknowledged that “The entire story of the danger of extermination was invented in every detail, and exaggerated a posteriori to justify the annexation of new Arab territory.”

In 1973, in what Israelis call the “Yom Kippur War”, Egypt and Syria launched a surprise offensive to retake the Sinai and the Golan Heights, respectively. This joint action is popularly described in contemporaneous accounts as an “invasion” of or act of “aggression” against Israel.

Yet, as already noted, following the June ‘67 war, the U.N. Security Council passed resolution 242 calling upon Israel to withdraw from the occupied territories. Israel, needless to say, refused to do so and has remained in perpetual violation of international law ever since.

During the 1973 war, Egypt and Syria thus “invaded” their own territory, then under illegal occupation by Israel. The corollary of the description of this war as an act of Arab aggression implicitly assumes that the Sinai Peninsula, Golan Heights, West Bank, and Gaza Strip were Israeli territory. This is, needless to say, a grossly false assumption that demonstrates the absolutely prejudicial and biased nature of mainstream commentary when it comes to the Israeli-Arab conflict.

This false narrative fits in with the larger overall narrative, equally fallacious, of Israeli as the “victim” of Arab intransigence and aggression. This narrative, largely unquestioned in the West, flips reality on its head.

(Quote) (Report) (Like)

Missy89:

Its a systematic tactic of owning all the land at the end of the day. To be frank i don't think there would be a Palestinian state anytime soon for many reasons.

1. the Jews have use Christianity to gain the support of protestants (lots of them actually believe it is Israel's right) and see Palestinians as terrorists.
2. US political class has many influential Jews
3. Arabs don't seem to have one consensus.
4. Good PR campaign by Israel (Holocaust card)
5. Divide between both sides. (Hamas don't agree with PLO and Israel right wing don't agree with the moderates)
6. Semantics! (Israel keep saying Hamas doesn't recognize Israel right to exists.(no nation has a right to exists because the always come and go and only people do.) )
7. More semantics (Israel/US keep calling every accord the "PEACE PROCESS" so this means even when the terms are not favorable to Palestine(Oslo/camp David accords for example), rejecting it would make it look like Palestine doesn't want peace therefore annihilating it from world opinion.)

Trying to own all the land, thus sowing the seed of hatred, is a grave mistake that will most likely come back to haunt Israel in the future. The only way that's possible is to wipe out all Palestinians, and I don't see that happening. Even if Arabs don't say anything, Turkey will never let that happen...and you have Iran there waiting to take on Israel, one-on-one without America inteferring. I honestly don't think the Zionists are suicidal. They might be everything else - but they're not suicidal. Once Tel Aviv goes, it's all over for them.

Also, the problem with Israel is that: with all the Israeli liberals leaving the country and moving back to their ancestral countries in Europe, the Israeli conservatives and Zionists are having more grip on everything. And that's scary. They need to do something before it self-destruct.

1). I don't believe Protestants in west support Israel's actions. Maybe a few nutters and extremists. Heck, extreme Christians in the west hate Israel more than Arabs. Perhaps, you're alluding to African Christians who don't know better. Those ones are just as gullible as their African Muslim counterparts. I still don't know why they harp on about a country where black servitude is a culture - and a religion(Judaism) where they don't care about your Jesus. Being black in Israel is more or less a sin, and that makes you wonder what they would have done if today's Israel were to be in Uganda. Remember Donald Sterling a la "black people being lower than everyone is a culture in Israel. That's a proper Jewish billionaire speaking right there.

2). That political clout is being stressed out thin now, and the empire isn't going to be there forever. Heck, it's already collapsing from the inside. Time to be foresighted and start doing the right thing. And a lot of Jewish Rabbis have also expressed this sentiment.

3). Arab leaders you mean?

4). The holocaust card is played out now.

5). I think the disagreement between Hamas and those running west bank was initiated by Israel because it said it can't negotiate anything with Hamas. But it seems they're on the same page now. Israeli moderates are leaving the country enmasse and the future looks scary for Israel, to be honest.

6). Propaganda.

7). The Palestinians will most likely take up the offer soon because the longer they wait, the more the Israelis encroachment with settlements.

Tracetruth: the israel you hear of today is the same israel the bible spoke about, they were driven from their land. The regathering of israel as a nation is a miracle that should strengthen the christians believe in the bible.

This is the funniest thing I've heard today. You need to google Israel and check the religion of "Israelis". You may be shocked.

shymexx:

Yeah i meant Arab Leaders.
Like someone once said. Israel is going to be in trouble because they don't have any other friend in the world as soon as American power declines.

but
American Empire will last another half century (have to be patriotic) china needs at least 20 -40 years to match it. The internal problems are just temporary Britain went through the same at a time but came out just fine.

Let's the pictures speak.

Vado:

Out of context? Oh please, I didn't add nor remove from that passage. Your example of Mike is good one but you seemed to fail to mention that in the context of a "believer" which the quran talks about, a jew or a christian will have to become a believer (muslim) before he/she can be said to now be of good character as you claimed. So you see, you can't equate this with some circumstance of a druggie. The verse explicity said "...because the jews and the christians are only friends to each other"

Agreed, this bloodshed on both side has to stop but, stop trying to manipulate us in conflict to the quran stance that hating the state of Israel is way to go just because they don't believe that Christ is the Messiah etc. Unlike the verse I quoted, Christ didn't teach us to return hate with hate.

Lastly, you can't make me hate the bible, you'd only die trying. What is understood doesn't need to be explained.

I really appreciate your manners.

You still getting it wrong, the Qur'an can't be interpreted like your textbooks.

I'm not preaching hate about Jews but presenting an eye opener to Nigerian christians who think Jews are christians or Israel is the land of Christians.

On your last point, I was a Christian like you and had wasted my time until someone presented me with biblical reasons why I shouldn't remain a Christian because Jesus wasn't a Christian.

I'm not willing to derail this thread. Thanks for your time.

Missy89:

Yeah i meant Arab Leaders.
Like someone once said. Israel is going to be in trouble because they don't have any other friend in the world as soon as American power declines.

but
American Empire will last another half century (have to be patriotic) china needs at least 20 -40 years to match it. The internal problems are just temporary Britain went through the same at a time but came out just fine.

Would you prefer this status quo to remain or shift?

I mean the way the U.S has huge political and economic influence in the world today.would you like it to remain or shift to china or russia?

Just ur opinion.

Originalsly: "No generation will bow to colonisation. None"..... IF ....if Russia sends some troops and start bombing Nigeria because some Nigerians been consistently killing Russians....what would you do? Would you fight back? If you do (I doubt it) should you be branded a terrorist? Would you support Russia's actions? ....after all...they are taking agressive actions to protect their country and citizens. This scenario is similar to that of Israel and the Palestinians.....are your answers similar? Those that say Hamas are terrorists...why?....is it because the US said so? If yes then you do not have a mind of your own. And to those I guess Christians who blindly support Israel /the Jews because they are "God's chosen people".....don't ever forget that it was Jews that denied him and paved the way to His crusifixion. Azre these not the same type now governing Israel?....or are they the ones that supported Christ? Very unbiased write up by OP.....very much on point.

akpa amu gi there

publicenemy:

Would you prefer this status quo to remain or shift?

I mean the way the U.S has huge political and economic influence in the world today.would you like it to remain or shift to china or russia?

Just ur opinion.

well.

I would prefer if the US influence remain the same at least in my lifetime (patriotism). but the difference is i would prefer it to be a more responsible power like respecting international laws, mutual respect for great powers (Russia, China , India) and respect international sovereignty of all nations. but yeah USA! USA!! USA!!!

If you even look at the Geography, it is difficult to match the influence not only because it is so big but it doesn't have any major power close to it. this is the problem of china and Russia. china is surrounded by not so friendly countries in the south and the east and Russia is facing the same problem in the West.
Also, there are no separatist movements within unlike Russia (Chechnya , Dagestan etc) and china (Tibet, Hong kong, Taiwan).

I think the major problem as to do with the fact that the US never expected to be this powerful after the cold war and the idea of being the only world power is still new to the political establishment so there is a little bit of arrogance and ignorance. If they have more experience as things progress,(not clear if it will)the hate might reduce and we might have a more sophisticated diplomatic corps and officials like the ones Oxford and Cambridge produced in the 19-20th century (the British are neither hated nor loved even thou they have more imperialist ambitions at the time if u compare them to the US)

[quote
author=Zags001]Hamas should be held accountable for d sufferin, deaths
& pain presently being xperienced by d palestinians.
Isreal has d absolute right to defend itself & d sooner Hamas accept
to recognise d state of Isreal a country dat hs come to stay, d better
for d palentinians in general.
Alot of countries in d world came into existence 1st as occupiers &
sm even had to annihilate almost all of d original indigenes of such
occupied lands, bt i dont see any1 forcing such countries out of their
markd territories nw because it is a vry stupid thing to do dat wil only
cause more pain & bloodshed. Rather, d parties to both sides hv
since embraced d path of peace & learnt to respect each oda, while
living amicably togeda.
So my advise to Hamas is to learn to live amicably wit Isreal & stop
tryin to totally drive dem out of their alrdy markd territory. Hamas
must recognise d 2-state solution, stop d rocket attacks & allow
peace to reign permanently in dat region.[/quote]






Hey mugu, it's not about the land already occupied (1957 boaders) It's about taking more land and in the process killing and jailing palestinians, you must be insane to call that fair

Missy89:

well.

I would prefer if the US influence remain the same at least in my lifetime (patriotism). but the difference is i would prefer it to be a more responsible power like respecting international laws, mutual respect for great powers (Russia, China , India) and respect international sovereignty of all nations. but yeah USA! USA!! USA!!!

If you even look at the Geography, it is difficult to match the influence not only because it is so big but it doesn't have any major power close to it. this is the problem of china and Russia. china is surrounded by not so friendly countries in the south and the east and Russia is facing the same problem in the West.
Also, there are no separatist movements within unlike Russia (Chechnya , Dagestan etc) and china (Tibet, Hong kong, Taiwan).

I think the major problem as to do with the fact that the US never expected to be this powerful after the cold war and the idea of being the only world power is still new to the political establishment so there is a little bit of arrogance and ignorance. If they have more experience as things progress,(not clear if it will)the hate might reduce and we might have a more sophisticated diplomatic corps and officials like the ones Oxford and Cambridge produced in the 19-20th century (the British are neither hated nor loved even thou they have more imperialist ambitions at the time if u compare them to the US)

My absolute opinion too.

You talked about the u.s.a respectng world powers and and international laws.the U.S"s super power status have grown ans remained stable becos of their medling in international affairs directly and indirectly.everything the do is always to their favour,especially in maitaining their status as a super power.so tactically disrespecting the sovreingting and international lawas are a vital way to keep to power.
And as for respecting world powers like russia and china,i think they do just that but russia and china are constantly causing nuisance in their regions,trying to bully smaller nations around them.take the south china sea dispute for example,have you seen the chunk of of the sea area china is claiming?
And what russia s currently doing in ukraine.plus the poor humanitarian records of this country.If there s a power shift it will hurt the world and plunge it into chaos.cos i dont see any world power willing to sacrifice so much of its resources both finance, human power and what have you to enable world peace like the u.s is g currently.

Thank for editing your signature.alot better now

Missy89:
Yeah i meant Arab Leaders.
Like someone once said. Israel is going to be in trouble because they don't have any other friend in the world as soon as American power declines.

but
American Empire will last another half century (have to be patriotic) china needs at least 20 -40 years to match it. The internal problems are just temporary Britain went through the same at a time but came out just fine.

America's survival as the sole global power depends solely on those in Washington and not over-stretching its resources. Right now it's already breaking, and military power doesn't last forever. Re-alignments are going to happen - and some allies are going to turn against you. That's the crossroad America is in with Europe right now. It's between pleasing the populace who're tired of America and building a strong economic alliance with the far East - or being America's dog and collapsing with it. You can see that with the sanctions. David Cameron can huff and puff from now till eternity, but he'll never touch the Russian money keeping London afloat, or Chinese investments. Just as Germany will never stop buying cheap gas from Russia, nor destroy its industrial ties with Russia worth billions of dollars.


The UK went crumbling during the early part of the century. Colonisation and the commonwealth countries of Australia, New Zealand, Canada etc. kept it afloat. Those folks are mostly ethnic Brits. However, UK just talk for the sake of it these days, it has lost almost all relevancy. Heck, David Cameron had to wait on the phone for three days to get clearance from Kremlin to speak to Putin after the MH17 plane crash. That was the same treatment, Abbott of Australia, also got. UK is a light weight these days. Germany is the don of Europe, followed by France.

publicenemy:

My absolute opinion too.

You talked about the u.s.a respectng world powers and and international laws.the U.S"s super power status have grown ans remained stable becos of their medling in international affairs directly and indirectly.everything the do is always to their favour,especially in maitaining their status as a super power.so tactically disrespecting the sovreingting and international lawas are a vital way to keep to power.
And as for respecting world powers like russia and china,i think they do just that but russia and china are constantly causing nuisance in their regions,trying to bully smaller nations around them.take the south china sea dispute for example,have you seen the chunk of of the sea area china is claiming?
And what russia s currently doing in ukraine.plus the poor humanitarian records of this country.If there s a power shift it will hurt the world and plunge it into chaos.cos i dont see any world power willing to sacrifice so much of its resources both finance, human power and what have you to enable world peace like the u.s is g currently.

lol @ world peace. there is no Saint of Villan anywhere no one as a moral high ground. so no one is enabling anything.
Disrespecting sovereignty isn't a "vital way" to keep power at all as well. it all depends on what is at stake. if you do it you set precedence.

US doesn't respect other powers like you claimed as well. i will give you various examples.

1. They promised Russia that they wouldn't expand NATO but they did.
2. They bombed Belgrade without consulting Russia to use its political influence to pressure Serbia and refused to allow Russia to coordinate with them at Kosovo (one of the grudges Russia still hold)
3. Meddling into Russia internal affairs with NGOs
4. Refused to negotiate with Russia when they wanted Ukraine to align with EU even thou they knew Ukraine has close ties with Russia. (more than 200 trade agreements)and that most people there are Russians

as for China

1.Naval Encirclement
2.Meddling into Hong-Kong affairs
3.Supporting Taiwan
etc.

Every country is a victim of his own geographical location so there would be differences.
Russia tried western style democracy during the Yelstin days it didn't pay off. in fact it was so bad the communist party almost won an election. now under Putin they have brought back few elements of the former soviet union like expanding the powers of the FSB, more state controlled companies,little privatization etc and it seems to work just fine. at least they are better off unlike when they were privatizing everything. doesn't mean the country is bad. unlike America and most western countries, Russia/China has a lot of citizens that are not ethnic Russians/Chinese and the more democratic it gets, people from this regions will want autonomy which would compromise Russia/Chinese's security that's the reason for the Iron fist style government.

Unlike the US.
Russia and China are paranoid because they feel threaten by their neighbors (historically) and the US is exploiting these weaknesses so u should expect them to be hostile as well.

So u see why diplomacy is needed ?

Missy89:

If you even look at the Geography, it is difficult to match the influence not only because it is so big but it doesn't have any major power close to it. this is the problem of china and Russia. china is surrounded by not so friendly countries in the south and the east and Russia is facing the same problem in the West.
Also, there are no separatist movements within unlike Russia (Chechnya , Dagestan etc) and china (Tibet, Hong kong, Taiwan).

I don't think it has nothing to do with this. America exploited the 2nd world war to its advantage. Others were fighting and getting broke, while it built its industrial base and got rich off weapon sales. And since then it hasn't looked back.

However, watch out for Latin America led by Brazil, they're coming as well. I think this is their century. And most forget that Russia is America's neighbour on the left of the equator.

shymexx:

America's survival as the sole global power depends solely on those in Washington and not over-stretching its resources. Right now it's already breaking, and military power doesn't last forever. Re-alignments are going to happen - and some allies are going to turn against you. That's the crossroad America is in with Europe right now. It's between pleasing the populace who're tired of America and building a strong economic alliance with the far East - or being America's dog and collapsing with it. You can see that with the sanctions. David Cameron can huff and puff from now till eternity, but he'll never touch the Russian money keeping London afloat, or Chinese investments. Just as Germany will never stop buying cheap gas from Russia, nor destroy its industrial ties with Russia worth billions of dollars.


The UK went crumbling during the early part of the century. Colonisation and the commonwealth countries of Australia, New Zealand, Canada etc. kept it afloat. Those folks are mostly ethnic Brits. However, UK just talk for the sake of it these days, it has lost almost all relevancy. Heck, David Cameron had to wait on the phone for three days to get clearance from Kremlin to speak to Putin after the MH17 plane crash. That was the same treatment, Abbott of Australia, also got. UK is a light weight these days. Germany is the don of Europe, followed by France.

I agree.

lol @ Cameroon waiting for days. never heard that till now.

I do believe that US is on the part of self destruction but i do hope the people make amends before it is irreversible. but there is hope. and the good news is that there is also time (Hopefully).

The major problem is the fact that there is too much money in politics so interests has to be served. if that can change then things would change.

Missy89:

Yeah i meant Arab Leaders.
Like someone once said. Israel is going to be in trouble because they don't have any other friend in the world as soon as American power declines.

but
American Empire will last another half century (have to be patriotic) china needs at least 20 -40 years to match it. The internal problems are just temporary Britain went through the same at a time but came out just fine.

See Miss, power is not coming to China. The next world power is Europe; One Europe. So for a short while, following the demise of America, Isreal will be just fine. China is serving his purpose right now but it will never be One World Power like many people are thinking. The man that ruled during the 1000years dark age is coming and that is Europe. U feel me?