Posted on 12/02/2004 6:38:39 PM PST by CHARLITE
When I read the news nowadays I have to do a mental substitution to de-Orwellianize the language sometimes. Here are some examples, let me know if they are wrong:
"Settler" = person.
"Settlement" = city/town.
"Palestinian refugee" = person.
"Palestinian refugee camp" = city/town.
;-)
I'm sorry, but that article is crap. The guy victimizes himself way too much to be taken seriously.
Dar al Islam. "One world of Islam." Islam is like the Borg in Star Trek...it must seek to make the whole world Islam or die trying. It is a religion of conquest and domination revealed by a Machiavellian warrior. It must be destroyed or capitulated to.
The Crusades live...
Your rebuttal, meanwhile, just screams out loud "take me seriously!"
Especially since you seem to have assumed that Ashley Perry is a guy?
I could do without the tea-pouring and grocery comments myself, but the "elephant in the room" point is effective...the "Palestinian" problem is an anti-Semitic Media Production.
There are two sides to this issue. The Palestinians were there before the Jews moved to Israel in the early 1900s. This doesn't condone terrorism or fundamentalism, but the Palestinians need someplace to live, and the Jews and Palestinians are going to have to find a way to live together in near proximity.
This guy is playing victim, and I'm not overly sympathetic.
I'm skeptical.
"Settlers are not the cause of violence by Islamofacists. Islamofacism is the cause."
Fundamentalist Islam is its own evil. But that doesn't solve the problem of where the Palestians are supposed to live.
One vote=one person in a democracy. If Israel is "united", Palestianians will soon be the majority.
So were the Jews.
So your willing to give back your home and property to the american indians. After all, they were here first.
He IS a victim of a propaganda campaign. Brought to you by your friends in the MSM and fueled by anti-Semitism, or more precisely, Atheism.
"So your willing to give back your home and property to the american indians. After all, they were here first."
No, Europeans and American Indians have learned to share this country.
But, this is the key point. If Israel and the occupied territories were united, and they held an election, the Palestinians would be soon be the MAJORITY. What would you do about that?
(We hold elections all the time, and American Indians get to vote.)
"So were the Jews."
That's true, and they will have to learn to share the country.
So who's not sharing? Which side wants to kill the other side and drive them into the sea?
Oh no, the Indians were smashed to bits and forced to life in refugee camps called "reservations".
The key point is that before the Jews took Jerusalem in a war with Jordan there was no such thing as a Palistinian.
They will share. They always have.
You must have read a different article than the one posted here.
"So who's not sharing? Which side wants to kill the other side and drive them into the sea?"
I'm not condoning any Palestinian terrorists. Islam seems to be a religion that fosters a lot of extremism and violence, to say the least.
But the Palestinians aren't going away, and they will soon be the majority. This author seems to be suggesting a "One Israel", in which Jews would be free to settle in the occupied territories. That is a valid view. But, then the Palestinians who live in those same territories should be able to vote in nationwide elections.
That issue is problematic for the "One Israel" view.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.