[danholo]

Since one is either Jewish through matrilineal descent or by conversion, it just seems to me that one could similarily claim that all Catholics, for example, are a group somewhat like the Jews. No?

Anything can be claimed, but that would just be a display of ignorance. The inherent differences between these religions are that Judaism is more "bottom up" when Catholicism, and other Judaism offshoots are "top down". Judaism is "for the people by the people" while Catholicism and Islam by and large espouse cultural dominance.

[Oxymoron]

It was my understanding that there many different traditions, languages, etc amongst the worlds population of Jewish people, and indeed conflict amongst Jews themselves as to who is more or less Jewish.

There are some differences in traditions, and languages but the same can be said about the French and Italians with many different dialects being used and many different traditions depending on the location.

Since one is either Jewish through matrilineal descent or by conversion

Conversion is extremely difficult you cannot simply join the Jewish faight as it is in other religions.

, it just seems to me that one could similarily claim that all Catholics, for example, are a group somewhat like the Jews. No?

No.

I wasn't trying to be difficult; that is exactly what comes to mind when I think of how Israel was established. Where Israel sits today, weren't there Jews, Arabs, Muslims, etc all sharing that area before Israel was founded?

No it was controlled by Muslims in Turkey, but yes Israel had all kinds of people especially in Jerusalem. The issue is that Jews did not want to live as a minority again, not after what had just happened when 40% of their popultion was annhilated, and with the rise of Arab Nationalism there was no way Palestine/Israel could have been one nation.

I am not terribly well-informed on this subject; but I am also not afraid to ask questions.

dont be afraid of anything, just I appreciate debates that educate both parties not just try to win by all means.

[Asad]

No it was controlled by Muslims in Turkey, but yes Israel had all kinds of people especially in Jerusalem. The issue is that Jews did not want to live as a minority again, not after what had just happened when 40% of their popultion was annhilated, and with the rise of Arab Nationalism there was no way Palestine/Israel could have been one nation.

Not true. Jews, Christians, and Muslims all lived in the region in peace. Turkey- or the ottomans occupied the region, which the arabs eventually revolted against.
Conflict only began when the Jewish nationalist movement, Zionism, sought to create a purely Jewish nation on land that wasn't entirely theirs.
The problem wasnt arab nationalism, which virtually didn't exist until the formation of Israel, but Zionism, which created conflict.

[Gitana]

I appreciate all the previous replies.

The problem wasnt arab nationalism, which virtually didn't exist until the formation of Israel, but Zionism, which created conflict.

Is this true?

I'm not pro or anti anything, but the situation as it is now over there seems terribly unfair.

[Dave]

Arab nationalism predates the creation of Israel. T.E. Lawrence exploited Arab nationalism in his campaigns in the Hejaz, and during World War 2 when Rommel was invading Egypt there were pro-German rallies in Cairo on a nearly daily basis.

Arab antisemitism also predates the creation of Israel as there were attempted pogroms in the 1930s, although these were as far as I know related to heavy Jewish immigration (which the British eventually put a moratorium on to prevent the region from exploding) and Zionism.

As far as I'm concerned the whole issue is silly, Israel has answered the question with superior force. The dispute is only being kept alive by the international community giving the Palestinians false hope. If not for this Israel would finish the job and that would be that.

Fanciful pie in the sky peace schemes invariably fail to take into account that these peoples do not want to coexist in the same land (the past myth of peaceful coexistence is irrelevant, as that past is long dead), and that the pre-1967 borders are insecure and unstable for both groups, thus neither will truly accept them. Any peace scheme is wholly dependent on the sustained application of force by an outside great power and therefore no real peace at all.

I'm not saying this as some kind of Zionist either, I would prefer the reestablishment of Western imperialism or even a Crusader state in the region. I wouldn't really lose any sleep if the Arabs managed to push the Jews into the sea either.

[Tailz]

Arab nationalism predates the creation of Israel. T.E. Lawrence exploited Arab nationalism in his campaigns in the Hejaz, and during World War 2 when Rommel was invading Egypt there were pro-German rallies in Cairo on a nearly daily basis.

Arab antisemitism also predates the creation of Israel as there were attempted pogroms in the 1930s, although these were as far as I know related to heavy Jewish immigration (which the British eventually put a moratorium on to prevent the region from exploding) and Zionism.

Yup, I second most of what Dave has written.

If not for this Israel would finish the job and that would be that.

With all of the moral and ethical implications that would entail, but we both know you care little for such.

I'm not saying this as some kind of Zionist either, I would prefer the reestablishment of Western imperialism or even a Crusader state in the region.

Orbital bombardment has my vote.

I wouldn't really lose any sleep if the Arabs managed to push the Jews into the sea either.

Why do these arguments always end up with someone being pushed into the sea?

[Dave]

With all of the moral and ethical implications that would entail, but we both know you care little for such.

False, I care greatly for morality and ethics. What I do not care for is your conception of morality and ethics. ; )

Why do these arguments always end up with someone being pushed into the sea?

Because war, for all the horrors it involves, brings peace when brought to its final conclusion. Being as I am a bit of a social darwinist I tend not to explore this angle often in my posts, but modern human rights doctrine and international law, though arguably noble in spirit, were based on the experiences of European world wars and not suitable for armed conflict as a whole. Paradoxically, these peace-minded ideals serve to prolong armed conflict by preventing a final resolution. Instead every new ceasefire allows each side to regroup, rearm, and let their grievances fester into an ever greater hatred.

When much earlier generations of Europeans drew from a different set of experiences, they crafted an international system which was far more successful in reducing conflict and keeping the peace. This system was sadly shattered by the tragedies which it failed to prevent.

[Tailz]

False, I care greatly for morality and ethics. What I do not care for is your conception of morality and ethics. ; )

I already know you don't care for my universal equality based views on ethics and morality.

So who has the yellow card?

[Asad]

Arab nationalism predates the creation of Israel. T.E. Lawrence exploited Arab nationalism in his campaigns in the Hejaz, and during World War 2 when Rommel was invading Egypt there were pro-German rallies in Cairo on a nearly daily basis.

I disagree. The campaign to liberate the Arab nations from the Ottomans, in part, led by T.E Lawrence didnt exactly constitute nationalism. It was simply a liberation movement. If their were a nationalist movement, then after the liberation, a single arab state would have been formed. Obviously this did not happen.

Arab nationalism only really took off in the 50's, when egypt and syria attempted to unite the arab nations. They formed the United Arab Republic in an attempt to unite arab nations. However, arab nationalism wasnt as popular in other arab countries, and it failed.

[Tailz]

I always thought T.E Lawrence exploited more of a Arab Royalist movement more than a Nationalist movement, since their campaign was aimed at installing the Royalists to power.

[Dave]

I already know you don't care for my universal equality based views on ethics and morality.

So who has the yellow card?

Endorse weakness and unreality, save yourself a yellow card?

I suppose the yellow card is a badge of honor then, no?

I disagree. The campaign to liberate the Arab nations from the Ottomans, in part, led by T.E Lawrence didnt exactly constitute nationalism. It was simply a liberation movement. If their were a nationalist movement, then after the liberation, a single arab state would have been formed. Obviously this did not happen.

Arab nationalism only really took off in the 50's, when egypt and syria attempted to unite the arab nations. They formed the United Arab Republic in an attempt to unite arab nations. However, arab nationalism wasnt as popular in other arab countries, and it failed.

The failure to create an Arab superstate owed more to geopolitical concerns, outside interventions, and economic disputes rather than a lack of appeal of Arab nationalism per se. The Arab lands "liberated" from the Ottoman Empire after all were turned over to Western powers who then imposed pliant monarchies.

[Tailz]

Endorse weakness and unreality, save yourself a yellow card?

Nah, yellow clashes with my jacket.

[Kman]

Israel belongs to the jews, I dont see why they should give the west bank to the palestinians, the west bank is part of the jewish homeland historically.

The palestinians should just be moved to Jordan (it already has a palestinian majority), then they could live in peace there and the Israelis could live in peace in Israel.

[Beren]

"If the parties are not able to stick to [the timetable], then a solution backed by the international community should be put on the table," he said.

I hope this is not just a bluff.

[clanko]

Israel belongs to the jews, I dont see why they should give the west bank to the palestinians, the west bank is part of the jewish homeland historically.

Guess what, the West Bank is part of a Palestinian homeland historically as well. Unless you have a specific date to which all ownership returns to which trumps Israeli and international law? There are more Jews in America than in Israel, does this mean Israelis should move to the US?

[Shah]

Israel belongs to the jews, I dont see why they should give the west bank to the palestinians, the west bank is part of the jewish homeland historically.

The palestinians should just be moved to Jordan (it already has a palestinian majority), then they could live in peace there and the Israelis could live in peace in Israel.

This is a pretty generic way to look at the conflict, I suggest you learn more about it before giving away the West Bank to Israel in your scenario. And nice "solution" there, I bet you think you're the first person that came up with it.

[Sayed Zakerya]

Kman

Israel belongs to the jews, I dont see why they should give the west bank to the palestinians, the west bank is part of the jewish homeland historically.

Are you a traitor to the sacred Zionist project?
Are you diminishing the Sacred land of Israel for some nonsense negotiation with the Arabs. Negotiate as you wish but never give up our 2000 years holy wrights!! ( Was it 2000 or 3009!!) Fvck the Gentile

[Kman]

Guess what, the West Bank is part of a Palestinian homeland historically as well. Unless you have a specific date to which all ownership returns to which trumps Israeli and international law? There are more Jews in America than in Israel, does this mean Israelis should move to the US?

The jews where there first, they lived in Israel but got chased out, after that the arab settlers moved in and settled in there, the Jews simply reclaimed their homeland.

I also dont see why the Muslims insist on controlling every inch of land in the middle east, try looking at a map and you will see just how tiny Israel is compared to the neighbouring muslim countries, why cant you leave a little land for the Jews?

[Asad]

The jews where there first, they lived in Israel but got chased out, after that the arab settlers moved in and settled in there, the Jews simply reclaimed their homeland.

I can't even begin to comprehend how baseless your arguments are. Just because the Jews passed through the region some thousands of years ago, it does not make it rightfully theirs. Just because your religion says its yours, it does not make it so.
Secondly, the Palestinians are descendants of people who have been living on the land for thousands of years. The ancient jews of the region are the modern Palestinians. They have a greater right to the land than some Jew whos family has lived in europe for some thousands of years, and possibly never had any ancestry in the region.

I also dont see why the Muslims insist on controlling every inch of land in the middle east, try looking at a map and you will see just how tiny Israel is compared to the neighbouring muslim countries, why cant you leave a little land for the Jews?

This is not a Religious conflict between the Muslims and the Jews. Its a conflict about land that was stolen from their righteous owners.

[Waltanheri]

Jew whos family has lived in europe for some thousands of years, and possibly never had any ancestry in the region.

And the impossible becomes possible!