News When Iran will produce enough U235 to make a nuclear bomb?

[Gokul43201]

The history and existence of modern day Israel is irrevocably linked to the zionist regime.

Just as the history and existence of modern day Soviet Union was irrevocably linked to the communist regime.

 

[Gokul43201]

Iranian officials have said that if Israelis and Palestinians can reach a peaceful resolution, they will support it.

Which officials? And do they make up a majority? I hardly think so. Here's one recent indicator of how most government officials in Iran think.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/14/world/middleeast/14iran.html?ref=middleeast

In a statement signed by some 200 members of the 290-seat assembly, Iranian lawmakers called on President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to dismiss Esfandiar Rahim Mashai, the vice president for tourism, after he repeated on Sunday his earlier comment that “we are a friend of all people in the world, even Israelis and Americans.”

In his comments, Mr. Mashai, a political ally of Mr. Ahmadinejad and one of his in-laws, specified “for a thousandth time” that his country was against Israel, not Jews.

But Parliament was not placated. “We do not recognize a country called Israel and so we cannot recognize a nation called Israel,” the lawmakers said in their statement, according to Fars, the semiofficial Iranian news agency.

“If Mr. Mashai does not have the political awareness that the Israeli people are the same people who have occupied the homes of millions of innocent and oppressed Palestinians and have created the army of the Zionist regime, he has no right to hold such a position,” the statement added.

 

[vociferous]

Not at all. The only thing here irrevocably linked to the Zionist regime is the ongoing removal of Palestine, while the post-Zionist movement within Israel demonstrates a possibility for Israel to eventually coexist with Palestine in peace.

That is not a correct statement. A Zionist means a person (usually Jewish, but not necessarily so), that believes that the state of Israel should exist. Any Jew, and in the broader term, any person, who believes that the state of Israel has a right to exist is a Zionist. Zionists were originally Jews who wanted to establish the state of Israel, and after its establishment, Jews (and in the broader sense, anyone) who supported the rights of Israel to continue to exist, and opposed those who tried to destroy it by military means.

 

[seycyrus]

Just as the history and existence of modern day Soviet Union was irrevocably linked to the communist regime.

When I said existence, I meant the continuing existence.

The Zionist movement is not just a political structure. It is the very fabric of the modern State of Israel.

 

[AhmedEzz]

That is not a correct statement. A Zionist means a person (usually Jewish, but not necessarily so), that believes that the state of Israel should exist. Any Jew, and in the broader term, any person, who believes that the state of Israel has a right to exist is a Zionist. Zionists were originally Jews who wanted to establish the state of Israel, and after its establishment, Jews (and in the broader sense, anyone) who supported the rights of Israel to continue to exist, and opposed those who tried to destroy it by military means.

Zionism has more to it than "supporting Israel to exist"...it might be on the list but this is not what make one a Zionist. Same as if I supported the Soviet Union does not make me a communist.

Ahmed, I've heard that a later fatwa was issued by someone in Iran, Mohsen Gharavian, that allowed the production and use of nuclear weapons. Does the level of the fatwa giver determine which one is overruling? I've heard that even taxi drivers can issue them.

And I must also point out that my use of the word "law" was apparently incorrect. Fatwa's are opinions. Which may or may not be considered law. I think.

No my friend, "fatwa" is an opinion that an authority makes on an issue. A taxi driver can do that -i think- but it doesn't really matter because as I said, its significance is when an authority makes it...I wouldn't care too much about it anyways,its not binding.

The only real ambiguity in the "wiped off the map" comment is as to whether he was suggesting that Iran itself should pursue it as a policy outcome, or if he's simply expressing faith that geopolitical forces will eventually result in such an outcome. Regardless, it seems clear that he was expressing a desire to see Israel disappear

It was clearly stated afterwards that his words are not a new policy by Iran. Moreover, I think it is more than clear that both Nejad AND Israelis are sworn enemies, ofcourse they both want each other to disappear.

Terms like "occupying regime," "Zionist entity" and so on are simply codewords that many of the Arab states and Iran use to refer to Israel, whose existence as a state they do not recognize in the first place. The region they are "occupying" is understood to include all of historical Palestine

This is false, for all Arab states ask Israel to stop its occupation of the West Bank, Gaza strip and Eastern Jerusalem, which are the borders of Palestine(because if you were talking about historical Palestine then Israel is not in the mix).

However, as long as Israel insists on expanding their colonization of the West Bank, Iran is obviously favors and end to the government behind that land grab.

Why is that obvious? What does Iran care about the Palestinians?

Its not that Iran cares about Palestinians but its that Iran is threatened greatly by Israel...my enemy's enemy is my friend

I would just like to add that I am not in favor of Iran, same as my country, I think Iran is radical and aggressive, they helped and are in-support-of the assassination of Egypt's previous president Al-Sadat.

 

[quadraphonics]

Zionism has more to it than "supporting Israel to exist"...it might be on the list but this is not what make one a Zionist.

Well, it's usually taken to mean "supporting Israel's right to exist in its current location," but that's about it. What certain Arabs or Persians might mean to imply when they say "Zionist" is a different matter, but the fact that somebody else abuses a term is neither here nor there. The "Zionist Regime" is nothing other than Israel.

Same as if I supported the Soviet Union does not make me a communist.

Sorry, you lost me there...

It was clearly stated afterwards that his words are not a new policy by Iran.

Okay, so Iran has wanted Israel to cease to exist for some time. And... ?

Moreover, I think it is more than clear that both Nejad AND Israelis are sworn enemies, ofcourse they both want each other to disappear.

Why is this clear? Why should there be any conflict between two states that don't share any borders, but do share common enemies? Is it because one is a Jewish state, and the other is a revolutionary Islamic state? The two had very good, close relations until the Islamic Revolution, and have cooperated militarily since then (albeit much more covertly). They have never fought a war against one another.

This is false, for all Arab states ask Israel to stop its occupation of the West Bank, Gaza strip and Eastern Jerusalem, which are the borders of Palestine(because if you were talking about historical Palestine then Israel is not in the mix).

Non-sequitur. That they dislike Israel and Israeli actions is the *reason* they refuse to recognize it, and go around using codewords like "Zionist entity" instead. This of course does not apply to the handful of Arab states that do recognize Israel.

Its not that Iran cares about Palestinians but its that Iran is threatened greatly by Israel...my enemy's enemy is my friend

Why? What threat does Israel pose to Iran? They don't share any borders, Iran has never gotten along with the Arab states either, they both are despised by Saudi Arabia... what possible reason would Israel have to even think about Iran, if Iran wasn't busy arming violent radical groups along Israel's borders and hosting Holocaust denial conferences? Where does this assumption that Israel must necessarily be Iran's enemy come from?

I would just like to add that I am not in favor of Iran, same as my country, I think Iran is radical and aggressive, they helped and are in-support-of the assassination of Egypt's previous president Al-Sadat.

Let's not forget their attempt at overthrowing the government of Bahrain either.

 

[Evo]

Well, it's usually taken to mean "supporting Israel's right to exist in its current location," but that's about it. What certain Arabs or Persians might mean to imply when they say "Zionist" is a different matter, but the fact that somebody else abuses a term is neither here nor there. The "Zionist Regime" is nothing other than Israel.

I agree with quadrophonics.

 

[Cyrus]

http://www.charlierose.com/shows/2008/8/22/1/an-hour-with-mahmoud-ahmadinejad

Enjoy.

 

[OmCheeto]

http://www.charlierose.com/shows/2008/8/22/1/an-hour-with-mahmoud-ahmadinejad

Enjoy.

Not much controversy in the first 30 minutes.

I will watch the next 30 minutes tomorrow.

I do wish I could speak Farsi.

I do still want to go visit.

 

[AhmedEzz]

Well, it's usually taken to mean "supporting Israel's right to exist in its current location," but that's about it. What certain Arabs or Persians might mean to imply when they say "Zionist" is a different matter, but the fact that somebody else abuses a term is neither here nor there. The "Zionist Regime" is nothing other than Israel.

You don't pay attention to what i am saying, you rather want your words to be repeated, for I have not referred to the zionist "regime"...I simply disputed your comment (If one supports Israel to exist, one must be Zionist).

Why is this clear? Why should there be any conflict between two states that don't share any borders, but do share common enemies? Is it because one is a Jewish state, and the other is a revolutionary Islamic state? The two had very good, close relations until the Islamic Revolution, and have cooperated militarily since then (albeit much more covertly). They have never fought a war against one another.

yes my friend, imagine if Israel blew up the holliest of Christian sites, will it not make sense to you that Christian countries would dislike it?...This is the case here, Israel occupies a holy site for Muslims...and the longer this takes place the worse its going to get.

That they dislike Israel and Israeli actions is the *reason* they refuse to recognize it, and go around using codewords like "Zionist entity" instead.

So?

Why? What threat does Israel pose to Iran?...

I suggest you read the news for I am reluctant to provide further proof...it is crystal clear for even a child, asking such questions is unreasonable.

 

[Cyrus]

I do still want to go visit.

I've been there, you're not missing much...trust me.

Next to hebrew, its probably one of the oldest languages in contiunous use in the world. If I were going to learn a language, I'd learn something more practical though, like chinese or french.

 

[kyleb]

Which officials? And do they make up a majority? I hardly think so. Here's one recent indicator of how most government officials in Iran think.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/14/world/middleeast/14iran.html?ref=middleeast

I was recalling comments from interviews with Khatami and Ahmadinejad from years ago, but I couldn't locate any sources by Googling for transcripts. Seems hardly anyone talks about Iran's position on the issue. However, I did come across a "Declaration on Palestine" on the Iranian Ministry of Information's website which demonstrates clear support for a two-State solution based on the principles of international law. Here is an excerpt:

12. The Heads of State or Government reiterated their hope that the international community and the Quartet will exert all efforts during this critical period to revive the peace process and to salvage the Road Map and promote its implementation towards ending the occupation of the Palestinian Territory that was occupied in 1967, including East Jerusalem, and thus realizing the two-State solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the right of all states and peoples in the region to live in peace and security. In this connection, the Heads of State or Government stressed the continued relevance of the Arab Peace Initiative adopted by the Arab Summit in Beirut in March 2002, emphasizing the importance of the recent call by the Arab Summit in Khartoum in March 2006 to reinvigorate the Arab Peace Initiative, and called for the exertion of all necessary efforts in that direction.

http://www.mfa.gov.ir/cms/cms/nam/en/14thSummit/DECLARATIONONPALESTINE.html

That is not a correct statement. A Zionist means a person (usually Jewish, but not necessarily so), that believes that the state of Israel should exist. Any Jew, and in the broader term, any person, who believes that the state of Israel has a right to exist is a Zionist. Zionists were originally Jews who wanted to establish the state of Israel, and after its establishment, Jews (and in the broader sense, anyone) who supported the rights of Israel to continue to exist, and opposed those who tried to destroy it by military means.

Again, post-Zionist Israelis disagree, and demonstrate the possibility for Israel to exist beyond the Zionist era.

 

[seycyrus]

yes my friend, imagine if Israel blew up the holliest of Christian sites, will it not make sense to you that Christian countries would dislike it?...This is the case here, Israel occupies a holy site for Muslims...and the longer this takes place the worse its going to get.

This is preposterous on many levels and illustrates the supreme level of intolerance of even those who would consider themselves "moderate" Muslims.

You equate the mere *presence* of Jews to blowing something up? In case you've forgotten, a lot of that area is considered to be a holy site for Christians as well. I don't see any Christians saying that the *mere presence* of the Jews in the holy land is defiling those sites.

And of course there's the small fact that the Israeli's consider those lands to be holy as well.

 

[OmCheeto]

No my friend, "fatwa" is an opinion that an authority makes on an issue. A taxi driver can do that -i think- but it doesn't really matter because as I said, its significance is when an authority makes it...I wouldn't care too much about it anyways,its not binding.

So do you think they are developing nuclear weapons? That would stink of sula bula at the highest level.

This is false, for all Arab states ask Israel to stop its occupation of the West Bank, Gaza strip and Eastern Jerusalem, which are the borders of Palestine(because if you were talking about historical Palestine then Israel is not in the mix).

I've got a 1917 map of the eastern hemisphere in my spare room. I don't find a Palestine on the map. Not to say it wasn't there. I suppose it was the mapmakers in the first place that caused all the problems.

The middle east consisted of only 3 countries; Egypt, Arabia, and Persia.

So what's my point?

I would say it is that artificial borders give people something to argue about. Sometimes I wish I could get out a big god eraser and get rid of all the lines. Send everyone back to the good old city-state days.

I would just like to add that I am not in favor of Iran, same as my country, I think Iran is radical and aggressive, they helped and are in-support-of the assassination of Egypt's previous president Al-Sadat.

Did I miss a new Oliver Stone moviehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JFK_(film)" ? That's the first I've heard of that.

 

[vociferous]

Just to clear it up, here is the definition of Zionist from Websters:

An international movement originally for the establishment of a Jewish national or religious community in Palestine and later for the support of modern Israel.

Given that English is the common language we are using, then this is the definition we should use. Any Jew who believes that Israel should continue to exist in its current location is a Zionist and any non-Jew who believes the same thing is, at the very least, a proponent of Zionism.

 

[Cyrus]

Remember, dictionaries don’t define words, they only provide the usage. So, the more we employ the word, the closer it gets to being accepted…

-James Randi

 

[kyleb]

I've got a 1917 map of the eastern hemisphere in my spare room. I don't find a Palestine on the map. Not to say it wasn't there. I suppose it was the mapmakers in the first place that caused all the problems.

The middle east consisted of only 3 countries; Egypt, Arabia, and Persia.

So what's my point?

I would say it is that artificial borders give people something to argue about. Sometimes I wish I could get out a big god eraser and get rid of all the lines. Send everyone back to the good old city-state days.

Erasing the lines on our maps would do nothing to change the fact the region has been commonly known as Palestine since the Romans ruled the region nearly two millennia ago. Regardless, if you look at an accurate map of the Middle East from 1917, it will show that the region of Palestine was part of the desolving Ottoman empire.

Just to clear it up, here is the definition of Zionist from Websters:

An international movement originally for the establishment of a Jewish national or religious community in Palestine and later for the support of modern Israel.

Given that English is the common language we are using, then this is the definition we should use. Any Jew who believes that Israel should continue to exist in its current location is a Zionist and any non-Jew who believes the same thing is, at the very least, a proponent of Zionism.

I have no dispute with the definition. I've simply been pointing out that "support of modern Israel" includes support for Israelis ongoing colonization of Palestinian land in the West Bank, and act which post-Zionist Israelis reject. Surely you can recognize the difference between the Zionist "support of modern Israel" and the post-Zionist goal of an Israel which respects the sovereignty of its neighbors?

 

[mheslep]

Erasing the lines on our maps would do nothing to change the fact the region has been commonly known as Palestine since the Romans ruled the region nearly two millennia ago. ..

Yes but of course Palestine was not the sovereign territory of Palestinian Arabs then, as was the implication up thread.

 

[quadraphonics]

I have no dispute with the definition. I've simply been pointing out that "support of modern Israel" includes support for Israelis ongoing colonization of Palestinian land in the West Bank, and act which post-Zionist Israelis reject. Surely you can recognize the difference between the Zionist "support of modern Israel" and the post-Zionist goal of an Israel which respects the sovereignty of its neighbors?

I think you're cramming too much into "support for modern Israel." To me, all that means is "support for Israel's continued existence in its current location." What exactly that entails is going to depend somewhat on your outlook; most people hold the belief that at least some of the activities in the occupied territories are required for Israel's continued existence, although actual "colonization" is not supported by many. The defining belief of a post-Zionist is that Israel is already substantially secure, and so Zionist ideology, with its basic focus on the question of Israel's continued existence, is outdated. Not *wrong* per se, but simply no longer applicable; the project is over and it's time to focus on newer questions. The point being that post-Zionism is an *extension* of Zionism, not a counterpoint to it. If post-Zionists like to contrast themselves with Zionists, or use the term to refer to certain militaristic policies they disagree with, the underlying argument is still over how best to keep Israel secure and prosperous in its current location; the essential Zionist goal. The other issue is the whole "present location" clause, since Israel's borders have never been settled in a satisfactory way. So there are differences over where exactly the boundaries should be, which feed back into the basic security questions and outlooks. But the upshot is that everyone agrees with the idea that there should be a Jewish state including at least pre-1948 Israel. It's exactly this unanymity on the basic Zionist position that has allowed the term "Zionist" to be thrown around as a political badge within Israel.

It's sort of like how conservative Americans are always trashing "liberalism" and "liberals" even as they view themselves as the guardians of worldwide liberal democratic order. That doesn't imply that liberals actually support the destruction of America or the terrorists or whatever. It just means that they have different views than the conservatives on how to best advance the goals of liberalism, which both sides basically share.

 

[kyleb]

I don't see how I'm doing any cramming here. The colonization of the West Bank is supported enough to keep it consistently expanding since Israel took control of the territory, regardless of how few you choose to count as its supporters. Furthermore, such dispossession of land from the indigenous population has been the goal of the Zionist movement since it set eyes on the region. Considering those facts, how can that ongoing expropriation of Palestinian land be considered anything but a defining characteristic of Zionism?

 

[quadraphonics]

Furthermore, such dispossession of land from the indigenous population has been the goal of the Zionist movement since it set eyes on the region.

You're making too many assumptions about what people wanted 200 years ago, and how they planned to get it. Not to mention abusing the term "indigenous." Palestinians are not like Aboriginies; a great number of them moved into the region during the Mandate period, drawn (as people always are) by the inflow of investment, infrastructure and trade.

Considering those facts, how can that ongoing expropriation of Palestinian land be considered anything but a defining characteristic of Zionism?

Simple: there are numerous self-professed Zionists that do not support the "ongoing expropriation of Palestinian land." Redefining the term "Zionism" into a political slur is not a good idea.

 

[mheslep]

...Palestinian land be considered ...

Chiming in: by Palestinian, you mean Palestinian Arab. What is the basis for calling this Palestinian Arab land? If one goes back to Roman times as above, its historically Jewish. Edit: Quadrophonics made the point better than I have in the prior post.

 

[WarPhalange]

Chiming in: by Palestinian, you mean Palestinian Arab. What is the basis for calling this Palestinian Arab land? If one goes back to Roman times as above, its historically Jewish. Edit: Quadrophonics made the point better than I have in the prior post.

I don't think the US can play that game.

 

[OmCheeto]

Erasing the lines on our maps would do nothing to change the fact the region has been commonly known as Palestine since the Romans ruled the region nearly two millennia ago. Regardless, if you look at an accurate map of the Middle East from 1917, it will show that the region of Palestine was part of the dissolving Ottoman empire.

According to the map on my wall, Turkey was part of Arabia at that point. The Ottoman empire looked like little more than Austria-Hungary, as we know them today.

Given the fluidity of borders, due to the incessant wars during that period, I wouldn't be surprised if the nationality of mapmaker didn't influence heavily on where the lines were drawn.

http://www.atlas-historique.net/1815-1914/cartes_popups/EmpireOttoman1914GF.html
http://www.dartmouth.edu/~gov46/uk-promis-arabs-1915.gif
http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/Petroleum/redline.htm

I would be greatly interested in seeing an Iranian produced map from the same era.

 

[OmCheeto]

Here's the middle east section of that map on my wall that I was talking about:

http://home.europa.com/~garry/1917meperamerica.jpg

No Iraq. No Israel. No Jordan. No Syria.

You can't even find the Ottoman empire in this section.

Somehow I'm not surprised that the Persians have sat back and watched, since Cyrus, the things that have transpired around their nation.

Sho Macha Tori! = que pasa in Farsi. If I haven't already mentioned that :)

 

[vociferous]

I don't see how I'm doing any cramming here. The colonization of the West Bank is supported enough to keep it consistently expanding since Israel took control of the territory, regardless of how few you choose to count as its supporters. Furthermore, such dispossession of land from the indigenous population has been the goal of the Zionist movement since it set eyes on the region. Considering those facts, how can that ongoing expropriation of Palestinian land be considered anything but a defining characteristic of Zionism?

Zionists were those Jews who supported the creation of a Jewish state who stood in direct opposition to those Jews who did not believe in Zionism (If you read the book The Chosen it has an interesting debate about Zionism in it). Currently, Zionists are those who support the continued existence of Israel, regardless of where they believe the borders should be drawn.

Furthermore, the use of the term "indigenous population" is extremely inappropriate, in my opinion, especially to refer to Palestinian Arabs. The Middle East was the birthplace of civilization. Constant conflicts have caused a lot of movement of different groups in, out, and around the area and playing the game of, "which groups claim to the land is oldest" simply is not useful. This is not Native Americans, whose direct ancestors have been living isolated on the same continent for thousands of years. The groups that occupy Palestine, Christian, Muslim, and Jews are not "indigenous" to Palestine in the same sense.

And since your definition of "Zionist" is opposed to the dictionary and many people who identify themselves as Zionist, I reject it as invalid.

 

[WarPhalange]

Zionists were those Jews who supported the creation of a Jewish state who stood in direct opposition to those Jews who did not believe in Zionism (If you read the book The Chosen it has an interesting debate about Zionism in it). Currently, Zionists are those who support the continued existence of Israel, regardless of where they believe the borders should be drawn.

Wasn't that whole argument that the anti-Zionists believe that the Messiah should be the one to create a new Israel instead of people?

 

[kyleb]

You're making too many assumptions about what people wanted 200 years ago, and how they planned to get it.

My statements weren't based on any assumptions. If you believe what people wanted and how they planned to get in any way contradicts what I've stated, please present your reasoning.

Not to mention abusing the term "indigenous." Palestinians are not like Aboriginies; a great number of them moved into the region during the Mandate period, drawn (as people always are) by the inflow of investment, infrastructure and trade.

I am using the term to refer to the population which lived in the region prior to the arrival of the Zionist movement. I also refer to myself as being indigenous to the United States, having been born here and of people who have lived here for generations. What term would you suggest is better suited to describe such a situation?

Simple: there are numerous self-professed Zionists that do not support the "ongoing expropriation of Palestinian land." Redefining the term "Zionism" into a political slur is not a good idea.

Yet people claiming one thing while doing another is hardly rare. What defines movement better than it's actions? Furthermore, how can acknowledging a long standing pattern of action constitute a slur?

Here's the middle east section of that map on my wall that I was talking about:

http://home.europa.com/~garry/1917meperamerica.jpg

No Iraq. No Israel. No Jordan. No Syria.

You can't even find the Ottoman empire in this section.

Than you for the picture, I had intended to request one after reading your previous post. I'm curious as this is the first I've seen the name "Arabia" applied across the Levant and Asia Minor. What are the origins of your map anyway? Regardless, it wasn't until near the end of 1918 that the Ottomans ceeded their claim to the territory in question.

 

[OmCheeto]

Thank you for the picture, I had intended to request one after reading your previous post. I'm curious as this is the first I've seen the name "Arabia" applied across the Levant and Asia Minor. What are the origins of your map anyway? Regardless, it wasn't until near the end of 1918 that the Ottomans ceded their claim to the territory in question.

(UNRIVALED SERIES)
EASTERN HEMISPHERE​

POPULAR AMERICAN EDITION. COPYRIGHT --- BY W. & A. K. JOHNSTON, Ltd. 1917 EDITION

41" x 52" classroom map.

And I would say that any map made in 1917 could have any borders you wanted. I never realized it was such a dynamic year: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1917

Here's an interesting little article relating to Iran during the period:

http://www.iran-bulletin.org/ibMEF-2-completed/TheGilan%20Republic.htm

Until the Bolshevik revolution in Russia, Iran had for over a century been involved in Anglo-Russian “power politics” in Asia. Subjected to Czarist territorial expansion and British economic domination, she had been progressively transformed from a viable, independent and cohesive sovereign entity into a chaotic and dependent Asian “semi-colony” ...

 

[vociferous]

Wasn't that whole argument that the anti-Zionists believe that the Messiah should be the one to create a new Israel instead of people?

Basically, yes. A lot of Jews, especially conservative Jews did not support Zionism because they believed that rebuilding Israel before the coming of the Messiah was blasphemous.

Also, a lot of American Jews were pretty content in the lives they led in the United States, and some of them did not see the need for Israel, given how well they were treated in the US (compared to Europe).

 

[OmCheeto]

The Ottoman empire looked like little more than Austria-Hungary...

Ooops. That was Austria-Hungary.

Upon closer examination of the map, the Ottoman Empire is nowhere to be found.

Silly Scotsmen...

 

[mheslep]

...I am using the term to refer to the population which lived in the region prior to the arrival of the Zionist movement...

How much prior? The population there changed substantially over time in the centuries before the Zionist movement.

 

[kyleb]

Predominantly since they ran the Crusaders out in the 13th century is my understanding. What changes in population are you referring to?

 

[vociferous]

Predominantly since they ran the Crusaders out in the 13th century is my understanding. What changes in population are you referring to?

How about huge population shifts? Most of the "Zionists" were descendants of the Jews that had lived in the Palestine area before the diaspora. Many of them feel that it is their right to return to the area because that is where their ancestors are from, ditto to the decedents of Arabs who used to live in what is now Israeli territory.

Add to that the many very religious Jews and Muslims who believe that they have some kind of God-given divine right to the area, plus thousands of years of history.

What you get is a situation where the question of who is "indigenous" and who has right to the land can only be answered by completely arbitrary criteria, and it is hard for people's ethnicity and religious views to not color how they want to draw those arbitrary criteria.

All I can say is that, at this point, there is absolutely no use in dealing with what one may consider a historical injustice. The different points of view simply do not recognize the same historical narrative and they never will. To move forward in the Middle East will be impossible so long as people cling to the past.

 

[Evo]

This seems like as good a place as any to end this thread with a "neutral post". All sides have had a chance to say their piece and the thread is not progressing.