I agree with this proposal, by Iran's retarded president. Or pick some island. Surely some Isreali-sized land somewhere contains either zero people, or a people who would vote to have a few million jews move there and proclaim it the Jewish State, with special recognition for Jews. And without millions of ignorant murderers clammoring to kill the Jews and end the country (instead of focusing developing a civilization themselves), the "Islrealis" will be more secure and productive. Then with Isreal gone from Palistine, we can all watch what the muslims will do, with no more excuses. Maybe they'll even build a sensible, productive (ie, capitalist democracy) nation. I am not being facious here; I genuinely endorse this proposal. Some small region somewhere surely must comprise a population of people whose majority sees the establishment of Isreal in their land as an enormous economic and political benefit.
Naturally, the million or so Arab Muslims who currently live in Isreal so prosperously and freely (much more so than in any other nation in the region!) will want to make the trip, and must be entitled to do so. Surely the retarded muslims who want to eradicate Isreal would agree to a 5-10 year cease fire that would enable Isreal to move its infrastructure to the new location. The money spent now to defend against the retards would substantially pay for development in the new location, and transportation there of Isrealis and their belongings.
13 comments:
Interesting proposal. I can't say that I endorse it, but it certainly is an intriguing concept.
The Arab Muslims in Palistine would be doing themselves a huge favor by accepting and embracing conquest by the Zionists. Conquest has been one of the most effective mechanisms in history for elevating a people. Conquest has become inreasingly less brutal, and even more helpful, in recent times, when administered by reigning civilizations. I shouldn't have to explain that I am not claiming that all conquests help all people. The Baathist conquest of Kuwait surely didn not represent a step forward for the Kuwaitis. But the Norman and Roman conquests of England certainly helped those people, as did the US conquest of Japan, Germany, South Carolina, etc.
Nadir & Tom: Can't you guys agree with me on this (though of course with PC-sanctioned descriptions for the humans "who happen to be muslim and non-white" who also happen to want to rule via dictatorship while imposing religious superstitions).
Conquest has NEVER been an effective mechanism for elevating a people who have been conqueored. Conquest by its very definition is the opposite of elevation.
Paul, would you accept a conquest of America by Islamic (or Christian) fundamentalists without a fight?
The establishment of the state of Israel is an example of settler colonialism. The same imperialist actions have been used for centuries, though in the 20th and 21st centuries we are supposed to be a more "civilized" world than the Spanish in the 1500s or the British in the 1600s or the French in the 1700s or the Americans of the 1800s.
The use of terrorism and violence that brought the state of Israel into being was being practiced at the same time in "Rhodesia". Leaders of Western nations encouraged these acts for political reasons. Israel's goal is the conquest of even more territory than it has currently amassed, as demonstrated by its invasions of Lebanon and Gaza.
The current U.S. imperial invasion of Iraq is a recent example that shows these attitudes have only evolved and neo-colonialism is the rule of the day. This does not mean that the aggressors will let their conqueored territories go without a fight.
The Iranian president is trying to stir up feelings of Arab nationalism in preparation for the coming attacks by the U.S. and Israel against his country.
Paul, would you accept a conquest of America by Islamic (or Christian) fundamentalists without a fight?
I would not accept conquest by the Islamicists, because they would reduce the level of civilization. They would remove the right of women completely, and would eliminate the right to vote, and the right to express yourself freely without arrest, and to practice any religion besides Islam, to not practice Islam, and the right to call Mohammad a fag and his mom (Hagar?) a whore. There are no Jesus freaks on this earth today (but there certainly were many years ago) that I'm aware of who are attempting to impose any such stricture. If there were, I would oppose them, too.
You seem to have missed the part of my missive which explained explicitely what is implied obviously: that I do not believe that all acts of conquest are positive for the conquered. But I gave several examples where the conquered benefitted, and mightily so: Japan, Germany, Italy, and the Confederate States, by the US miliarty, and England by the Romans and Normans. Other examples would include various European countries conquered by Arab armies, and some Arab regions conqured by Persians.
All the territorial possessions of all the political establishments in the earth--including America, of course-- consist of pilferings from other people's wash. No tribe, howsoever insignificant, and no nation, howsoever mighty occupies a foot of land that was not stolen.
- Mark Twain (pseudonym of Samuel Langhorne Clemens),
Following the Equator
=====Nadir====
"civilized" world than the Spanish in the 1500s or the British in the 1600s or the French in the 1700s or the Americans of the 1800s.
==============
Why have you omitted reference to the many non-honkey civilizations that have brutally conquered neighbors and distant peoples? For example: Persians, Babalonyans, the original non-honkey Jews led by David, Shaka and the Zulus, the Egyptians, the Yemenese, the Eithiopians, Pheonecians, Moors, Aztecks (the first genociders in the Americas, and not even the only non-honkey genociders in the Americas), Japanese, Asyrians, Ottomans, various Chinese civilizations, various Indian civilizations, Mongols. Most of these non-honkey civilizations were more advanced than any honkey civilization of their day (some of them existed before any honkey civilization existed), and some even conquered parts of honkydom. Were it not for Greek/honkey victory at Marathon, the Persians would have conquered most of your honkey ancestors, Nadir, instead of must some of them.
Six: All of us descend from slave owners, theifs, and rapists, and we all descend from slaves, and victims of severe brutality, theft, and rape. All people who have been conquered descend from ancestors who themselves visited brutality on others.
I don't understand why, when I was a leftist, I only cared that crackers had done this, and never cared that non-crackers had done this. I think it is a form of paternalism and disrespect to view any people as pathetic victims who are helpless in the face of some special group that is so powerful that it controls all outcomes.
This new attitude of mine does not in any way excuse or endorse brutality. Instead, it recognizes that brutality can occur anywhere, and from anyone, even groups of people that are today trammled underfoot. And advancement of civilization can come even from people who are today behaving as brutes.
I find it very strange that there is a severe dis-connect between the Israeli's and Palestenians. Are you guys from the same region. I understand that nationalism creates hostilities but this is extreme. The relocation of Israel is a very interesting idea. Although not practical, it would help people understand the primary source of the problem.
"The Iranian president is trying to stir up feelings of Arab nationalism in preparation for the coming attacks by the U.S. and Israel against his country."
Man bites dog.
Coffee: The Jews who took over Palistine are Europeans, and do not have a genetic lineage back to the original Arab population that adopted Judiasm. In any case, you would think that people living in Palistine when this occurred would have welcomed the wealthy immigrants. And especially now, Isreal is a better place to live for Arab Muslim than any other country in that region.
Paul,
Are you suggesting that the U.S. army sack Israel and send the survivors to an island? Sounds like even more of a disaster than a bunch of neocons gathered round a map trying to figure out which Arab nation to sack (and, if you're argument is really correct, doing so on the basis of a bunch of wildly false information.)
Post a Comment