Palestyna ma tyle lat co Biblia, jest nasza matka!

IP: *.NYCMNY83.covad.net 11.09.03, 15:21
Jezus byl palestynczykiem czyli Kanaijczykiem, palestynczycy sa mieszanka
arabow i europejczykow, ich rysy sa zupelnie inne niz arabskie. Palestynczycy
od tysiecy lat zwiazani sa ze swoja ziemia, ze swoim krajem.
    • Gość: jarek Moze byl musulmanskim albanczykiem. IP: *.fastres.net 11.09.03, 16:07
    • fredzio54 Re: Palestyna ma tyle lat co Biblia, jest nasza m 11.09.03, 16:43
      Gość portalu: A napisał(a):

      > Jezus byl palestynczykiem czyli Kanaijczykiem, palestynczycy sa mieszanka
      > arabow i europejczykow, ich rysy sa zupelnie inne niz arabskie. Palestynczycy
      > od tysiecy lat zwiazani sa ze swoja ziemia, ze swoim krajem.
      Oni pochodza z skrzyzwoania wielblada i beduina co na naszej ziemi zanocowal
      • Gość: a Re:Piszesz o sobie - IP: *.NYCMNY83.covad.net 11.09.03, 16:48
        Czy jest sposob na usuniecie tego idioty z forum
        • Gość: jarek Chyba Fredzio ma racje, to wytlumacza duzo rzeczy. IP: *.fastres.net 11.09.03, 16:58
    • indris Palestyna... 11.09.03, 17:25
      ...była od dawna "tyglem narodów". Ale jakaś narodowość palestyńska po prostu
      nigdy nie istniała. Współcześni "Palestyńczycy" są wyodrębniającą się grupą
      Arabów, podobnie jak Tunezyjczycy, Marokańczycy, Libijczycy. Z dawnymi
      mieszkańcami Kanaanu mają tyleż wspólnego, co współcześni Tunezyjczycy z
      Kartagińczykami z czasów Hannibala, albo afrykańskimi Rzymianami z czasów św.
      Augustyna.
      • Gość: rs Re: Historia Palestyny IP: *.NYCMNY83.covad.net 11.09.03, 17:34
        www.marxists.de/middleast/schoenman/ch03.htm
        • Gość: Guardian Re: Korzenie desperacji IP: *.NYCMNY83.covad.net 11.09.03, 17:42
          --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          The roots of Palestinian despair

          It is the Palestinian experience of the "peace process" which has given
          majority support for what was a rejectionist minority. For calls to 'stop the
          violence' to succeeed, this time there will need to be a political process
          which offers a genuine end to powerlessness and despair.

          Observer Worldview

          Gerd Nonneman
          Sunday April 14, 2002

          While the escalating violence in Palestine has finally brought more consistent
          diplomatic effort and heightened international criticism of Israel, alongside
          ritual condemnation of suicide bombers, much of this activity skims across the
          surface. Without forceful pressure to bring about a legitimate long-term
          solution, efforts to resuscitate "Mitchell" or "Tenet" are myopic. To create
          any chance of peace, international actors need to base a consistent involvement
          on a recognition of the real roots and dynamics of the conflict.
          This would also mean a willingness to step beyond the facile demonisation of
          anything labelled "terrorism". And it means giving up the pretence that "the
          two sides" are somehow equivalent. One is occupied, the other occupies. One is
          a powerful state and army, whose statements and operations are official policy;
          the other combines a seething population under siege, with an 'Authority'
          hobbled in countless ways and with very limited control. One has carried out an
          official policy of assassination and invasion, while the Palestinian Authority,
          its infrastructure virtually destroyed, has never really been able to control
          the radicals and now has no means left to do this.

          British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw last week suggested that since the
          Palestinians have experienced what would be possible, during those years of
          relative peace after the signing of the 1993 Oslo agreements, one must now hope
          for a return to those conditions. But it is precisely the experience of the
          last decade that has left Palestinians so disillusioned. The majority now
          agrees with what was a rejectionist minority 9 years ago: the "peace process"
          has brought no real prospect of Palestinian power in a Palestinian state worth
          the name. It is widely argued that the only change of any substance has been a
          doubling of Israel's settlement in the Territories, combined with further
          dispossession of Palestinian land.

          After the initial euphoria, the Palestinian Authority became seen as powerless
          in most things except enforcing Israel's security demands. Indeed, the autonomy
          promised was always severely circumscribed and subject to oversight by Israel,
          and the "Palestinian areas" Israel has now been asked to withdraw from are only
          those fragmented bits where it had passed this limited authority to the PA.
          These bits, in any case, were very far short of what had been envisaged at
          Oslo.

          It will take an enormous leap of faith for a population that has now once again
          seen its dead multiply and its houses turned to rubble, to rekindle any belief
          in a peace process. Plans to 'stop the violence' can no longer be sufficient: a
          long-term political solution must be held out that goes beyond the limited and
          temporary autonomy arrangements framed at Oslo but never genuinely implemented.

          The difficulty is that Ariel Sharon, the Likud party and their allies are
          unwilling to consider anything remotely like the real Land-for-Peace solution
          Oslo and a succession of UN Security Council resolutions demand. Indeed the
          Israeli right virulently opposed the very principle of the Oslo process that
          they accuse Yasir Arafat of failing to honour. That is why real pressure on the
          current Israeli government is of the essence. Sympathy with Israeli security
          fears, and domestic US opinion, mean this is unlikely to be forthcoming.

          Israeli fears are running high and need to be addressed. But current policy
          will only turn Israel into a perennially insecure occupier and garrison state.
          Moreover, the incomparably higher number of Palestinian deaths and injured
          since 1948, the dramatic loss of land - some 70 % of Palestine by 1949, the
          remainder occupied in 1967 - and the continuing expropriations in the Occupied
          Territories, along with the catastrophic economic situation, should put beyond
          question which side is most at risk.

          Having once had their very existence denied, then been turned into refugees or
          occupied people, and now once again in many Israeli quarters being threatened
          with wholesale ethnic cleansing (or 'transfer' - the assassinated Israeli
          tourism minister, Mr Ze'evi, was one advocate of this solution), Palestinians
          combine a very real existential fear - both as individuals and as a people -
          with deep humiliation and anger.

          A return to the negotiating table, therefore, will only have any legitimacy or
          prospect of success if at least a significant proportion of Palestinians can be
          persuaded that Israel is genuinely willing to consider a Land-for-Peace deal
          that would allow a viable Palestinian state to emerge in virtually all of the
          West Bank and Gaza, and at least part of the Old City in (also occupied) East
          Jerusalem - as suggested in the Clinton proposals of December 2000. These
          proposals improved on the failed Camp David plan earlier that year, and
          Palestinian negotiators found them a good basis for negotiation, but Ariel
          Sharon rejected them out of hand - along with Barak's Camp David concessions.

          Security for Israel is possible, as the euphoria and goodwill in the immediate
          aftermath of Oslo showed: support for the more radical Palestinian movements at
          that time fell sharply. It is not impossible to rekindle this, and thus isolate
          die-hard radicals.

          But it will require a recognition that bright, 17-year old girls without a
          history of ideological radicalism do not turn into suicide bombers without
          feeling they have overwhelming cause; and that the violence against Israeli
          soldiers and settlers, and its spill-over into suicide bombings within Israel,
          stem directly from the 35 years of Israeli occupation of the West Bank and
          Gaza, and the displacing of three quarters of the Arab population when Israel
          was created in 1948 (together with the 1967 refugees, this created what is, at
          4-5 million, still the world's single largest refugee problem). Even against
          this bitter background, Oslo's immediate aftermath showed it is possible to get
          majority Palestinian support for a compromise that accepts that 70 per cent of
          their erstwhile homeland will remain lost - as long as there is hope of real
          independence and some dignity within the remainder. Any diplomatic
          interventions today that pretend the former is possible without the latter, are
          doomed to failure.

          Gerd Nonneman is Reader in International Relations and Middle East Politics at
          Lancaster University and Associate Fellow, Middle East Programme, Royal
          Institute of International Affairs. He is also Executive Director of the
          British Society for Middle Eastern Studies (BRISMES).

          What do you think?

          You can contact the author via the Royal Institute for International Affairs at
          contact@riia.org. Please use "response to Gerd Nonneman" as the subject line of
          your email.

          To send your views on the piece or if you would like to contribute to Observer
          Worldview, please email Observer site editor Sunder Katwala at
          observer@guardianunlimited.co.uk



    • Gość: jarek Jesus- palestyczykiem post mortum. IP: *.fastres.net 11.09.03, 18:01
      Wukazales sie znakomita znajomoscia historii cesarstwa rzymskiego, chyba zrobiles prace habilityacyjna na UJ a magisterska na Universytecie w Hebronie.
    • indris Per analogiam 11.09.03, 20:08
      "Jezus byl palestynczykiem" - napisał "A". Ale na tej samej zasadzie możnaby
      napisać, że Hannibal był Tunezyjczykiem. I św. Augustyn też.
Inne wątki na temat:
Pełna wersja