asta Posted June 11, 2010 Share Posted June 11, 2010 I don't think you get it. Very few would even be talking about Israel being destroyed if they were acting justly and not starving the Palestinians. ? The Persians wouldn't be talking about wiping Israel off of the map if the Palestinians had more food? Back to the Classical Education texts, everyone. Persians and Arabs have a long history, and it makes the Israeli/Palestinian conflict look like a birthday party. a Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spy Car Posted June 11, 2010 Share Posted June 11, 2010 Who? Outside Egypt (which does have diplomatic relations) and possibly Jordan or Morrocco, just which major party or national leader in the Arab World has called for peace while granting Israel's right to exist and to defend herself? Which major leader has offered talks WITHOUT PRECONDITIONS such as acceptance of the 67 boundaries? Which major leader wants peace with Israel rather than peace without Israel? Seriously, who? When you get beyond some rhetoric and a few platitudes designed to persuade the gullible, in the West, of their intentions I have seen precious little hard evidence that there is any great desire for peace with the Israeli State. I sincerely hope your comment about people wanting peace is correct, I simply want to know who you are speaking of. I think *any* peace plan offered up by the United States, Norway, the UN, the European Union, the Saudis, the Palestinians, or Israel itself, would include a rough return to the 1967 borders (while making some territorial swaps to accommodate Israeli settlements near Jerusalem). Everyone understands the broad outline of what a "land for peace" deal would look like. Bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wayfaring Stranger Posted June 11, 2010 Share Posted June 11, 2010 (edited) Who? Outside Egypt (which does have diplomatic relations) and possibly Jordan or Morrocco, just which major party or national leader in the Arab World has called for peace while granting Israel's right to exist and to defend herself? Which major leader has offered talks WITHOUT PRECONDITIONS such as acceptance of the 67 boundaries? Which major leader wants peace with Israel rather than peace without Israel? Wow, this is a complete straw man. You even put a precondition in your first statement about what kind of peace offer is ok ("while granting Israel's right to exist"). So the Middle East countries cannot ask for any preconditions but Israel will not talk unless the other side already recognizes Israel's right to exist. I am not saying that condition is invalid just that the no preconditions argument does not make any sense. Who in the region wants peace with Israel besides Egypt, Jordan and Morocco? Lets start with Turkey (Israel's strongest alley in the region). Maybe Syria. I googled "Israel preconditions" and the second item was this. (The first post was a call from Obama to start peace talks without preconditions on either side (here)). Even Saudi Arabia has sponsored peace efforts in the past. Lebanon has a large population that favors the Israeli's over the Palestinians and Hezbollah. So, seven states in the surrounding region at least. Is that enough. I have never heard the 67 border being a precondition, but I could be wrong. I think it has always been more complicated than that. More and more people (although still a growing minority) are calling for a one state solution where Israel just annexes the occupied territories as they are and gives everyone equal rights. Edited June 11, 2010 by Father of Pearl Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
QueenCat Posted June 11, 2010 Share Posted June 11, 2010 The BBC has a historical progression of the maps here. And a TOTALLY cool map of the entire middle east here. a Excellent maps, thank you for sharing them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
QueenCat Posted June 11, 2010 Share Posted June 11, 2010 You will need to read up on the 1967 war & check out the maps at the BBC that asta posted. Israel has given back land in the last 30 years (the 79 peace process was a big chunk of land returned) BUT it was land Israel TOOK in 1967 when Israel attacked Egypt. It's still not back to the size it was originally. For illustraiton purposes: (all #'s picked at random & do not reflect proportions in the Middle East conflict) So imagine you have a suburban lot. You invade your neighbour's empty back yard of 50x100 feet & fence it in as your own. You plant potatoes, carrots, turnips. Over the years, the neighbour and you negotiate on & off and you retreat 10 feet. Another few years pass & the neighbour (& city hall) convince you to retreat another 10 feet. You moan now about how you're retreating, retreating, retreating & still people are not happy! But you originally took 50 feet and have only moved back 20. The impression to a newcomer to the neighbourhood might be that you're being harassed unfairly, but anyone looking at the history, might draw a different conclusion. That is the best visualization I've seen in a long time!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spy Car Posted June 11, 2010 Share Posted June 11, 2010 If one is interested in peace and a precondition for talks is that Israel agree to the 67 boundaries then you are asking one side to make a huge concession just to get you to the table. This does not demonstrate interest in peace, this is a political ploy. Utter nonsense. The Israelis for example have had a "precondition" that they will not allow "the "right of return" to Palestinians who fled their homes in what is now Israel-proper during the 1948 was that established Israel as a state. The "right of return" is guaranteed by the United Nations. One could argue (and many do) that Israel is not serious about peace because they have a precondition. I'd say that all parties in disputes have their negotiating strategies. The Israelis have theirs, the Palestinians have their own. *Everyone* (who takes thinks seriously) also realizes a realistic peace deal would require the Palestinians to largely give up on the "right to return", but that the Israelis would have to accept a very tiny of returnees as a "fig-leaf" gesture, and also provide compensation to families whose property has been transfer to other owners. These are bargaining positions. Nothing more, nothing less. Bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pqr Posted June 11, 2010 Share Posted June 11, 2010 (edited) Who in the region wants peace with Israel besides Egypt, Jordan and Morocco? Lets start with Turkey (Israel's strongest alley in the region). Maybe Syria. I googled "Israel preconditions" and the second item was this. (The first post was a call from Obama to start peace talks without preconditions on either side (here)). Even Saudi Arabia has sponsored peace efforts in the past. Lebanon has a large population that favors the Israeli's over the Palestinians and Hezbollah. So, seven states in the surrounding region at least. Is that enough. I have never heard the 67 border being a precondition, but I could be wrong. I think it has always been more complicated than that. More and more people (although still a growing minority) are calling for a one state solution where Israel just annexes the occupied territories as they are and gives everyone equal rights. First you need to review your geography. Turkey is not an Arab State, having spent a fair time in Turkey I would recomend you never make that mistake there. In a similar manner a call from the President for talks certainly does not come from the Arab World. Which seven states are you listing? Your link has the following quote "I am calling on President Assad to join us in direct and immediate negotiations, without mediators, without conditions, without postponements," Peres said in his speech so this does appear to be simple posturing (possibly, indeed arguably, on both sides) I will still give some credence to the Assad request, but then again given what his diplomat Rania Al Rifaiy stated 9 June 2010 statement to the UN "This is a state that is built on hatred, discrimination, oppression and a paranoid feeling of superiority. Hatred is widespread, taught to even small children, who are taught to use weapons, and who are taught to sign missiles that will be fired at Arabs. Let me quote a song that a group of children on a school bus in Israel sing merrily as they go to school. And I quote “With my teeth I will rip your flesh. With my mouth I will suck your blood.” The Israeli systematic violations of human rights and illegitimate occupation has destabilized the whole region, bringing it to the brink of war on so many occasions. We appeal to the international community to put an end to the Israeli impuntiy and to their extreme, extremely brutal policies inside and outside occupied arab territories". I would not give that much credence. (Yes I understand that the two comments are several years apart) The 67 precondition is seen in many places but most prominently in 02 Initiative which was revisited in 07. "The initiative is a set of principles that would offer Israel full recognition and permanent peace with the Arab states in return for Israel's withdrawal to 1967 lines, the establishment of an independent Palestine with East Jerusalem as its capital and an agreed, just solution to the issue of Palestinian refugees in accordance with UN General Assembly Resolution 194 of 1948". As recently as last week on CSPAN there was an Arab League negotiator refusing to engage in talks unless Israel first agreed to a return to the 67 borders. Had Israel agreed to all of that there would not have been much to discuss would there? Edited June 12, 2010 by pqr Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pqr Posted June 11, 2010 Share Posted June 11, 2010 (edited) Originally Posted by pqr If one is interested in peace and a precondition for talks is that Israel agree to the 67 boundaries then you are asking one side to make a huge concession just to get you to the table. This does not demonstrate interest in peace, this is a political ploy. Utter nonsense. The Israelis for example have had a "precondition" that they will not allow "the "right of return" to Palestinians who fled their homes in what is now Israel-proper during the 1948 was that established Israel as a state. Bill Where do you find a reference for this? Not saying it is not there, simply that I do not remember that being a precondition. added with edit I did a quick search and found that Israel stated, at times, that this topic is not up for discussion. Surely despite your "utter nonsense" bit you can see that there is a difference between saying we will not talk ablut this and saying before we talk you have to agree to this. The difference is subtle but I am sure you can see it. Regardless of if you want to admit it a demand for a return to the 67 borders IS a huge concession, to deny that might be deemed...well you already said that didn't you. If at any time Israel stated we will not talk unless you agree to renounce the right of return then that would be different but I have yet to see a reference to that. Edited June 12, 2010 by pqr Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mrs Mungo Posted June 11, 2010 Share Posted June 11, 2010 If you're interested in this topic, time to subscribe, people. eta: Thread tools, instant notification by email. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spy Car Posted June 12, 2010 Share Posted June 12, 2010 Where do you find a reference for this? Not saying it is not there, simply that I do not remember that being a precondition. I have an deep familiarity with the politics of the region, and not one based on Google searches. added with edit I did a quick search and found that Israel stated, at times, that this topic is not up for discussion. Surely despite your "utter nonsense" bit you can see that there is a difference between saying we will not talk ablut this and saying before we talk you have to agree to this. The difference is subtle but I am sure you can see it. No, what it really shows, is that despite your high-handed way of lecturing others on their ignorance (see your previous post) that you really don't know what you are talking about. If at any time Israel stated we will not talk unless you agree to renounce the right of return then that would be different but I have yet to see a reference to that. That's what is called a "distinction without a difference." Neither the 1967 border issue or the right of return is going to be a deal-breaker if the parties have the will to make peace. There are much more serious barriers to progress, such as the existence of maximalists on both sides who will attempt to torpedo a peace deal, but "preconditions" are notnthe stumbling block. Bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pqr Posted June 12, 2010 Share Posted June 12, 2010 (edited) I have an deep familiarity with the politics of the region, and not one based on Google searches. As do I, so answer the question, don't just give a snotty response. No, what it really shows, is that despite your high-handed way of lecturing others on their ignorance (see your previous post) that you really don't know what you are talking about. High handed? Coming from you...that is rich. By the way are you now stating that Turkey is an Arab State? (see previous post) How is verifying information before typing indicative of not knowing what one is talking about? I was actually giving you the benefit of the doubt that given your obvious deep familiarity with every topic you would be correct in your assertion. That's what is called a "distinction without a difference." Neither the 1967 border issue or the right of return is going to be a deal-breaker if the parties have the will to make peace. There are much more serious barriers to progress, such as the existence of maximalists on both sides who will attempt to torpedo a peace deal, but "preconditions" are notnthe stumbling block. Bill You stated that there are those who want peace, who are they? With your deep familiarity, surely you can name them. Then again with your deep familiarity your statement to the effect "I really don't think there really are entire nations that want to wipe Israel off the map" must make one wonder just what your sources are. So who, by name, on the Arab side (outside Egypt) has made honest moves for peace. Which party in Saudi Arabia calls to recognize Israel? How do you explain the "shrill little diatribe" given by the Syrian diplomat in the UN? Which N. Sudanese have called for peace WITH Israel. How many Yememi want to allow the Jews to return to the homeland that they left in 49-50? Look, there are opponents to peace on both sides, I am not supporting Israel but to tell a nation that before you will enter into talks with them they must agree to cede their capital really pushes the issue. Edited June 12, 2010 by pqr Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spy Car Posted June 12, 2010 Share Posted June 12, 2010 (edited) As do I, so answer the question, don't just give a snotty response. You don't think you give snotty responses??? :lol: High handed? Coming from you...that is rich. You reap what you sow. By the way are you now stating that Turkey is an Arab State? (see previous post) No. I'm well aware Turkey is not an Arab state. It's the way you communicate with people that is off-putting. How is verifying information before typing indicative of not knowing what one is talking about? I was actually giving you the benefit of the doubt that given your obvious deep familiarity with every topic you would be correct in your assertion. Well, when you discovered you were wrong, instead of owning up to your error, you get hostile. Why not just do the manly thing and admit you're wrong? So who, by name, on the Arab side (outside Egypt) has made honest moves for peace. Jordan. Which party in Saudi Arabia calls to recognize Israel? The Saudi government (which does plenty to make the world a more dangerous place through their funding of fundamentalist madrasahs and other such activities) has been a leader in promoting the "Arab Peace Initiative." You may scoff, but it is a serious initiative and is indicative of broader movement in the Arab world for accommodation with Israel. Not a "done deal" by any means, but another sign of hope. How do you explain the "shrill little diatribe" given by the Syrian diplomat in the UN? Some Syrian politicians are shrill. Shall I pull up crazy comments by Israeli politicians, say the current Israeli Deputy Prime Minister (and Minister of Foreign of Affairs) Avigdor Lieberman? There are "blow-hards" in the world. I'm surprised I have to explain this to you. Which N. Sudanese have called for peace WITH Israel. Perhaps none. So what! Sudan sent a few token troops to the 1967 war (43 years ago) but Sudan is not a military threat to Israel. They can't even keep their own nation from disintegrating. A failed state like Sudan is obviously somewhat of a threat as a potential base of terrorist organizations such as al Qaeda, but they lack any capacity to invade or attack Israel by conventional means and have no common border. How many Yememi want to allow the Jews to return to the homeland that they left in 49-50? I don't know. Let's assume that it is few. So what. See the above about Sudan. Yemen has no conventional military capacity that threatens Israel, and no common border. Look, there are opponents to peace on both sides, I am not supporting Israel but to tell a nation that before you will enter into talks with them they must agree to cede their capital really pushes the issue. You are fixated on this point, but it is a non-issue as a "precondition." If there is a will to negotiate on both sides they will negotiate. Excuses not to negotiate are a dime-a-dozen. Bill Edited June 12, 2010 by Spy Car Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asta Posted June 12, 2010 Share Posted June 12, 2010 Good lord, you two. Stop the straw man attacks and the personal mud slinging and stick to the policy issues. You're both starting to sound like b!tchy little girls. This is one of the most fascinating international relations topics upon which to have a discussion, and you're both intelligent enough to back up your statements with better data then Uh huh! I said so! Don't touch me! MOMMMMMMMM! Geez. asta Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spy Car Posted June 12, 2010 Share Posted June 12, 2010 You're both starting to sound like b!tchy little girls. So what you're saying is.......we're starting to fit in? :D Dog-pile on Astra. Bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swimmermom3 Posted June 12, 2010 Share Posted June 12, 2010 Just when I was trying to figure out if it was worth it to stay up and slog my way through the dog and pony (mules, perhaps?) show... Good lord, you two. Stop the straw man attacks and the personal mud slinging and stick to the policy issues. You're both starting to sound like b!tchy little girls. This is one of the most fascinating international relations topics upon which to have a discussion, and you're both intelligent enough to back up your statements with better data then Uh huh! I said so! Don't touch me! MOMMMMMMMM! Geez. asta :lol::lol::lol: Yes, it was most definitely worth it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spy Car Posted June 12, 2010 Share Posted June 12, 2010 But we think differently then the terrorists do. You cannot possibly comprehend the mindset of someone willing to strap a bomb to their chest and blow themselves up along with a bus full of innocent people. We don't comprehend that we have people in our midst like Eric Robert Rudolph who bombed and murdered people at the Olympics (and abortion clinics and gay bars)? A guy that was driven by his white supremacist "Christian Identity" politics. We don't understand people like Scott Roeder who walks into a church and murderers a doctor because he performs late-term abortions? We don't understand people who cheer on Roeder's actions as righteous (or even God-willed?) We don't understand white supremacists like Timothy McVeigh, who use Ryder trucks instead of strap-on bombs? I wish it were so. Bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asta Posted June 12, 2010 Share Posted June 12, 2010 We don't comprehend that we have people in our midst like Eric Robert Rudolph who bombed and murdered people at the Olympics (and abortion clinics and gay bars)? A guy that was driven by his white supremacist "Christian Identity" politics. We don't understand people like Scott Roeder who walks into a church and murderers a doctor because he performs late-term abortions? We don't understand people who cheer on Roeder's actions as righteous (or even God-willed?) We don't understand white supremacists like Timothy McVeigh, who use Ryder trucks instead of strap-on bombs? I wish it were so. Bill I think she meant that the majority of people on this board don't conceptually understand what goes through the mind of a terrorist. eg: that strapping a bomb to their body in the name of their god is somehow an entirely socially acceptable means of "proving" one's devotion to said god. Then again, it is hard enough to explain the concept of cultures wherein there is absolutely no separation between religion and state; especially when attempting to explain from a Western point of view. So trying to explain that dying for one's god is also dying for the (perceived) betterment of the state can be a REALLY hard concept... a Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spy Car Posted June 12, 2010 Share Posted June 12, 2010 I think she meant that the majority of people on this board don't conceptually understand what goes through the mind of a terrorist. eg: that strapping a bomb to their body in the name of their god is somehow an entirely socially acceptable means of "proving" one's devotion to said god. Gosh, I don't think so. Heater was pretty clear that we (not you, not being in America) sitting in our comfy chairs don't understand what it is like o live in a place where people kill for God (or their deranged conception of God). And that is just not the case. We have crazy nut-balls too. Then again, it is hard enough to explain the concept of cultures wherein there is absolutely no separation between religion and state; especially when attempting to explain from a Western point of view. So trying to explain that dying for one's god is also dying for the (perceived) betterment of the state can be a REALLY hard concept... a Nonsense. First, she lives in Malaysia, where (as in most of the Muslim world) there is a separation between religion and state. Second. The West has done plenty of killing and dying in the name of its God. It is not a hard concept what-so-ever. The zanies here are armed to the teeth. And some kill. Malaysia is not unique for having some nuts. Bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pqr Posted June 12, 2010 Share Posted June 12, 2010 (edited) Well, when you discovered you were wrong, instead of owning up to your error, you get hostile. Why not just do the manly thing and admit you're wrong? So we will all now see you admit that when you stated "I really don't think there really are entire nations that want to wipe Israel off the map" you were wrong? As to my comment, it appears that I was not wrong, I could find NO evedence of a precondition to agree to anything regarding right of return. Stating that it is not a topic of discussion is not a precondition it simply means that talks will cover other topics and not that one. It grows tiresome to constantly explain that there is a difference between not having something on the table and demanding major concessions before talks begin. Anyway I had assumed that given your, how did you put it...oh yes....deep familiarity with the region you could refrence the Israeli stance. In that you are correct I was wrong. You could not or have not referenced it. Interestingly enough a Times of London article states that there may be some cooperation between Israel and Saudi Arabia. The report states that the Saudis may give Israel an air corridor to attack Iran. Nonsense. First, she lives in Malaysia, where (as in most of the Muslim world) there is a separation between religion and state. To use a phrase of yours. What utter nonsense. You do not actually believe this do you? Surely your deep familiarity has taught you that such a statement is tripe pure and simple. Have you actually lived in a Moslem nation, or is your deep familiarity limited to .......? Islam is the official religion of Malaysia and the Government actively promotes the spread of Islam in the country. The census in 2000 showed approximately 60.4 percent of the total population are Moslem. Article 160 of the Constitution states that all ethnic Malays are Moslem . There are Sharia courts in Malaysia whose rulings are legal and this can impact even those who renounce Islam. I am off for the weekend so will not be replying, rail away. See you next week. Edited June 12, 2010 by pqr Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wayfaring Stranger Posted June 12, 2010 Share Posted June 12, 2010 (edited) First you need to review your geography. Turkey is not an Arab State, having spent a fair time in Turkey I would recomend you never make that mistake there.... Which seven states are you listing? ... Arab State and Arab World are your terms not mine. I used the word "region" and left Arab out of it. When I was in Egypt as a student one of the things we did was ask the locals if they self identified as Arab. Most do not. If that is the standard then Egypt is not even an Arab State. I would imagine (but do not know) that only those in Arabia self identify as Arab. Morocco (one of the original countries you listed) is not an Arab country at all by your definition. I will review my geography, however, I am a sucker for a good map.:) QUOTE=Father of Pearl;1785661] Who in the region wants peace with Israel besides Egypt, Jordan and Morocco? Lets start with Turkey (Israel's strongest alley in the region). Maybe Syria. I googled "Israel preconditions" and the second item was this. (The first post was a call from Obama to start peace talks without preconditions on either side (here)). Even Saudi Arabia has sponsored peace efforts in the past. Lebanon has a large population that favors the Israeli's over the Palestinians and Hezbollah. So, seven states in the surrounding region at least. Is that enough. I am listing Egypt, Jordan, Morocco, Turkey, Syria, Saudi Arabia and Lebanon. My geography is better than my math but I think that makes seven nations. Edited June 12, 2010 by Father of Pearl Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mejane Posted June 12, 2010 Share Posted June 12, 2010 I think she meant that the majority of people on this board don't conceptually understand what goes through the mind of a terrorist. eg: that strapping a bomb to their body in the name of their god is somehow an entirely socially acceptable means of "proving" one's devotion to said god. One doesn't need to be a terrorist to be nuts with regard to religion. There are zealots in every religion and they are everywhere. A fundamentalist Christian neighbor, mother to two little girls, once told me that she'd happily set herself on fire for the Lord. There's no doubt in my mind that she meant it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mejane Posted June 12, 2010 Share Posted June 12, 2010 This is one of the most fascinating international relations topics upon which to have a discussion, and you're both intelligent enough to back up your statements with better data then Uh huh! I said so! Don't touch me! MOMMMMMMMM! Geez. asta :lol: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mrs Mungo Posted June 12, 2010 Share Posted June 12, 2010 (edited) pqr, I have to agree with Father of Pearl that your definition of Arab nation is lacking. Are you counting Iran as an Arab nation? They definitely do not consider themselves Arab, they are Persian. I think counting Turkey as part of the region is legitimate, so does the US military. Turkey is considered one of our strongest allies in the Middle East. Edited June 12, 2010 by Mrs Mungo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heather in Neverland Posted June 13, 2010 Share Posted June 13, 2010 Gosh, I don't think so. Heater was pretty clear that we (not you, not being in America) sitting in our comfy chairs don't understand what it is like o live in a place where people kill for God (or their deranged conception of God). Uhhh...nope. Asta is dead on with my meaning. Of course we have the occasional nut job but notice that we look at them as NUT JOBS and not HEROES and THAT is the difference. First, she lives in Malaysia, where (as in most of the Muslim world) there is a separation between religion and state. Yeah, right. Come check out how separate they are here. I believe you were one of those who warned me about it and guess what, you were right. Malays are required BY LAW to be muslim and forbidden to convert and a christian will be thrown in jail for evangelizing to them (and yes, I know people this has happened to). Our movies are censored for christian content and books we need to teach the bible classes at our school are not allowed inside the country. They literally have to be smuggled in. Sound separate to you?I am sure their "party line" says separation of church and state but that is FAR from what goes on here. Malaysia is not unique for having some nuts. Again, you call the nuts...over here they are called heroes and are in paradise right now with a bunch of virgins. Bill . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lovemyboys Posted June 13, 2010 Share Posted June 13, 2010 And that's why I don't make the big bucks in the front row at the White House. It's a risky job, one of those ones where you have to consider the hefty salary hazard pay. :D And why not Pat? Because MSNBC decided the heat helps ratings, and Thomas' employer decided it wouldn't. Let's not pretend that either of them retiring would be about actual concern for the feelings of a group of people. It's about damage control, it's about who will take the public outcry and spin it in which direction. There's no comparison, as they are different "news" organizations. As a side note: I find it intersting that the article's author chose to focus on Buchanan's comments about African-Americans. Buchanan has had just as much problem with his comments about Jews. You'd think that that would have made a better comparison. It's almost like he was trying to prove a different point. ;) He's an opinion columnist/commentator, she was theoretically a reporter. Not defending Buchanan because I'm not a fan of his, but he does have a different job title. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kate in Arabia Posted June 13, 2010 Share Posted June 13, 2010 This thread has gone from centering on a specific political event to generalizing about broader groups of people (first Arabs, and now Muslims). Is it not possible to stick to the original topic? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UmA Posted June 13, 2010 Share Posted June 13, 2010 Just wondering if anyone here is familiar with Hebrew. Does the top line say shalom? Looks like a cool linguistic graphic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mrs Mungo Posted June 13, 2010 Share Posted June 13, 2010 Just wondering if anyone here is familiar with Hebrew. Does the top line say shalom? Looks like a cool linguistic graphic They are highly stylized alphabets but they both say peace (shalom/salaam). The top one is Hebrew and the middle one is Arabic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asta Posted June 13, 2010 Share Posted June 13, 2010 They are highly stylized alphabets but they both say peace (shalom/salaam). The top one is Hebrew and the middle one is Arabic. It is WAY cool that you know that, Mrs Mungo. a Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asta Posted June 13, 2010 Share Posted June 13, 2010 This thread has gone from centering on a specific political event to generalizing about broader groups of people (first Arabs, and now Muslims). Is it not possible to stick to the original topic? Seeing that the incident was a Turkish vessel financed by Hamas* attempting to break an Israeli blockade... I think it has stayed pretty well on topic. a *allegedly - very hard to prove financing from most terror organizations, especially when they have a legitimate arm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mrs Mungo Posted June 13, 2010 Share Posted June 13, 2010 It is WAY cool that you know that, Mrs Mungo. a Google is my friend. :tongue_smilie::lol: Thanks to: http://www.shalom-peace.com/ and http://www.arabic-course.com/arabic-alphabet.html (scroll down a bit or ctrl+f for salaam) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kate in Arabia Posted June 13, 2010 Share Posted June 13, 2010 (edited) Nevermind. I should never read or participate in these threads. Sorry. Edited June 13, 2010 by Kate in Arabia Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts