|
The issue of the President of Iran and indeed Hamas calling for the destruction of Israel is an important one to examine. Especially since so much feeling on the wider middle east conflict seems to have originated on these statements.
Let's start with President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran. The following Wiki article provides an interesting context: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad_and_Israel
"Wiped off the map" or "Vanish from the pages of time" translation
Many news sources repeated the Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting statement as though Ahmadinejad had demanded that "Israel must be wiped off the map",[5][6] an English idiom which means to "cause a place to stop existing",[7] or to "obliterate totally",[8] or "destroy completely".[9] News sources currently continue to repeat this claim. [10]
Ahmadinejad's phrase was " بايد از صفحه روزگار محو شود " according to the text published on the President's Office's website, and was a quote of Ayatollah Khomeini.[11]
The translation presented by IRNA has been challenged by Arash Norouzi, who says the statement "wiped off the map" was never made and that Ahmadinejad did not refer to the nation or land mass of Israel, but to the "regime occupying Jerusalem". In his own words:
So what did Ahmadinejad actually say? To quote his exact words in Persian: "Imam ghoft een rezhim-e ishghalgar-e qods bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad."
That passage will mean nothing to most people, but one word might ring a bell: rezhim-e. It is the word "Regime", pronounced just like the English word with an extra "eh" sound at the end. Ahmadinejad did not refer to Israel the country or Israel the land mass, but the Israeli regime. This is a vastly significant distinction, as one cannot wipe a regime off the map. Ahmadinejad does not even refer to Israel by name, he instead uses the specific phrase "rezhim-e ishghalgar-e qods" (regime occupying Jerusalem).
So this raises the question.. what exactly did he want "wiped from the map"? The answer is: nothing. That's because the word "map" was never used. The Persian word for map, "nagsheh", is not contained anywhere in his original Persian quote, or, for that matter, anywhere in his entire speech. Nor was the western phrase "wipe out" ever said. Yet we are led to believe that Iran's President threatened to "wipe Israel off the map", despite never having uttered the words "map", "wipe out" or even "Israel"
The full quote translated directly to English: "The Imam said this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time".
I think it's safe to gather that what he's talking about is regime change as opposed to genocide or ethnic cleansing. When taken in the context of many major first world countries casually discussing and implementing regime change, it doesn't seem to be as outlying a position as one might initially consider.
Next, the issue of the leaders of Hamas:
As recently as 31st of May 2010 the leader of Hamas made the following offer to Israel:
http://www.alarabiya.net/articles/2010/05/31/110041.html
Hamas leader Khaled Meshaal has stated explicitly that the Palestinian Islamist group will end its armed struggle against Israel if the Jewish state withdraws from Palestinian land it occupied in the 1967 Middle East War.
Hamas, which refuses to recognize Israel, has long maintained that it will enter into a long-term truce if Israel pulls out of the West Bank and East Jerusalem and agrees to a right of return for millions of Palestinian refugees.
The suggestion that the price of peace would be that Israel limits itself to territory that IT AGREED to in the 1967 UN accord does not seem an unreasonable one. However, Israel has rejected this offer on three occasions now. While one might argue that Hamas cannot be trusted for peace, nations throuhgout history have learned that sometimes such compromises are necessary.
For example: In the north of Ireland, in exchange for peace the IRA stopped it's violent activities and as a result there was an amnesty for many convicted IRA fighters (as well as Unionist fighters). In addition there was power sharing with members that had openly been part of a terrorist group.
In Iraq the US's initial strategy of marginalising members of Saddam's Bath strategy resulted in ever spiralling civil war. In the end they were forced to deal with those that had been necessarily branded Pariahs.
If Israel is serious about peace, it will probably have to consider the above and countless other such examples littered throughout history.
The key observation in all this, however seems to be the interesting paradox that the supposedly anti-Israeli mainstream western media has not employed the same energy in clarifying the statement by the President of Iran as it did in reporting the initial (arguably) mistranslation.
And while we often hear of Hamas's threats against Israel, we don't seem to receive the same level of reportage on their offers of peace.
|
On June 08 2010 06:31 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2010 05:44 SirGlinG wrote:On June 08 2010 05 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting 08 2010 05 end_of_the_skype_highlighting begin_of_the_skype_highlighting 08 2010 05 end_of_the_skype_highlighting begin_of_the_skype_highlighting 08 2010 05 end_of_the_skype_highlighting:10 xDaunt wrote:On June 08 2010 04:55 L wrote:On June 08 2010 04:29 xDaunt wrote:On June 08 2010 04:17 Masamune wrote:On June 08 2010 03:44 xDaunt wrote:On June 08 2010 03:38 ArKaDo wrote:On June 08 2010 03:11 xDaunt wrote:On June 08 2010 02:11 ArKaDo wrote:[quote] Israel created the antagonism against them themselves. They only respond with violence and barbary, that's why everybody hates them in the arabic world. There is no bureaucratie in islamic country unlike in our country. It's more a patchwork of tribes and not one big state and one big religion. So, in these country, people need to look out for themselves, and can't rely on police or army... That's why the talion law is so important in arabic's country (an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth), your honor is the only way to defend yourself. Israeli sucked up big time since the beginning in 1948 were they used, intentionnaly or not, massacre to push the arabic country to war and declare their independance. See for exemple the Deir Yassin massacre: http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massacre_de_Deir_Yassin No one's going to disagree that Israel brought much of the hatred upon itself. However, what rational person is going to stand idly by as people threaten to destroy him when the people making those threats are actually taking steps towards that end? That's the point that you and a lot of people are missing. Well, who said they will destroy Israel? Iran never said that, they said that Israel's regime could not last, which is true by the way (just look at the number of arabic people in Israel and how they are considered in the constitution). Even Hamas proposed to accept Israel some times ago. What rock are you living under? How in the world have you missed all of the threats against Israel's very existence? Ever heard of a guy from Iran named Ahmadinejad? Neither Hamas nor Hezbollah accept Israel's existence. Actually, the irony here is that the rock you're living under could be appropriately termed the "pro-Israel American media". There's nothing particularly pro-Israeli about my point. If other countries and groups actively, openly, and repeatedly threaten Israel's existence, no one can reasonably expect Israel to just stand idly by. I wouldn't fault any nation for defending itself from perceived foreign aggression, whether it be Taiwan, North Korea, or (*gasp*) Israel. What kind of dream world are you people living in? Listen to the Chomsky video. He has a nice differentiation between defending one's self and using force to defend one's self. His point is nice in an academic sense, but it's ludicrous in the larger, real world of global power politics. Rational state actors do all that they can to further their interests to the fullest extent of their power. The morality of whatever action is taken is, in and of itself, irrelevant. It's only relevant to the extent that the morality or immorality of a given action strengthens or weakens the state's power and its ability to further its interests. I prefer listening to a professor understanding both sides in a cause and giving ideas for solving problems than someone who takes the greed for wealth, earth and power to be a universal unstoppable force. Should the weak and poor respect and do nothing against social injustice caused by the upper classes and political decisions because of the "universal" greed in some politicians? Should we all give up our hopes of a just world? If we did the society would look exactly like what satanists want. Perhaps the question is irrelevant to you. You don't live in Gaza, so why bother? Well for one thing you have entered this discussion and seem to have something to say about the situation. Your'e also a human being, therefore you most probably have what is called empathy and then you probably don't want people to suffer. You've heard of another view on the gaza situation than what you use right now. Of course it might hurt to care about people suffering instead of saying "greed is unstoppable" and not give it another thought. But is that what should control our decisions on such topics? You can call this philosofical nonsense but you still have to answer the question now that you've read it so please do.( by "have to" I mean to yourself, not here) There's nothing balanced about what Chomsky says in the video. His solution to the Middle East is for the US to stop supporting Israel and for Israel to unilaterally withdraw from the West Bank and other settlements. How exactly is that going to placate the millions of pissed off Palestinians and other Arabs that won't tolerate Israel's very existence? He didn't even address the Palestinian side of the equation. Also, don't mistake my argument for a lack of empathy for the Palestinians. I guarantee you that I've been more impacted by Israel's establishment and expansion that most anyone else posting in this thread. My family is Lebanese and was displaced by Israel. I understand better than most what Israel has done since its establishment and how poorly it treats non-Jewish residents. In fact, this is why I don't think that a two-state solution is possible. Nevertheless, I can still see and understand Israel's point of view. They've been under threat since the founding of Israel. They've been attacked by other countries on three different occasions. Beyond that, Jews in general have been victimized for thousands of years. From Egypt, to Rome, to Spain, to other European countries, the Jews have had a history of raw deals. So when other states and groups actively preach and advocate the destruction of Israel, I don't really blame them for being hyper-aggressive in their defense. Should they have boarded that Gazan flotilla? Absolutely. Did they screw up when doing it? Definitely.
If you were a young man living in Gaza or the West Bank, what do you think your attitude toward Israel should be?
Chomsky argues that whether the "peace process" is in motion or stagnant, Israel has always had an offensive defense. Life inside Palestine is like life in a prison, so it is no wonder that Hamas has such popular backing; retaliation is a natural reaction to violence, and past non-violent internal movements are widely seen to have been met by no less callousness. The facts show that Israel is the oppressor in this conflict, do you disagree?
So again, what do you think is a rational outlook for someone living in Palestine?
|
And I'll just add that when people affirm Israel's right to defense, this should not be misinterpreted as a license to enslave, bombard, blockade, or usurp.
Very often people make this statement when talking about an illegal or immoral action. The discussion is biased by these assumptions. People need to get their facts straight: defense is not an excuse for these crimes.
|
On June 08 2010 06:51 mmp wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2010 06:31 xDaunt wrote:On June 08 2010 05:44 SirGlinG wrote:On June 08 2010 05 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting 08 2010 05 end_of_the_skype_highlighting begin_of_the_skype_highlighting 08 2010 05 end_of_the_skype_highlighting begin_of_the_skype_highlighting 08 2010 05 end_of_the_skype_highlighting:10 xDaunt wrote:On June 08 2010 04:55 L wrote:On June 08 2010 04:29 xDaunt wrote:On June 08 2010 04:17 Masamune wrote:On June 08 2010 03:44 xDaunt wrote:On June 08 2010 03:38 ArKaDo wrote:On June 08 2010 03:11 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
No one's going to disagree that Israel brought much of the hatred upon itself. However, what rational person is going to stand idly by as people threaten to destroy him when the people making those threats are actually taking steps towards that end? That's the point that you and a lot of people are missing. Well, who said they will destroy Israel? Iran never said that, they said that Israel's regime could not last, which is true by the way (just look at the number of arabic people in Israel and how they are considered in the constitution). Even Hamas proposed to accept Israel some times ago. What rock are you living under? How in the world have you missed all of the threats against Israel's very existence? Ever heard of a guy from Iran named Ahmadinejad? Neither Hamas nor Hezbollah accept Israel's existence. Actually, the irony here is that the rock you're living under could be appropriately termed the "pro-Israel American media". There's nothing particularly pro-Israeli about my point. If other countries and groups actively, openly, and repeatedly threaten Israel's existence, no one can reasonably expect Israel to just stand idly by. I wouldn't fault any nation for defending itself from perceived foreign aggression, whether it be Taiwan, North Korea, or (*gasp*) Israel. What kind of dream world are you people living in? Listen to the Chomsky video. He has a nice differentiation between defending one's self and using force to defend one's self. His point is nice in an academic sense, but it's ludicrous in the larger, real world of global power politics. Rational state actors do all that they can to further their interests to the fullest extent of their power. The morality of whatever action is taken is, in and of itself, irrelevant. It's only relevant to the extent that the morality or immorality of a given action strengthens or weakens the state's power and its ability to further its interests. I prefer listening to a professor understanding both sides in a cause and giving ideas for solving problems than someone who takes the greed for wealth, earth and power to be a universal unstoppable force. Should the weak and poor respect and do nothing against social injustice caused by the upper classes and political decisions because of the "universal" greed in some politicians? Should we all give up our hopes of a just world? If we did the society would look exactly like what satanists want. Perhaps the question is irrelevant to you. You don't live in Gaza, so why bother? Well for one thing you have entered this discussion and seem to have something to say about the situation. Your'e also a human being, therefore you most probably have what is called empathy and then you probably don't want people to suffer. You've heard of another view on the gaza situation than what you use right now. Of course it might hurt to care about people suffering instead of saying "greed is unstoppable" and not give it another thought. But is that what should control our decisions on such topics? You can call this philosofical nonsense but you still have to answer the question now that you've read it so please do.( by "have to" I mean to yourself, not here) There's nothing balanced about what Chomsky says in the video. His solution to the Middle East is for the US to stop supporting Israel and for Israel to unilaterally withdraw from the West Bank and other settlements. How exactly is that going to placate the millions of pissed off Palestinians and other Arabs that won't tolerate Israel's very existence? He didn't even address the Palestinian side of the equation. Also, don't mistake my argument for a lack of empathy for the Palestinians. I guarantee you that I've been more impacted by Israel's establishment and expansion that most anyone else posting in this thread. My family is Lebanese and was displaced by Israel. I understand better than most what Israel has done since its establishment and how poorly it treats non-Jewish residents. In fact, this is why I don't think that a two-state solution is possible. Nevertheless, I can still see and understand Israel's point of view. They've been under threat since the founding of Israel. They've been attacked by other countries on three different occasions. Beyond that, Jews in general have been victimized for thousands of years. From Egypt, to Rome, to Spain, to other European countries, the Jews have had a history of raw deals. So when other states and groups actively preach and advocate the destruction of Israel, I don't really blame them for being hyper-aggressive in their defense. Should they have boarded that Gazan flotilla? Absolutely. Did they screw up when doing it? Definitely. If you were a young man living in Gaza or the West Bank, what do you think your attitude toward Israel should be? Chomsky argues that whether the "peace process" is in motion or stagnant, Israel has always had an offensive defense. Life inside Palestine is like life in a prison, so it is no wonder that Hamas has such popular backing; retaliation is a natural reaction to violence, and past non-violent internal movements are widely seen to have been met by no less callousness. The facts show that Israel is the oppressor in this conflict, do you disagree? So again, what do you think is a rational outlook for someone living in Palestine?
Do I agree? Yes and no. On the one hand, Israel has treated Palestinians like dirt within Israel. On the other hand, the Palestinians have yet to show any inclination that they'd accept and honor a two-state solution. If they were willing to accept and honor a two-state solution, they wouldn't fire rockets at Israeli towns. Do I blame the Palestinians for being angry at Israel? Nope.They should be angry. However, shooting rockets at Israeli civilians or engaging in suicide bombing attacks will not solve anything.
|
On June 08 2010 07:05 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2010 06:51 mmp wrote:On June 08 2010 06:31 xDaunt wrote:On June 08 2010 05:44 SirGlinG wrote:On June 08 2010 05 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting 08 2010 05 end_of_the_skype_highlighting begin_of_the_skype_highlighting 08 2010 05 end_of_the_skype_highlighting begin_of_the_skype_highlighting 08 2010 05 end_of_the_skype_highlighting:10 xDaunt wrote:On June 08 2010 04:55 L wrote:On June 08 2010 04:29 xDaunt wrote:On June 08 2010 04:17 Masamune wrote:On June 08 2010 03:44 xDaunt wrote:On June 08 2010 03:38 ArKaDo wrote:
[quote]
Well, who said they will destroy Israel?
Iran never said that, they said that Israel's regime could not last, which is true by the way (just look at the number of arabic people in Israel and how they are considered in the constitution).
Even Hamas proposed to accept Israel some times ago. What rock are you living under? How in the world have you missed all of the threats against Israel's very existence? Ever heard of a guy from Iran named Ahmadinejad? Neither Hamas nor Hezbollah accept Israel's existence. Actually, the irony here is that the rock you're living under could be appropriately termed the "pro-Israel American media". There's nothing particularly pro-Israeli about my point. If other countries and groups actively, openly, and repeatedly threaten Israel's existence, no one can reasonably expect Israel to just stand idly by. I wouldn't fault any nation for defending itself from perceived foreign aggression, whether it be Taiwan, North Korea, or (*gasp*) Israel. What kind of dream world are you people living in? Listen to the Chomsky video. He has a nice differentiation between defending one's self and using force to defend one's self. His point is nice in an academic sense, but it's ludicrous in the larger, real world of global power politics. Rational state actors do all that they can to further their interests to the fullest extent of their power. The morality of whatever action is taken is, in and of itself, irrelevant. It's only relevant to the extent that the morality or immorality of a given action strengthens or weakens the state's power and its ability to further its interests. I prefer listening to a professor understanding both sides in a cause and giving ideas for solving problems than someone who takes the greed for wealth, earth and power to be a universal unstoppable force. Should the weak and poor respect and do nothing against social injustice caused by the upper classes and political decisions because of the "universal" greed in some politicians? Should we all give up our hopes of a just world? If we did the society would look exactly like what satanists want. Perhaps the question is irrelevant to you. You don't live in Gaza, so why bother? Well for one thing you have entered this discussion and seem to have something to say about the situation. Your'e also a human being, therefore you most probably have what is called empathy and then you probably don't want people to suffer. You've heard of another view on the gaza situation than what you use right now. Of course it might hurt to care about people suffering instead of saying "greed is unstoppable" and not give it another thought. But is that what should control our decisions on such topics? You can call this philosofical nonsense but you still have to answer the question now that you've read it so please do.( by "have to" I mean to yourself, not here) There's nothing balanced about what Chomsky says in the video. His solution to the Middle East is for the US to stop supporting Israel and for Israel to unilaterally withdraw from the West Bank and other settlements. How exactly is that going to placate the millions of pissed off Palestinians and other Arabs that won't tolerate Israel's very existence? He didn't even address the Palestinian side of the equation. Also, don't mistake my argument for a lack of empathy for the Palestinians. I guarantee you that I've been more impacted by Israel's establishment and expansion that most anyone else posting in this thread. My family is Lebanese and was displaced by Israel. I understand better than most what Israel has done since its establishment and how poorly it treats non-Jewish residents. In fact, this is why I don't think that a two-state solution is possible. Nevertheless, I can still see and understand Israel's point of view. They've been under threat since the founding of Israel. They've been attacked by other countries on three different occasions. Beyond that, Jews in general have been victimized for thousands of years. From Egypt, to Rome, to Spain, to other European countries, the Jews have had a history of raw deals. So when other states and groups actively preach and advocate the destruction of Israel, I don't really blame them for being hyper-aggressive in their defense. Should they have boarded that Gazan flotilla? Absolutely. Did they screw up when doing it? Definitely. If you were a young man living in Gaza or the West Bank, what do you think your attitude toward Israel should be? Chomsky argues that whether the "peace process" is in motion or stagnant, Israel has always had an offensive defense. Life inside Palestine is like life in a prison, so it is no wonder that Hamas has such popular backing; retaliation is a natural reaction to violence, and past non-violent internal movements are widely seen to have been met by no less callousness. The facts show that Israel is the oppressor in this conflict, do you disagree? So again, what do you think is a rational outlook for someone living in Palestine? Do I agree? Yes and no. On the one hand, Israel has treated Palestinians like dirt within Israel. On the other hand, the Palestinians have yet to show any inclination that they'd accept and honor a two-state solution. If they were willing to accept and honor a two-state solution, they wouldn't fire rockets at Israeli towns. Do I blame the Palestinians for being angry at Israel? Nope.They should be angry. However, shooting rockets at Israeli civilians or engaging in suicide bombing attacks will not solve anything.
So your belief is that Palestinians should renounce violence, accept the two-state solution - and all will be well?
|
These "aid" flotillas weren't intended to bring aid to Gaza. They were intended to break the Israeli blockade, thus opening the floodgates to arming Israel's enemies in Gaza. Anyone remember the Iranian ships that were caught with hundreds (thousands?) of weapons on board?
Also note the fact that the flotillas were armed to the teeth with melee weapons, molotov cocktails, slingshots, etc, and there is one video of ship passengers beating Israeli soldiers to the ground with metal bars and wooden planks as the IDF tried to board from a helicopter. Also, these "activists" weren't exactly college professors, lawyers, or even students... They come from the same demographic that suicide bombers do. They're using the international community's perceived positive connotations of the words "aid" and "activist" to fool us.
Once again, the _stated_ intent of the "aid flotilla" was to break the Israeli blockade and further weaken Israel's ability to defend itself.
A huge volume of aid is already sent to Gaza through Israel and Egypt daily. The IDF asked the flotilla to dock at Ashdod, where their aid could be checked before going on to Gaza. The response was "go back to Auschwitz".
|
On June 08 2010 07:07 mmp wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2010 07:05 xDaunt wrote:On June 08 2010 06:51 mmp wrote:On June 08 2010 06:31 xDaunt wrote:On June 08 2010 05:44 SirGlinG wrote:On June 08 2010 05 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting 08 2010 05 end_of_the_skype_highlighting begin_of_the_skype_highlighting 08 2010 05 end_of_the_skype_highlighting begin_of_the_skype_highlighting 08 2010 05 end_of_the_skype_highlighting:10 xDaunt wrote:On June 08 2010 04:55 L wrote:On June 08 2010 04:29 xDaunt wrote:On June 08 2010 04:17 Masamune wrote:On June 08 2010 03:44 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
What rock are you living under? How in the world have you missed all of the threats against Israel's very existence? Ever heard of a guy from Iran named Ahmadinejad? Neither Hamas nor Hezbollah accept Israel's existence. Actually, the irony here is that the rock you're living under could be appropriately termed the "pro-Israel American media". There's nothing particularly pro-Israeli about my point. If other countries and groups actively, openly, and repeatedly threaten Israel's existence, no one can reasonably expect Israel to just stand idly by. I wouldn't fault any nation for defending itself from perceived foreign aggression, whether it be Taiwan, North Korea, or (*gasp*) Israel. What kind of dream world are you people living in? Listen to the Chomsky video. He has a nice differentiation between defending one's self and using force to defend one's self. His point is nice in an academic sense, but it's ludicrous in the larger, real world of global power politics. Rational state actors do all that they can to further their interests to the fullest extent of their power. The morality of whatever action is taken is, in and of itself, irrelevant. It's only relevant to the extent that the morality or immorality of a given action strengthens or weakens the state's power and its ability to further its interests. I prefer listening to a professor understanding both sides in a cause and giving ideas for solving problems than someone who takes the greed for wealth, earth and power to be a universal unstoppable force. Should the weak and poor respect and do nothing against social injustice caused by the upper classes and political decisions because of the "universal" greed in some politicians? Should we all give up our hopes of a just world? If we did the society would look exactly like what satanists want. Perhaps the question is irrelevant to you. You don't live in Gaza, so why bother? Well for one thing you have entered this discussion and seem to have something to say about the situation. Your'e also a human being, therefore you most probably have what is called empathy and then you probably don't want people to suffer. You've heard of another view on the gaza situation than what you use right now. Of course it might hurt to care about people suffering instead of saying "greed is unstoppable" and not give it another thought. But is that what should control our decisions on such topics? You can call this philosofical nonsense but you still have to answer the question now that you've read it so please do.( by "have to" I mean to yourself, not here) There's nothing balanced about what Chomsky says in the video. His solution to the Middle East is for the US to stop supporting Israel and for Israel to unilaterally withdraw from the West Bank and other settlements. How exactly is that going to placate the millions of pissed off Palestinians and other Arabs that won't tolerate Israel's very existence? He didn't even address the Palestinian side of the equation. Also, don't mistake my argument for a lack of empathy for the Palestinians. I guarantee you that I've been more impacted by Israel's establishment and expansion that most anyone else posting in this thread. My family is Lebanese and was displaced by Israel. I understand better than most what Israel has done since its establishment and how poorly it treats non-Jewish residents. In fact, this is why I don't think that a two-state solution is possible. Nevertheless, I can still see and understand Israel's point of view. They've been under threat since the founding of Israel. They've been attacked by other countries on three different occasions. Beyond that, Jews in general have been victimized for thousands of years. From Egypt, to Rome, to Spain, to other European countries, the Jews have had a history of raw deals. So when other states and groups actively preach and advocate the destruction of Israel, I don't really blame them for being hyper-aggressive in their defense. Should they have boarded that Gazan flotilla? Absolutely. Did they screw up when doing it? Definitely. If you were a young man living in Gaza or the West Bank, what do you think your attitude toward Israel should be? Chomsky argues that whether the "peace process" is in motion or stagnant, Israel has always had an offensive defense. Life inside Palestine is like life in a prison, so it is no wonder that Hamas has such popular backing; retaliation is a natural reaction to violence, and past non-violent internal movements are widely seen to have been met by no less callousness. The facts show that Israel is the oppressor in this conflict, do you disagree? So again, what do you think is a rational outlook for someone living in Palestine? Do I agree? Yes and no. On the one hand, Israel has treated Palestinians like dirt within Israel. On the other hand, the Palestinians have yet to show any inclination that they'd accept and honor a two-state solution. If they were willing to accept and honor a two-state solution, they wouldn't fire rockets at Israeli towns. Do I blame the Palestinians for being angry at Israel? Nope.They should be angry. However, shooting rockets at Israeli civilians or engaging in suicide bombing attacks will not solve anything. So your belief is that Palestinians should renounce violence, accept the two-state solution - and all will be well?
Yep. There will never be peace between Israel and Palestinians unless the Palestinians accept Israel's existence. Right now, I don't think that they do. As long as various groups bomb or fire rockets at Israelis, there won't be peace. Will Israel have to give something up in exchange? Certainly.
Do I think that this will ever happen? No. I don't think that the Palestinians will ever accept Israel. Too many countries, entities, and other groups want to see Israel destroyed. Realistically, either Israel or the Palestinians will have to be wiped our for there to be peace. My bet is that Israel will be the one to go.
|
On June 08 2010 07 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting 08 2010 07 end_of_the_skype_highlighting begin_of_the_skype_highlighting 08 2010 07 end_of_the_skype_highlighting begin_of_the_skype_highlighting 08 2010 07 end_of_the_skype_highlighting:17 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2010 07:07 mmp wrote:On June 08 2010 07:05 xDaunt wrote:On June 08 2010 06:51 mmp wrote:On June 08 2010 06:31 xDaunt wrote:On June 08 2010 05:44 SirGlinG wrote:On June 08 2010 05 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting 08 2010 05 end_of_the_skype_highlighting begin_of_the_skype_highlighting 08 2010 05 end_of_the_skype_highlighting begin_of_the_skype_highlighting 08 2010 05 end_of_the_skype_highlighting:10 xDaunt wrote:On June 08 2010 04:55 L wrote:On June 08 2010 04:29 xDaunt wrote:On June 08 2010 04:17 Masamune wrote:
[quote]
Actually, the irony here is that the rock you're living under could be appropriately termed the "pro-Israel American media". There's nothing particularly pro-Israeli about my point. If other countries and groups actively, openly, and repeatedly threaten Israel's existence, no one can reasonably expect Israel to just stand idly by. I wouldn't fault any nation for defending itself from perceived foreign aggression, whether it be Taiwan, North Korea, or (*gasp*) Israel. What kind of dream world are you people living in? Listen to the Chomsky video. He has a nice differentiation between defending one's self and using force to defend one's self. His point is nice in an academic sense, but it's ludicrous in the larger, real world of global power politics. Rational state actors do all that they can to further their interests to the fullest extent of their power. The morality of whatever action is taken is, in and of itself, irrelevant. It's only relevant to the extent that the morality or immorality of a given action strengthens or weakens the state's power and its ability to further its interests. I prefer listening to a professor understanding both sides in a cause and giving ideas for solving problems than someone who takes the greed for wealth, earth and power to be a universal unstoppable force. Should the weak and poor respect and do nothing against social injustice caused by the upper classes and political decisions because of the "universal" greed in some politicians? Should we all give up our hopes of a just world? If we did the society would look exactly like what satanists want. Perhaps the question is irrelevant to you. You don't live in Gaza, so why bother? Well for one thing you have entered this discussion and seem to have something to say about the situation. Your'e also a human being, therefore you most probably have what is called empathy and then you probably don't want people to suffer. You've heard of another view on the gaza situation than what you use right now. Of course it might hurt to care about people suffering instead of saying "greed is unstoppable" and not give it another thought. But is that what should control our decisions on such topics? You can call this philosofical nonsense but you still have to answer the question now that you've read it so please do.( by "have to" I mean to yourself, not here) There's nothing balanced about what Chomsky says in the video. His solution to the Middle East is for the US to stop supporting Israel and for Israel to unilaterally withdraw from the West Bank and other settlements. How exactly is that going to placate the millions of pissed off Palestinians and other Arabs that won't tolerate Israel's very existence? He didn't even address the Palestinian side of the equation. Also, don't mistake my argument for a lack of empathy for the Palestinians. I guarantee you that I've been more impacted by Israel's establishment and expansion that most anyone else posting in this thread. My family is Lebanese and was displaced by Israel. I understand better than most what Israel has done since its establishment and how poorly it treats non-Jewish residents. In fact, this is why I don't think that a two-state solution is possible. Nevertheless, I can still see and understand Israel's point of view. They've been under threat since the founding of Israel. They've been attacked by other countries on three different occasions. Beyond that, Jews in general have been victimized for thousands of years. From Egypt, to Rome, to Spain, to other European countries, the Jews have had a history of raw deals. So when other states and groups actively preach and advocate the destruction of Israel, I don't really blame them for being hyper-aggressive in their defense. Should they have boarded that Gazan flotilla? Absolutely. Did they screw up when doing it? Definitely. If you were a young man living in Gaza or the West Bank, what do you think your attitude toward Israel should be? Chomsky argues that whether the "peace process" is in motion or stagnant, Israel has always had an offensive defense. Life inside Palestine is like life in a prison, so it is no wonder that Hamas has such popular backing; retaliation is a natural reaction to violence, and past non-violent internal movements are widely seen to have been met by no less callousness. The facts show that Israel is the oppressor in this conflict, do you disagree? So again, what do you think is a rational outlook for someone living in Palestine? Do I agree? Yes and no. On the one hand, Israel has treated Palestinians like dirt within Israel. On the other hand, the Palestinians have yet to show any inclination that they'd accept and honor a two-state solution. If they were willing to accept and honor a two-state solution, they wouldn't fire rockets at Israeli towns. Do I blame the Palestinians for being angry at Israel? Nope.They should be angry. However, shooting rockets at Israeli civilians or engaging in suicide bombing attacks will not solve anything. So your belief is that Palestinians should renounce violence, accept the two-state solution - and all will be well? Yep. There will never be peace between Israel and Palestinians unless the Palestinians accept Israel's existence. Right now, I don't think that they do. As long as various groups bomb or fire rockets at Israelis, there won't be peace. Will Israel have to give something up in exchange? Certainly. Do I think that this will ever happen? No. I don't think that the Palestinians will ever accept Israel. Too many countries, entities, and other groups want to see Israel destroyed. Realistically, either Israel or the Palestinians will have to be wiped our for there to be peace. My bet is that Israel will be the one to go.
So your belief is that Israel should renounce violence, accept the two-state solution - and all will be well?
|
On June 08 2010 07:17 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2010 07:07 mmp wrote:On June 08 2010 07:05 xDaunt wrote:On June 08 2010 06:51 mmp wrote:On June 08 2010 06:31 xDaunt wrote:On June 08 2010 05:44 SirGlinG wrote:On June 08 2010 05 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting 08 2010 05 end_of_the_skype_highlighting begin_of_the_skype_highlighting 08 2010 05 end_of_the_skype_highlighting begin_of_the_skype_highlighting 08 2010 05 end_of_the_skype_highlighting:10 xDaunt wrote:On June 08 2010 04:55 L wrote:On June 08 2010 04:29 xDaunt wrote:On June 08 2010 04:17 Masamune wrote:
[quote]
Actually, the irony here is that the rock you're living under could be appropriately termed the "pro-Israel American media". There's nothing particularly pro-Israeli about my point. If other countries and groups actively, openly, and repeatedly threaten Israel's existence, no one can reasonably expect Israel to just stand idly by. I wouldn't fault any nation for defending itself from perceived foreign aggression, whether it be Taiwan, North Korea, or (*gasp*) Israel. What kind of dream world are you people living in? Listen to the Chomsky video. He has a nice differentiation between defending one's self and using force to defend one's self. His point is nice in an academic sense, but it's ludicrous in the larger, real world of global power politics. Rational state actors do all that they can to further their interests to the fullest extent of their power. The morality of whatever action is taken is, in and of itself, irrelevant. It's only relevant to the extent that the morality or immorality of a given action strengthens or weakens the state's power and its ability to further its interests. I prefer listening to a professor understanding both sides in a cause and giving ideas for solving problems than someone who takes the greed for wealth, earth and power to be a universal unstoppable force. Should the weak and poor respect and do nothing against social injustice caused by the upper classes and political decisions because of the "universal" greed in some politicians? Should we all give up our hopes of a just world? If we did the society would look exactly like what satanists want. Perhaps the question is irrelevant to you. You don't live in Gaza, so why bother? Well for one thing you have entered this discussion and seem to have something to say about the situation. Your'e also a human being, therefore you most probably have what is called empathy and then you probably don't want people to suffer. You've heard of another view on the gaza situation than what you use right now. Of course it might hurt to care about people suffering instead of saying "greed is unstoppable" and not give it another thought. But is that what should control our decisions on such topics? You can call this philosofical nonsense but you still have to answer the question now that you've read it so please do.( by "have to" I mean to yourself, not here) There's nothing balanced about what Chomsky says in the video. His solution to the Middle East is for the US to stop supporting Israel and for Israel to unilaterally withdraw from the West Bank and other settlements. How exactly is that going to placate the millions of pissed off Palestinians and other Arabs that won't tolerate Israel's very existence? He didn't even address the Palestinian side of the equation. Also, don't mistake my argument for a lack of empathy for the Palestinians. I guarantee you that I've been more impacted by Israel's establishment and expansion that most anyone else posting in this thread. My family is Lebanese and was displaced by Israel. I understand better than most what Israel has done since its establishment and how poorly it treats non-Jewish residents. In fact, this is why I don't think that a two-state solution is possible. Nevertheless, I can still see and understand Israel's point of view. They've been under threat since the founding of Israel. They've been attacked by other countries on three different occasions. Beyond that, Jews in general have been victimized for thousands of years. From Egypt, to Rome, to Spain, to other European countries, the Jews have had a history of raw deals. So when other states and groups actively preach and advocate the destruction of Israel, I don't really blame them for being hyper-aggressive in their defense. Should they have boarded that Gazan flotilla? Absolutely. Did they screw up when doing it? Definitely. If you were a young man living in Gaza or the West Bank, what do you think your attitude toward Israel should be? Chomsky argues that whether the "peace process" is in motion or stagnant, Israel has always had an offensive defense. Life inside Palestine is like life in a prison, so it is no wonder that Hamas has such popular backing; retaliation is a natural reaction to violence, and past non-violent internal movements are widely seen to have been met by no less callousness. The facts show that Israel is the oppressor in this conflict, do you disagree? So again, what do you think is a rational outlook for someone living in Palestine? Do I agree? Yes and no. On the one hand, Israel has treated Palestinians like dirt within Israel. On the other hand, the Palestinians have yet to show any inclination that they'd accept and honor a two-state solution. If they were willing to accept and honor a two-state solution, they wouldn't fire rockets at Israeli towns. Do I blame the Palestinians for being angry at Israel? Nope.They should be angry. However, shooting rockets at Israeli civilians or engaging in suicide bombing attacks will not solve anything. So your belief is that Palestinians should renounce violence, accept the two-state solution - and all will be well? Yep. There will never be peace between Israel and Palestinians unless the Palestinians accept Israel's existence. Right now, I don't think that they do. As long as various groups bomb or fire rockets at Israelis, there won't be peace. Will Israel have to give something up in exchange? Certainly. Do I think that this will ever happen? No. I don't think that the Palestinians will ever accept Israel. Too many countries, entities, and other groups want to see Israel destroyed. Realistically, either Israel or the Palestinians will have to be wiped our for there to be peace. My bet is that Israel will be the one to go.
That was a highly baited question, and you've gone farther off the deep end than necessary. Sure you don't want to reconsider?
|
On June 08 2010 07:23 SirGlinG wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2010 07 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting 08 2010 07 end_of_the_skype_highlighting begin_of_the_skype_highlighting 08 2010 07 end_of_the_skype_highlighting begin_of_the_skype_highlighting 08 2010 07 end_of_the_skype_highlighting:17 xDaunt wrote:On June 08 2010 07:07 mmp wrote:On June 08 2010 07:05 xDaunt wrote:On June 08 2010 06:51 mmp wrote:On June 08 2010 06:31 xDaunt wrote:On June 08 2010 05:44 SirGlinG wrote:On June 08 2010 05 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting 08 2010 05 end_of_the_skype_highlighting begin_of_the_skype_highlighting 08 2010 05 end_of_the_skype_highlighting begin_of_the_skype_highlighting 08 2010 05 end_of_the_skype_highlighting:10 xDaunt wrote:On June 08 2010 04:55 L wrote:On June 08 2010 04:29 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
There's nothing particularly pro-Israeli about my point. If other countries and groups actively, openly, and repeatedly threaten Israel's existence, no one can reasonably expect Israel to just stand idly by. I wouldn't fault any nation for defending itself from perceived foreign aggression, whether it be Taiwan, North Korea, or (*gasp*) Israel. What kind of dream world are you people living in? Listen to the Chomsky video. He has a nice differentiation between defending one's self and using force to defend one's self. His point is nice in an academic sense, but it's ludicrous in the larger, real world of global power politics. Rational state actors do all that they can to further their interests to the fullest extent of their power. The morality of whatever action is taken is, in and of itself, irrelevant. It's only relevant to the extent that the morality or immorality of a given action strengthens or weakens the state's power and its ability to further its interests. I prefer listening to a professor understanding both sides in a cause and giving ideas for solving problems than someone who takes the greed for wealth, earth and power to be a universal unstoppable force. Should the weak and poor respect and do nothing against social injustice caused by the upper classes and political decisions because of the "universal" greed in some politicians? Should we all give up our hopes of a just world? If we did the society would look exactly like what satanists want. Perhaps the question is irrelevant to you. You don't live in Gaza, so why bother? Well for one thing you have entered this discussion and seem to have something to say about the situation. Your'e also a human being, therefore you most probably have what is called empathy and then you probably don't want people to suffer. You've heard of another view on the gaza situation than what you use right now. Of course it might hurt to care about people suffering instead of saying "greed is unstoppable" and not give it another thought. But is that what should control our decisions on such topics? You can call this philosofical nonsense but you still have to answer the question now that you've read it so please do.( by "have to" I mean to yourself, not here) There's nothing balanced about what Chomsky says in the video. His solution to the Middle East is for the US to stop supporting Israel and for Israel to unilaterally withdraw from the West Bank and other settlements. How exactly is that going to placate the millions of pissed off Palestinians and other Arabs that won't tolerate Israel's very existence? He didn't even address the Palestinian side of the equation. Also, don't mistake my argument for a lack of empathy for the Palestinians. I guarantee you that I've been more impacted by Israel's establishment and expansion that most anyone else posting in this thread. My family is Lebanese and was displaced by Israel. I understand better than most what Israel has done since its establishment and how poorly it treats non-Jewish residents. In fact, this is why I don't think that a two-state solution is possible. Nevertheless, I can still see and understand Israel's point of view. They've been under threat since the founding of Israel. They've been attacked by other countries on three different occasions. Beyond that, Jews in general have been victimized for thousands of years. From Egypt, to Rome, to Spain, to other European countries, the Jews have had a history of raw deals. So when other states and groups actively preach and advocate the destruction of Israel, I don't really blame them for being hyper-aggressive in their defense. Should they have boarded that Gazan flotilla? Absolutely. Did they screw up when doing it? Definitely. If you were a young man living in Gaza or the West Bank, what do you think your attitude toward Israel should be? Chomsky argues that whether the "peace process" is in motion or stagnant, Israel has always had an offensive defense. Life inside Palestine is like life in a prison, so it is no wonder that Hamas has such popular backing; retaliation is a natural reaction to violence, and past non-violent internal movements are widely seen to have been met by no less callousness. The facts show that Israel is the oppressor in this conflict, do you disagree? So again, what do you think is a rational outlook for someone living in Palestine? Do I agree? Yes and no. On the one hand, Israel has treated Palestinians like dirt within Israel. On the other hand, the Palestinians have yet to show any inclination that they'd accept and honor a two-state solution. If they were willing to accept and honor a two-state solution, they wouldn't fire rockets at Israeli towns. Do I blame the Palestinians for being angry at Israel? Nope.They should be angry. However, shooting rockets at Israeli civilians or engaging in suicide bombing attacks will not solve anything. So your belief is that Palestinians should renounce violence, accept the two-state solution - and all will be well? Yep. There will never be peace between Israel and Palestinians unless the Palestinians accept Israel's existence. Right now, I don't think that they do. As long as various groups bomb or fire rockets at Israelis, there won't be peace. Will Israel have to give something up in exchange? Certainly. Do I think that this will ever happen? No. I don't think that the Palestinians will ever accept Israel. Too many countries, entities, and other groups want to see Israel destroyed. Realistically, either Israel or the Palestinians will have to be wiped our for there to be peace. My bet is that Israel will be the one to go. So your belief is that Israel should renounce violence, accept the two-state solution - and all will be well?
Not to point out the obvious, but both Israel and Palestine have to renounce violence and accept a two-state solution for there to be peace.
|
On June 08 2010 06:48 Klaz wrote:The issue of the President of Iran and indeed Hamas calling for the destruction of Israel is an important one to examine. Especially since so much feeling on the wider middle east conflict seems to have originated on these statements. Let's start with President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran. The following Wiki article provides an interesting context: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad_and_IsraelShow nested quote +"Wiped off the map" or "Vanish from the pages of time" translation
Many news sources repeated the Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting statement as though Ahmadinejad had demanded that "Israel must be wiped off the map",[5][6] an English idiom which means to "cause a place to stop existing",[7] or to "obliterate totally",[8] or "destroy completely".[9] News sources currently continue to repeat this claim. [10]
Ahmadinejad's phrase was " بايد از صفحه روزگار محو شود " according to the text published on the President's Office's website, and was a quote of Ayatollah Khomeini.[11]
The translation presented by IRNA has been challenged by Arash Norouzi, who says the statement "wiped off the map" was never made and that Ahmadinejad did not refer to the nation or land mass of Israel, but to the "regime occupying Jerusalem". In his own words:
So what did Ahmadinejad actually say? To quote his exact words in Persian: "Imam ghoft een rezhim-e ishghalgar-e qods bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad."
That passage will mean nothing to most people, but one word might ring a bell: rezhim-e. It is the word "Regime", pronounced just like the English word with an extra "eh" sound at the end. Ahmadinejad did not refer to Israel the country or Israel the land mass, but the Israeli regime. This is a vastly significant distinction, as one cannot wipe a regime off the map. Ahmadinejad does not even refer to Israel by name, he instead uses the specific phrase "rezhim-e ishghalgar-e qods" (regime occupying Jerusalem).
So this raises the question.. what exactly did he want "wiped from the map"? The answer is: nothing. That's because the word "map" was never used. The Persian word for map, "nagsheh", is not contained anywhere in his original Persian quote, or, for that matter, anywhere in his entire speech. Nor was the western phrase "wipe out" ever said. Yet we are led to believe that Iran's President threatened to "wipe Israel off the map", despite never having uttered the words "map", "wipe out" or even "Israel"
The full quote translated directly to English: "The Imam said this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time". I think it's safe to gather that what he's talking about is regime change as opposed to genocide or ethnic cleansing. When taken in the context of many major first world countries casually discussing and implementing regime change, it doesn't seem to be as outlying a position as one might initially consider.
Later on in the wiki article:
But translators in Tehran who work for the president's office and the foreign ministry disagree with them. All official translations of Mr. Ahmadinejad's statement, including a description of it on his website, refer to wiping Israel away. Sohrab Mahdavi, one of Iran’s most prominent translators, and Siamak Namazi, managing director of a Tehran consulting firm, who is bilingual, both say “wipe off” or “wipe away” is more accurate than "vanish" because the Persian verb is active and transitive.
Considering that Israel is a democratic state, what he is basically saying is, submit or be destroyed. And you choose to describe this as a regime change. I have to say that is an interesting choice of words.
|
On June 08 2010 07:25 mmp wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2010 07:17 xDaunt wrote:On June 08 2010 07:07 mmp wrote:On June 08 2010 07:05 xDaunt wrote:On June 08 2010 06:51 mmp wrote:On June 08 2010 06:31 xDaunt wrote:On June 08 2010 05:44 SirGlinG wrote:On June 08 2010 05 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting 08 2010 05 end_of_the_skype_highlighting begin_of_the_skype_highlighting 08 2010 05 end_of_the_skype_highlighting begin_of_the_skype_highlighting 08 2010 05 end_of_the_skype_highlighting:10 xDaunt wrote:On June 08 2010 04:55 L wrote:On June 08 2010 04:29 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
There's nothing particularly pro-Israeli about my point. If other countries and groups actively, openly, and repeatedly threaten Israel's existence, no one can reasonably expect Israel to just stand idly by. I wouldn't fault any nation for defending itself from perceived foreign aggression, whether it be Taiwan, North Korea, or (*gasp*) Israel. What kind of dream world are you people living in? Listen to the Chomsky video. He has a nice differentiation between defending one's self and using force to defend one's self. His point is nice in an academic sense, but it's ludicrous in the larger, real world of global power politics. Rational state actors do all that they can to further their interests to the fullest extent of their power. The morality of whatever action is taken is, in and of itself, irrelevant. It's only relevant to the extent that the morality or immorality of a given action strengthens or weakens the state's power and its ability to further its interests. I prefer listening to a professor understanding both sides in a cause and giving ideas for solving problems than someone who takes the greed for wealth, earth and power to be a universal unstoppable force. Should the weak and poor respect and do nothing against social injustice caused by the upper classes and political decisions because of the "universal" greed in some politicians? Should we all give up our hopes of a just world? If we did the society would look exactly like what satanists want. Perhaps the question is irrelevant to you. You don't live in Gaza, so why bother? Well for one thing you have entered this discussion and seem to have something to say about the situation. Your'e also a human being, therefore you most probably have what is called empathy and then you probably don't want people to suffer. You've heard of another view on the gaza situation than what you use right now. Of course it might hurt to care about people suffering instead of saying "greed is unstoppable" and not give it another thought. But is that what should control our decisions on such topics? You can call this philosofical nonsense but you still have to answer the question now that you've read it so please do.( by "have to" I mean to yourself, not here) There's nothing balanced about what Chomsky says in the video. His solution to the Middle East is for the US to stop supporting Israel and for Israel to unilaterally withdraw from the West Bank and other settlements. How exactly is that going to placate the millions of pissed off Palestinians and other Arabs that won't tolerate Israel's very existence? He didn't even address the Palestinian side of the equation. Also, don't mistake my argument for a lack of empathy for the Palestinians. I guarantee you that I've been more impacted by Israel's establishment and expansion that most anyone else posting in this thread. My family is Lebanese and was displaced by Israel. I understand better than most what Israel has done since its establishment and how poorly it treats non-Jewish residents. In fact, this is why I don't think that a two-state solution is possible. Nevertheless, I can still see and understand Israel's point of view. They've been under threat since the founding of Israel. They've been attacked by other countries on three different occasions. Beyond that, Jews in general have been victimized for thousands of years. From Egypt, to Rome, to Spain, to other European countries, the Jews have had a history of raw deals. So when other states and groups actively preach and advocate the destruction of Israel, I don't really blame them for being hyper-aggressive in their defense. Should they have boarded that Gazan flotilla? Absolutely. Did they screw up when doing it? Definitely. If you were a young man living in Gaza or the West Bank, what do you think your attitude toward Israel should be? Chomsky argues that whether the "peace process" is in motion or stagnant, Israel has always had an offensive defense. Life inside Palestine is like life in a prison, so it is no wonder that Hamas has such popular backing; retaliation is a natural reaction to violence, and past non-violent internal movements are widely seen to have been met by no less callousness. The facts show that Israel is the oppressor in this conflict, do you disagree? So again, what do you think is a rational outlook for someone living in Palestine? Do I agree? Yes and no. On the one hand, Israel has treated Palestinians like dirt within Israel. On the other hand, the Palestinians have yet to show any inclination that they'd accept and honor a two-state solution. If they were willing to accept and honor a two-state solution, they wouldn't fire rockets at Israeli towns. Do I blame the Palestinians for being angry at Israel? Nope.They should be angry. However, shooting rockets at Israeli civilians or engaging in suicide bombing attacks will not solve anything. So your belief is that Palestinians should renounce violence, accept the two-state solution - and all will be well? Yep. There will never be peace between Israel and Palestinians unless the Palestinians accept Israel's existence. Right now, I don't think that they do. As long as various groups bomb or fire rockets at Israelis, there won't be peace. Will Israel have to give something up in exchange? Certainly. Do I think that this will ever happen? No. I don't think that the Palestinians will ever accept Israel. Too many countries, entities, and other groups want to see Israel destroyed. Realistically, either Israel or the Palestinians will have to be wiped our for there to be peace. My bet is that Israel will be the one to go. That was a highly baited question, and you've gone farther off the deep end than necessary. Sure you don't want to reconsider?
Nope, I think I answered it directly and concisely. There can only be peace if both sides will accept it. However, I don't think both sides will ever come to a mutually acceptable arrangement.
|
On June 08 2010 07 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting 08 2010 07 end_of_the_skype_highlighting begin_of_the_skype_highlighting 08 2010 07 end_of_the_skype_highlighting begin_of_the_skype_highlighting 08 2010 07 end_of_the_skype_highlighting:32 Squeegy wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2010 06:48 Klaz wrote:The issue of the President of Iran and indeed Hamas calling for the destruction of Israel is an important one to examine. Especially since so much feeling on the wider middle east conflict seems to have originated on these statements. Let's start with President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran. The following Wiki article provides an interesting context: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad_and_Israel"Wiped off the map" or "Vanish from the pages of time" translation
Many news sources repeated the Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting statement as though Ahmadinejad had demanded that "Israel must be wiped off the map",[5][6] an English idiom which means to "cause a place to stop existing",[7] or to "obliterate totally",[8] or "destroy completely".[9] News sources currently continue to repeat this claim. [10]
Ahmadinejad's phrase was " بايد از صفحه روزگار محو شود " according to the text published on the President's Office's website, and was a quote of Ayatollah Khomeini.[11]
The translation presented by IRNA has been challenged by Arash Norouzi, who says the statement "wiped off the map" was never made and that Ahmadinejad did not refer to the nation or land mass of Israel, but to the "regime occupying Jerusalem". In his own words:
So what did Ahmadinejad actually say? To quote his exact words in Persian: "Imam ghoft een rezhim-e ishghalgar-e qods bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad."
That passage will mean nothing to most people, but one word might ring a bell: rezhim-e. It is the word "Regime", pronounced just like the English word with an extra "eh" sound at the end. Ahmadinejad did not refer to Israel the country or Israel the land mass, but the Israeli regime. This is a vastly significant distinction, as one cannot wipe a regime off the map. Ahmadinejad does not even refer to Israel by name, he instead uses the specific phrase "rezhim-e ishghalgar-e qods" (regime occupying Jerusalem).
So this raises the question.. what exactly did he want "wiped from the map"? The answer is: nothing. That's because the word "map" was never used. The Persian word for map, "nagsheh", is not contained anywhere in his original Persian quote, or, for that matter, anywhere in his entire speech. Nor was the western phrase "wipe out" ever said. Yet we are led to believe that Iran's President threatened to "wipe Israel off the map", despite never having uttered the words "map", "wipe out" or even "Israel"
The full quote translated directly to English: "The Imam said this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time". I think it's safe to gather that what he's talking about is regime change as opposed to genocide or ethnic cleansing. When taken in the context of many major first world countries casually discussing and implementing regime change, it doesn't seem to be as outlying a position as one might initially consider. Later on in the wiki article: Show nested quote +But translators in Tehran who work for the president's office and the foreign ministry disagree with them. All official translations of Mr. Ahmadinejad's statement, including a description of it on his website, refer to wiping Israel away. Sohrab Mahdavi, one of Iran’s most prominent translators, and Siamak Namazi, managing director of a Tehran consulting firm, who is bilingual, both say “wipe off” or “wipe away” is more accurate than "vanish" because the Persian verb is active and transitive.
Considering that Israel is a democratic state, what he is basically saying is, submit or be destroyed. And you choose to describe this as a regime change. I have to say that is an interesting choice of words.
Let's discuss wether Israel is a democratic state or not.
+ Show Spoiler +
I'd like to mention another example of this:
A swedish journalist wrote an article claiming that the israeli military inofficially kidnap Palestine citizens and steal their organs for Israeli medical use.
This caused an outrage in Israel. Their people started to boycott Ikea and the foreign minister told the swedish gouvernment to close down the paper that had published the Article.
The swedish foreign minister answered explained to him that this isn't legal in sweden and that isn't how a democracy is supposed to work. It's also illegal within your own law in Israel to do so.
Thing calmed down in time, but the article was debated in sweden because it used unknown sources. Even if the question had to be answered all we could trust was the journalists word.
About a month later it's revealed that Jews living in America have bought and sold stolen organs. It's horrible but still doesn't prove what the journalist was writing about and his sources still wanted to stay unknown because of the risks of going out in public.
Then an anthropologist happens to do a field work in Israel and Interview doctors.
Multiple doctors reveal to her that the Israeli military have been kidnapping Palestine citiziens, killed and stolen their organs to help their own soldiers.
So here we are today again. Israel calls us antisemites and claims that everyobdy on the ships are terrorists and it's Israel against the world yada yada yada.
They dissapprove of the UN's idea of a objective investigation on the Ship to gaza events.
Could they possibly maybe perhaps know that facts of their own actions would reveal lies of their gouvernment?
Are they aware of that their actions are unjust against international law and want to hide it from us?
Has this happened before and will it happen again?
Dear Israel. It's not u against the world. It's you believing that it is.
To name a couple of examples of Israeli actions:
They boarded a boat on international water.
They used Fosfor against Palestinans in Gaza during their well timed attack between Bush-> Obama. (This is also against international law. Ironically this was banned after ww2 after the nazis use of this against Jews).
The ancient greeks lived in a democracy even though they used slaves.
Today our definition of Democracy doesn't allow slavery.
Does our definition of democracy involve breaking international law over and over again and disrespecting the freedom of speach?
|
On June 08 2010 07 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting 08 2010 07 end_of_the_skype_highlighting:33 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2010 07:25 mmp wrote:On June 08 2010 07:17 xDaunt wrote:On June 08 2010 07:07 mmp wrote:On June 08 2010 07:05 xDaunt wrote:On June 08 2010 06:51 mmp wrote:On June 08 2010 06:31 xDaunt wrote:On June 08 2010 05:44 SirGlinG wrote:On June 08 2010 05 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting 08 2010 05 end_of_the_skype_highlighting begin_of_the_skype_highlighting 08 2010 05 end_of_the_skype_highlighting begin_of_the_skype_highlighting 08 2010 05 end_of_the_skype_highlighting:10 xDaunt wrote:On June 08 2010 04:55 L wrote:
[quote]
Listen to the Chomsky video. He has a nice differentiation between defending one's self and using force to defend one's self. His point is nice in an academic sense, but it's ludicrous in the larger, real world of global power politics. Rational state actors do all that they can to further their interests to the fullest extent of their power. The morality of whatever action is taken is, in and of itself, irrelevant. It's only relevant to the extent that the morality or immorality of a given action strengthens or weakens the state's power and its ability to further its interests. I prefer listening to a professor understanding both sides in a cause and giving ideas for solving problems than someone who takes the greed for wealth, earth and power to be a universal unstoppable force. Should the weak and poor respect and do nothing against social injustice caused by the upper classes and political decisions because of the "universal" greed in some politicians? Should we all give up our hopes of a just world? If we did the society would look exactly like what satanists want. Perhaps the question is irrelevant to you. You don't live in Gaza, so why bother? Well for one thing you have entered this discussion and seem to have something to say about the situation. Your'e also a human being, therefore you most probably have what is called empathy and then you probably don't want people to suffer. You've heard of another view on the gaza situation than what you use right now. Of course it might hurt to care about people suffering instead of saying "greed is unstoppable" and not give it another thought. But is that what should control our decisions on such topics? You can call this philosofical nonsense but you still have to answer the question now that you've read it so please do.( by "have to" I mean to yourself, not here) There's nothing balanced about what Chomsky says in the video. His solution to the Middle East is for the US to stop supporting Israel and for Israel to unilaterally withdraw from the West Bank and other settlements. How exactly is that going to placate the millions of pissed off Palestinians and other Arabs that won't tolerate Israel's very existence? He didn't even address the Palestinian side of the equation. Also, don't mistake my argument for a lack of empathy for the Palestinians. I guarantee you that I've been more impacted by Israel's establishment and expansion that most anyone else posting in this thread. My family is Lebanese and was displaced by Israel. I understand better than most what Israel has done since its establishment and how poorly it treats non-Jewish residents. In fact, this is why I don't think that a two-state solution is possible. Nevertheless, I can still see and understand Israel's point of view. They've been under threat since the founding of Israel. They've been attacked by other countries on three different occasions. Beyond that, Jews in general have been victimized for thousands of years. From Egypt, to Rome, to Spain, to other European countries, the Jews have had a history of raw deals. So when other states and groups actively preach and advocate the destruction of Israel, I don't really blame them for being hyper-aggressive in their defense. Should they have boarded that Gazan flotilla? Absolutely. Did they screw up when doing it? Definitely. If you were a young man living in Gaza or the West Bank, what do you think your attitude toward Israel should be? Chomsky argues that whether the "peace process" is in motion or stagnant, Israel has always had an offensive defense. Life inside Palestine is like life in a prison, so it is no wonder that Hamas has such popular backing; retaliation is a natural reaction to violence, and past non-violent internal movements are widely seen to have been met by no less callousness. The facts show that Israel is the oppressor in this conflict, do you disagree? So again, what do you think is a rational outlook for someone living in Palestine? Do I agree? Yes and no. On the one hand, Israel has treated Palestinians like dirt within Israel. On the other hand, the Palestinians have yet to show any inclination that they'd accept and honor a two-state solution. If they were willing to accept and honor a two-state solution, they wouldn't fire rockets at Israeli towns. Do I blame the Palestinians for being angry at Israel? Nope.They should be angry. However, shooting rockets at Israeli civilians or engaging in suicide bombing attacks will not solve anything. So your belief is that Palestinians should renounce violence, accept the two-state solution - and all will be well? Yep. There will never be peace between Israel and Palestinians unless the Palestinians accept Israel's existence. Right now, I don't think that they do. As long as various groups bomb or fire rockets at Israelis, there won't be peace. Will Israel have to give something up in exchange? Certainly. Do I think that this will ever happen? No. I don't think that the Palestinians will ever accept Israel. Too many countries, entities, and other groups want to see Israel destroyed. Realistically, either Israel or the Palestinians will have to be wiped our for there to be peace. My bet is that Israel will be the one to go. That was a highly baited question, and you've gone farther off the deep end than necessary. Sure you don't want to reconsider? Nope, I think I answered it directly and concisely. There can only be peace if both sides will accept it. However, I don't think both sides will ever come to a mutually acceptable arrangement.
Yes and even if they did there would still be people on both sides who would disagree with a two-state solution.
|
On June 08 2010 07:46 SirGlinG wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2010 07 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting 08 2010 07 end_of_the_skype_highlighting:33 xDaunt wrote:On June 08 2010 07:25 mmp wrote:On June 08 2010 07:17 xDaunt wrote:On June 08 2010 07:07 mmp wrote:On June 08 2010 07:05 xDaunt wrote:On June 08 2010 06:51 mmp wrote:On June 08 2010 06:31 xDaunt wrote:On June 08 2010 05:44 SirGlinG wrote:On June 08 2010 05 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting 08 2010 05 end_of_the_skype_highlighting begin_of_the_skype_highlighting 08 2010 05 end_of_the_skype_highlighting begin_of_the_skype_highlighting 08 2010 05 end_of_the_skype_highlighting:10 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
His point is nice in an academic sense, but it's ludicrous in the larger, real world of global power politics. Rational state actors do all that they can to further their interests to the fullest extent of their power. The morality of whatever action is taken is, in and of itself, irrelevant. It's only relevant to the extent that the morality or immorality of a given action strengthens or weakens the state's power and its ability to further its interests. I prefer listening to a professor understanding both sides in a cause and giving ideas for solving problems than someone who takes the greed for wealth, earth and power to be a universal unstoppable force. Should the weak and poor respect and do nothing against social injustice caused by the upper classes and political decisions because of the "universal" greed in some politicians? Should we all give up our hopes of a just world? If we did the society would look exactly like what satanists want. Perhaps the question is irrelevant to you. You don't live in Gaza, so why bother? Well for one thing you have entered this discussion and seem to have something to say about the situation. Your'e also a human being, therefore you most probably have what is called empathy and then you probably don't want people to suffer. You've heard of another view on the gaza situation than what you use right now. Of course it might hurt to care about people suffering instead of saying "greed is unstoppable" and not give it another thought. But is that what should control our decisions on such topics? You can call this philosofical nonsense but you still have to answer the question now that you've read it so please do.( by "have to" I mean to yourself, not here) There's nothing balanced about what Chomsky says in the video. His solution to the Middle East is for the US to stop supporting Israel and for Israel to unilaterally withdraw from the West Bank and other settlements. How exactly is that going to placate the millions of pissed off Palestinians and other Arabs that won't tolerate Israel's very existence? He didn't even address the Palestinian side of the equation. Also, don't mistake my argument for a lack of empathy for the Palestinians. I guarantee you that I've been more impacted by Israel's establishment and expansion that most anyone else posting in this thread. My family is Lebanese and was displaced by Israel. I understand better than most what Israel has done since its establishment and how poorly it treats non-Jewish residents. In fact, this is why I don't think that a two-state solution is possible. Nevertheless, I can still see and understand Israel's point of view. They've been under threat since the founding of Israel. They've been attacked by other countries on three different occasions. Beyond that, Jews in general have been victimized for thousands of years. From Egypt, to Rome, to Spain, to other European countries, the Jews have had a history of raw deals. So when other states and groups actively preach and advocate the destruction of Israel, I don't really blame them for being hyper-aggressive in their defense. Should they have boarded that Gazan flotilla? Absolutely. Did they screw up when doing it? Definitely. If you were a young man living in Gaza or the West Bank, what do you think your attitude toward Israel should be? Chomsky argues that whether the "peace process" is in motion or stagnant, Israel has always had an offensive defense. Life inside Palestine is like life in a prison, so it is no wonder that Hamas has such popular backing; retaliation is a natural reaction to violence, and past non-violent internal movements are widely seen to have been met by no less callousness. The facts show that Israel is the oppressor in this conflict, do you disagree? So again, what do you think is a rational outlook for someone living in Palestine? Do I agree? Yes and no. On the one hand, Israel has treated Palestinians like dirt within Israel. On the other hand, the Palestinians have yet to show any inclination that they'd accept and honor a two-state solution. If they were willing to accept and honor a two-state solution, they wouldn't fire rockets at Israeli towns. Do I blame the Palestinians for being angry at Israel? Nope.They should be angry. However, shooting rockets at Israeli civilians or engaging in suicide bombing attacks will not solve anything. So your belief is that Palestinians should renounce violence, accept the two-state solution - and all will be well? Yep. There will never be peace between Israel and Palestinians unless the Palestinians accept Israel's existence. Right now, I don't think that they do. As long as various groups bomb or fire rockets at Israelis, there won't be peace. Will Israel have to give something up in exchange? Certainly. Do I think that this will ever happen? No. I don't think that the Palestinians will ever accept Israel. Too many countries, entities, and other groups want to see Israel destroyed. Realistically, either Israel or the Palestinians will have to be wiped our for there to be peace. My bet is that Israel will be the one to go. That was a highly baited question, and you've gone farther off the deep end than necessary. Sure you don't want to reconsider? Nope, I think I answered it directly and concisely. There can only be peace if both sides will accept it. However, I don't think both sides will ever come to a mutually acceptable arrangement. Yes and even if they did there would still be people on both sides who would disagree with a two-state solution.
Yeah, there's one minor difference though: Israelis don't randomly bomb Palestinians. What the IDF does is strictly controlled by the government. As for the Palestinians, there currently is no singular government or entity that can sufficiently control the people and keep them from conducting attacks on Israelis.
|
On June 08 2010 07 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting 08 2010 07 end_of_the_skype_highlighting begin_of_the_skype_highlighting 08 2010 07 end_of_the_skype_highlighting:51 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2010 07:46 SirGlinG wrote:On June 08 2010 07 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting 08 2010 07 end_of_the_skype_highlighting:33 xDaunt wrote:On June 08 2010 07:25 mmp wrote:On June 08 2010 07:17 xDaunt wrote:On June 08 2010 07:07 mmp wrote:On June 08 2010 07:05 xDaunt wrote:On June 08 2010 06:51 mmp wrote:On June 08 2010 06:31 xDaunt wrote:On June 08 2010 05:44 SirGlinG wrote:
[quote]
I prefer listening to a professor understanding both sides in a cause and giving ideas for solving problems than someone who takes the greed for wealth, earth and power to be a universal unstoppable force.
Should the weak and poor respect and do nothing against social injustice caused by the upper classes and political decisions because of the "universal" greed in some politicians?
Should we all give up our hopes of a just world? If we did the society would look exactly like what satanists want.
Perhaps the question is irrelevant to you. You don't live in Gaza, so why bother?
Well for one thing you have entered this discussion and seem to have something to say about the situation.
Your'e also a human being, therefore you most probably have what is called empathy and then you probably don't want people to suffer.
You've heard of another view on the gaza situation than what you use right now.
Of course it might hurt to care about people suffering instead of saying "greed is unstoppable" and not give it another thought.
But is that what should control our decisions on such topics?
You can call this philosofical nonsense but you still have to answer the question now that you've read it so please do.( by "have to" I mean to yourself, not here)
There's nothing balanced about what Chomsky says in the video. His solution to the Middle East is for the US to stop supporting Israel and for Israel to unilaterally withdraw from the West Bank and other settlements. How exactly is that going to placate the millions of pissed off Palestinians and other Arabs that won't tolerate Israel's very existence? He didn't even address the Palestinian side of the equation. Also, don't mistake my argument for a lack of empathy for the Palestinians. I guarantee you that I've been more impacted by Israel's establishment and expansion that most anyone else posting in this thread. My family is Lebanese and was displaced by Israel. I understand better than most what Israel has done since its establishment and how poorly it treats non-Jewish residents. In fact, this is why I don't think that a two-state solution is possible. Nevertheless, I can still see and understand Israel's point of view. They've been under threat since the founding of Israel. They've been attacked by other countries on three different occasions. Beyond that, Jews in general have been victimized for thousands of years. From Egypt, to Rome, to Spain, to other European countries, the Jews have had a history of raw deals. So when other states and groups actively preach and advocate the destruction of Israel, I don't really blame them for being hyper-aggressive in their defense. Should they have boarded that Gazan flotilla? Absolutely. Did they screw up when doing it? Definitely. If you were a young man living in Gaza or the West Bank, what do you think your attitude toward Israel should be? Chomsky argues that whether the "peace process" is in motion or stagnant, Israel has always had an offensive defense. Life inside Palestine is like life in a prison, so it is no wonder that Hamas has such popular backing; retaliation is a natural reaction to violence, and past non-violent internal movements are widely seen to have been met by no less callousness. The facts show that Israel is the oppressor in this conflict, do you disagree? So again, what do you think is a rational outlook for someone living in Palestine? Do I agree? Yes and no. On the one hand, Israel has treated Palestinians like dirt within Israel. On the other hand, the Palestinians have yet to show any inclination that they'd accept and honor a two-state solution. If they were willing to accept and honor a two-state solution, they wouldn't fire rockets at Israeli towns. Do I blame the Palestinians for being angry at Israel? Nope.They should be angry. However, shooting rockets at Israeli civilians or engaging in suicide bombing attacks will not solve anything. So your belief is that Palestinians should renounce violence, accept the two-state solution - and all will be well? Yep. There will never be peace between Israel and Palestinians unless the Palestinians accept Israel's existence. Right now, I don't think that they do. As long as various groups bomb or fire rockets at Israelis, there won't be peace. Will Israel have to give something up in exchange? Certainly. Do I think that this will ever happen? No. I don't think that the Palestinians will ever accept Israel. Too many countries, entities, and other groups want to see Israel destroyed. Realistically, either Israel or the Palestinians will have to be wiped our for there to be peace. My bet is that Israel will be the one to go. That was a highly baited question, and you've gone farther off the deep end than necessary. Sure you don't want to reconsider? Nope, I think I answered it directly and concisely. There can only be peace if both sides will accept it. However, I don't think both sides will ever come to a mutually acceptable arrangement. Yes and even if they did there would still be people on both sides who would disagree with a two-state solution. Yeah, there's one minor difference though: Israelis don't randomly bomb Palestinians. What the IDF does is strictly controlled by the government. As for the Palestinians, there currently is no singular government or entity that can sufficiently control the people and keep them from conducting attacks on Israelis.
And when bombs come under "controlled cirumstances" sent by the gouvernment it's okay?
I hope that this isn't your point.
This can make a difference. Since the gouvernment is in charge of the military actions then they can make sure that their attacks follow the geneve convention and international law.
But this requires that the gouvernment actually follows international law and that isn't something Israel is doing nearly enough.
So your idea of israeli bombings to be more legitimized than those "uncontrolled" coming from Gaza is actually just backfiring.
Gaza is under a blockade, their bombs are fewer and techniqually weaker.
Israel is a ridicilously strong military power compared to Palestine.
|
On June 08 2010 07:44 SirGlinG wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2010 07 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting 08 2010 07 end_of_the_skype_highlighting begin_of_the_skype_highlighting 08 2010 07 end_of_the_skype_highlighting begin_of_the_skype_highlighting 08 2010 07 end_of_the_skype_highlighting:32 Squeegy wrote:On June 08 2010 06:48 Klaz wrote:The issue of the President of Iran and indeed Hamas calling for the destruction of Israel is an important one to examine. Especially since so much feeling on the wider middle east conflict seems to have originated on these statements. Let's start with President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran. The following Wiki article provides an interesting context: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad_and_Israel"Wiped off the map" or "Vanish from the pages of time" translation
Many news sources repeated the Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting statement as though Ahmadinejad had demanded that "Israel must be wiped off the map",[5][6] an English idiom which means to "cause a place to stop existing",[7] or to "obliterate totally",[8] or "destroy completely".[9] News sources currently continue to repeat this claim. [10]
Ahmadinejad's phrase was " بايد از صفحه روزگار محو شود " according to the text published on the President's Office's website, and was a quote of Ayatollah Khomeini.[11]
The translation presented by IRNA has been challenged by Arash Norouzi, who says the statement "wiped off the map" was never made and that Ahmadinejad did not refer to the nation or land mass of Israel, but to the "regime occupying Jerusalem". In his own words:
So what did Ahmadinejad actually say? To quote his exact words in Persian: "Imam ghoft een rezhim-e ishghalgar-e qods bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad."
That passage will mean nothing to most people, but one word might ring a bell: rezhim-e. It is the word "Regime", pronounced just like the English word with an extra "eh" sound at the end. Ahmadinejad did not refer to Israel the country or Israel the land mass, but the Israeli regime. This is a vastly significant distinction, as one cannot wipe a regime off the map. Ahmadinejad does not even refer to Israel by name, he instead uses the specific phrase "rezhim-e ishghalgar-e qods" (regime occupying Jerusalem).
So this raises the question.. what exactly did he want "wiped from the map"? The answer is: nothing. That's because the word "map" was never used. The Persian word for map, "nagsheh", is not contained anywhere in his original Persian quote, or, for that matter, anywhere in his entire speech. Nor was the western phrase "wipe out" ever said. Yet we are led to believe that Iran's President threatened to "wipe Israel off the map", despite never having uttered the words "map", "wipe out" or even "Israel"
The full quote translated directly to English: "The Imam said this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time". I think it's safe to gather that what he's talking about is regime change as opposed to genocide or ethnic cleansing. When taken in the context of many major first world countries casually discussing and implementing regime change, it doesn't seem to be as outlying a position as one might initially consider. Later on in the wiki article: But translators in Tehran who work for the president's office and the foreign ministry disagree with them. All official translations of Mr. Ahmadinejad's statement, including a description of it on his website, refer to wiping Israel away. Sohrab Mahdavi, one of Iran’s most prominent translators, and Siamak Namazi, managing director of a Tehran consulting firm, who is bilingual, both say “wipe off” or “wipe away” is more accurate than "vanish" because the Persian verb is active and transitive.
Considering that Israel is a democratic state, what he is basically saying is, submit or be destroyed. And you choose to describe this as a regime change. I have to say that is an interesting choice of words. Let's discuss wether Israel is a democratic state or not. + Show Spoiler +
I'd like to mention another example of this:
A swedish journalist wrote an article claiming that the israeli military inofficially kidnap Palestine citizens and steal their organs for Israeli medical use.
This caused an outrage in Israel. Their people started to boycott Ikea and the foreign minister told the swedish gouvernment to close down the paper that had published the Article.
The swedish foreign minister answered explained to him that this isn't legal in sweden and that isn't how a democracy is supposed to work. It's also illegal within your own law in Israel to do so.
Thing calmed down in time, but the article was debated in sweden because it used unknown sources. Even if the question had to be answered all we could trust was the journalists word.
About a month later it's revealed that Jews living in America have bought and sold stolen organs. It's horrible but still doesn't prove what the journalist was writing about and his sources still wanted to stay unknown because of the risks of going out in public.
Then an anthropologist happens to do a field work in Israel and Interview doctors.
Multiple doctors reveal to her that the Israeli military have been kidnapping Palestine citiziens, killed and stolen their organs to help their own soldiers.
So here we are today again. Israel calls us antisemites and claims that everyobdy on the ships are terrorists and it's Israel against the world yada yada yada.
They dissapprove of the UN's idea of a objective investigation on the Ship to gaza events.
Could they possibly maybe perhaps know that facts of their own actions would reveal lies of their gouvernment?
Are they aware of that their actions are unjust against international law and want to hide it from us?
Has this happened before and will it happen again?
Dear Israel. It's not u against the world. It's you believing that it is.
To name a couple of examples of Israeli actions: They boarded a boat on international water. They used Fosfor against Palestinans in Gaza during their well timed attack between Bush-> Obama. (This is also against international law. Ironically this was banned after ww2 after the nazis use of this against Jews). The ancient greeks lived in a democracy even though they used slaves. Today our definition of Democracy doesn't allow slavery. Does our definition of democracy involve breaking international law over and over again and disrespecting the freedom of speach?
Yes, this happened under the leadership of a specific individual. Hasn't happened in a while or currently. Didn't involve kidnappings or murder. Didn't involve Palestinians alone, but mostly Israelis. Is this some shady fucking shit? Absolutely. Is the way you presented it purposedly trying to make Israel look worse than it is? Absolutely.
Yes, democracy can in theory entail all that. Moreover, all that is relevant to the point I was making, is that Israel has elections. The people Israelis want leading Israel, are leading Israel.
|
On June 08 2010 08 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting 08 2010 08 end_of_the_skype_highlighting begin_of_the_skype_highlighting 08 2010 08 end_of_the_skype_highlighting:08 Squeegy wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2010 07:44 SirGlinG wrote:On June 08 2010 07 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting 08 2010 07 end_of_the_skype_highlighting begin_of_the_skype_highlighting 08 2010 07 end_of_the_skype_highlighting begin_of_the_skype_highlighting 08 2010 07 end_of_the_skype_highlighting:32 Squeegy wrote:On June 08 2010 06:48 Klaz wrote:The issue of the President of Iran and indeed Hamas calling for the destruction of Israel is an important one to examine. Especially since so much feeling on the wider middle east conflict seems to have originated on these statements. Let's start with President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran. The following Wiki article provides an interesting context: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad_and_Israel"Wiped off the map" or "Vanish from the pages of time" translation
Many news sources repeated the Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting statement as though Ahmadinejad had demanded that "Israel must be wiped off the map",[5][6] an English idiom which means to "cause a place to stop existing",[7] or to "obliterate totally",[8] or "destroy completely".[9] News sources currently continue to repeat this claim. [10]
Ahmadinejad's phrase was " بايد از صفحه روزگار محو شود " according to the text published on the President's Office's website, and was a quote of Ayatollah Khomeini.[11]
The translation presented by IRNA has been challenged by Arash Norouzi, who says the statement "wiped off the map" was never made and that Ahmadinejad did not refer to the nation or land mass of Israel, but to the "regime occupying Jerusalem". In his own words:
So what did Ahmadinejad actually say? To quote his exact words in Persian: "Imam ghoft een rezhim-e ishghalgar-e qods bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad."
That passage will mean nothing to most people, but one word might ring a bell: rezhim-e. It is the word "Regime", pronounced just like the English word with an extra "eh" sound at the end. Ahmadinejad did not refer to Israel the country or Israel the land mass, but the Israeli regime. This is a vastly significant distinction, as one cannot wipe a regime off the map. Ahmadinejad does not even refer to Israel by name, he instead uses the specific phrase "rezhim-e ishghalgar-e qods" (regime occupying Jerusalem).
So this raises the question.. what exactly did he want "wiped from the map"? The answer is: nothing. That's because the word "map" was never used. The Persian word for map, "nagsheh", is not contained anywhere in his original Persian quote, or, for that matter, anywhere in his entire speech. Nor was the western phrase "wipe out" ever said. Yet we are led to believe that Iran's President threatened to "wipe Israel off the map", despite never having uttered the words "map", "wipe out" or even "Israel"
The full quote translated directly to English: "The Imam said this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time". I think it's safe to gather that what he's talking about is regime change as opposed to genocide or ethnic cleansing. When taken in the context of many major first world countries casually discussing and implementing regime change, it doesn't seem to be as outlying a position as one might initially consider. Later on in the wiki article: But translators in Tehran who work for the president's office and the foreign ministry disagree with them. All official translations of Mr. Ahmadinejad's statement, including a description of it on his website, refer to wiping Israel away. Sohrab Mahdavi, one of Iran’s most prominent translators, and Siamak Namazi, managing director of a Tehran consulting firm, who is bilingual, both say “wipe off” or “wipe away” is more accurate than "vanish" because the Persian verb is active and transitive.
Considering that Israel is a democratic state, what he is basically saying is, submit or be destroyed. And you choose to describe this as a regime change. I have to say that is an interesting choice of words. Let's discuss wether Israel is a democratic state or not. + Show Spoiler +
I'd like to mention another example of this:
A swedish journalist wrote an article claiming that the israeli military inofficially kidnap Palestine citizens and steal their organs for Israeli medical use.
This caused an outrage in Israel. Their people started to boycott Ikea and the foreign minister told the swedish gouvernment to close down the paper that had published the Article.
The swedish foreign minister answered explained to him that this isn't legal in sweden and that isn't how a democracy is supposed to work. It's also illegal within your own law in Israel to do so.
Thing calmed down in time, but the article was debated in sweden because it used unknown sources. Even if the question had to be answered all we could trust was the journalists word.
About a month later it's revealed that Jews living in America have bought and sold stolen organs. It's horrible but still doesn't prove what the journalist was writing about and his sources still wanted to stay unknown because of the risks of going out in public.
Then an anthropologist happens to do a field work in Israel and Interview doctors.
Multiple doctors reveal to her that the Israeli military have been kidnapping Palestine citiziens, killed and stolen their organs to help their own soldiers.
So here we are today again. Israel calls us antisemites and claims that everyobdy on the ships are terrorists and it's Israel against the world yada yada yada.
They dissapprove of the UN's idea of a objective investigation on the Ship to gaza events.
Could they possibly maybe perhaps know that facts of their own actions would reveal lies of their gouvernment?
Are they aware of that their actions are unjust against international law and want to hide it from us?
Has this happened before and will it happen again?
Dear Israel. It's not u against the world. It's you believing that it is.
To name a couple of examples of Israeli actions: They boarded a boat on international water. They used Fosfor against Palestinans in Gaza during their well timed attack between Bush-> Obama. (This is also against international law. Ironically this was banned after ww2 after the nazis use of this against Jews). The ancient greeks lived in a democracy even though they used slaves. Today our definition of Democracy doesn't allow slavery. Does our definition of democracy involve breaking international law over and over again and disrespecting the freedom of speach? Yes, this happened under the leadership of a specific individual. Hasn't happened in a while or currently. Didn't involve kidnappings or murder. Didn't involve Palestinians alone, but mostly Israelis. Is this some shady fucking shit? Absolutely. Is the way you presented it purposedly trying to make Israel look worse than it is? Absolutely. Yes, democracy can in theory entail all that. Moreover, all that is relevant to the point I was making, is that Israel has elections. The people Israelis want leading Israel, are leading Israel.
Palestine has elections.
Israel has elections.
Is that all that defines a democracy?
Think bigger and return. I'll be waiting
About the rest of your post.
Please inform me with hard facts on what I supposedly don't know about the organ stealing instead of neglecting my post with anything at all to back it up.
And about wether or not I'm trying to make Israelis look worse than it is.
They stole organs from palestinians and used it for their own military.
Is it an excuse against it that they didn't only steal it from palestinians?
Did I make Israelis look worse by not mentioning that they stole organs from israelis and palestinans?
All you did was confirm my post.
|
On June 08 2010 08:08 Squeegy wrote:
Yes, this happened under the leadership of a specific individual. Hasn't happened in a while or currently. Didn't involve kidnappings or murder. Didn't involve Palestinians alone, but mostly Israelis. Is this some shady fucking shit? Absolutely. Is the way you presented it purposedly trying to make Israel look worse than it is? Absolutely.
Yes, democracy can in theory entail all that. Moreover, all that is relevant to the point I was making, is that Israel has elections. The people Israelis want leading Israel, are leading Israel.
Can't believe you went there, this is a lost cause. You really think Palestinians don't want Hamas to be in charge? Or Iraqi didn't want Saddam Hussein as their president? You are so naive it boggles my mind.
|
On June 08 2010 08:11 SirGlinG wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2010 08 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting 08 2010 08 end_of_the_skype_highlighting:08 Squeegy wrote:On June 08 2010 07:44 SirGlinG wrote:On June 08 2010 07 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting 08 2010 07 end_of_the_skype_highlighting begin_of_the_skype_highlighting 08 2010 07 end_of_the_skype_highlighting begin_of_the_skype_highlighting 08 2010 07 end_of_the_skype_highlighting:32 Squeegy wrote:On June 08 2010 06:48 Klaz wrote:The issue of the President of Iran and indeed Hamas calling for the destruction of Israel is an important one to examine. Especially since so much feeling on the wider middle east conflict seems to have originated on these statements. Let's start with President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran. The following Wiki article provides an interesting context: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad_and_Israel"Wiped off the map" or "Vanish from the pages of time" translation
Many news sources repeated the Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting statement as though Ahmadinejad had demanded that "Israel must be wiped off the map",[5][6] an English idiom which means to "cause a place to stop existing",[7] or to "obliterate totally",[8] or "destroy completely".[9] News sources currently continue to repeat this claim. [10]
Ahmadinejad's phrase was " بايد از صفحه روزگار محو شود " according to the text published on the President's Office's website, and was a quote of Ayatollah Khomeini.[11]
The translation presented by IRNA has been challenged by Arash Norouzi, who says the statement "wiped off the map" was never made and that Ahmadinejad did not refer to the nation or land mass of Israel, but to the "regime occupying Jerusalem". In his own words:
So what did Ahmadinejad actually say? To quote his exact words in Persian: "Imam ghoft een rezhim-e ishghalgar-e qods bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad."
That passage will mean nothing to most people, but one word might ring a bell: rezhim-e. It is the word "Regime", pronounced just like the English word with an extra "eh" sound at the end. Ahmadinejad did not refer to Israel the country or Israel the land mass, but the Israeli regime. This is a vastly significant distinction, as one cannot wipe a regime off the map. Ahmadinejad does not even refer to Israel by name, he instead uses the specific phrase "rezhim-e ishghalgar-e qods" (regime occupying Jerusalem).
So this raises the question.. what exactly did he want "wiped from the map"? The answer is: nothing. That's because the word "map" was never used. The Persian word for map, "nagsheh", is not contained anywhere in his original Persian quote, or, for that matter, anywhere in his entire speech. Nor was the western phrase "wipe out" ever said. Yet we are led to believe that Iran's President threatened to "wipe Israel off the map", despite never having uttered the words "map", "wipe out" or even "Israel"
The full quote translated directly to English: "The Imam said this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time". I think it's safe to gather that what he's talking about is regime change as opposed to genocide or ethnic cleansing. When taken in the context of many major first world countries casually discussing and implementing regime change, it doesn't seem to be as outlying a position as one might initially consider. Later on in the wiki article: But translators in Tehran who work for the president's office and the foreign ministry disagree with them. All official translations of Mr. Ahmadinejad's statement, including a description of it on his website, refer to wiping Israel away. Sohrab Mahdavi, one of Iran’s most prominent translators, and Siamak Namazi, managing director of a Tehran consulting firm, who is bilingual, both say “wipe off” or “wipe away” is more accurate than "vanish" because the Persian verb is active and transitive.
Considering that Israel is a democratic state, what he is basically saying is, submit or be destroyed. And you choose to describe this as a regime change. I have to say that is an interesting choice of words. Let's discuss wether Israel is a democratic state or not. + Show Spoiler +
I'd like to mention another example of this:
A swedish journalist wrote an article claiming that the israeli military inofficially kidnap Palestine citizens and steal their organs for Israeli medical use.
This caused an outrage in Israel. Their people started to boycott Ikea and the foreign minister told the swedish gouvernment to close down the paper that had published the Article.
The swedish foreign minister answered explained to him that this isn't legal in sweden and that isn't how a democracy is supposed to work. It's also illegal within your own law in Israel to do so.
Thing calmed down in time, but the article was debated in sweden because it used unknown sources. Even if the question had to be answered all we could trust was the journalists word.
About a month later it's revealed that Jews living in America have bought and sold stolen organs. It's horrible but still doesn't prove what the journalist was writing about and his sources still wanted to stay unknown because of the risks of going out in public.
Then an anthropologist happens to do a field work in Israel and Interview doctors.
Multiple doctors reveal to her that the Israeli military have been kidnapping Palestine citiziens, killed and stolen their organs to help their own soldiers.
So here we are today again. Israel calls us antisemites and claims that everyobdy on the ships are terrorists and it's Israel against the world yada yada yada.
They dissapprove of the UN's idea of a objective investigation on the Ship to gaza events.
Could they possibly maybe perhaps know that facts of their own actions would reveal lies of their gouvernment?
Are they aware of that their actions are unjust against international law and want to hide it from us?
Has this happened before and will it happen again?
Dear Israel. It's not u against the world. It's you believing that it is.
To name a couple of examples of Israeli actions: They boarded a boat on international water. They used Fosfor against Palestinans in Gaza during their well timed attack between Bush-> Obama. (This is also against international law. Ironically this was banned after ww2 after the nazis use of this against Jews). The ancient greeks lived in a democracy even though they used slaves. Today our definition of Democracy doesn't allow slavery. Does our definition of democracy involve breaking international law over and over again and disrespecting the freedom of speach? Yes, this happened under the leadership of a specific individual. Hasn't happened in a while or currently. Didn't involve kidnappings or murder. Didn't involve Palestinians alone, but mostly Israelis. Is this some shady fucking shit? Absolutely. Is the way you presented it purposedly trying to make Israel look worse than it is? Absolutely. Yes, democracy can in theory entail all that. Moreover, all that is relevant to the point I was making, is that Israel has elections. The people Israelis want leading Israel, are leading Israel. Palestine has elections. Israel has elections. Is that all that defines a democracy? Think bigger and return. I'll be waiting
No, it isn't, nor did I claim it is. I said elections, as in, the people Israelis want leading Israel, are leading Israel, is all that is relevant to the point I was making.
Would you guys stop putting words in my mouth?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
