EPTOn January 20 2011 04:02 innoby wrote:
+ Show Spoiler +
Great let me remind you that Isreal has claims to the land predating Islam as a whole. If you want to argue that they had control of the land for longer fine, I'd win that argument... Unless that is you try to use UNESCO's revisionist claims that Ruth's tomb (even though it has been genetically shown that 95% of ALL known Jews share certain genetic markers that show that they are related to the person buried there.) is actually an ancient Islamic Mosque. You'll probably ignore this simple fact too, claiming that I am using religious statements to prove a point.
Now if we want to accuse Isreal of human rights violations, then more blame falls on the Arab world than on Israel. It is against most UN rulings to use "humanitarian aid" to conceal weapons shipments. Which Arab "humanitarian organizations" have been doing for decades.
So I have a question for you, why do you defend the Islamic world when they have stated that they want Jews exterminated? Where have I heard that before, Oh, that's right Hitler. I don't hear any of you "peace and goodwill" people decrying Isreal's treatment of Palestinians arguing that it was wrong of us to charge most of Germany's military with warcrimes Post WWII. The difference here is that instead of having the short end of the stick, the Jews now have the upperhand.
All in all, no matter what you try to claim to back up your stance that Isreal is wrong, every shred of evidence you have, is taken out of context. Palistine had control of the land prior to Isreal, true, but they drove the Jews out many centuries before. Isreal limits the movements of all Palistinians, true but they didn't at first until the Palistinians showed an intent to kill any Jew that was readily available for them to attack. Isreal was just arbitrarially created to appease europe's guilty conscience. True, but not before an indepth study to determine a fair border to a land that is their anscestral home. Isreal is an agressor in the region, now yes, but they weren't when they got there, they were attacked first, and they won, then they were attacked again, so now yes they do take agressive action to protect their citizens.
Anyone that claims that Isreal is the sole country to blame in the middle east is wearing blinders to the Violence done to them with out any provokation from them. How easily you people forget who the agressors really were, yes it's 40 years later but in all honesty every concession Isreal has been willing to make has been turned down by the poor opressed palistinian. Hell they even killed their own well respected leader when he got close to a real honest peace treaty that would restore palistinian lands. Or have you forgotten that too.
+ Show Spoiler +
On January 20 2011 00:52 Elegy wrote:
Haha.
This is like reading a kid's textbook on American colonial history, everything was perfectly rosy between people with a few random disputes with natives that were settled via the exchange of gifts and food.
Hell, I'd be surprised if Israeli politicians themselves still actually buy the complete victim argument, I don't think anyone's taken that card seriously since the 90s. Put it back in the deck, kid.
On that note, only a fool would honestly believe that quasi-Biblical claims to land would justify forced immigration and subjugation of native peoples (who, like Gandhi said, cannot be faulted for resisting in any way) and that those claims translate in any way to modern day property rights or provide sufficient moral justification.
Nalgene, what's your point? Who are "The Arabs"? Does that blanket generalization cross state boundaries? Are the Syrians on the offensive? Egyptians? Saudis? Who? Blanket generalizations do much more harm than good, especially when it comes to that particular region of the world.
I mean, really?:
According to you, Israelites conquered that region and made it their homeland for thousands of years. Does length of time determine proper ownership now? Muslims have controlled that land since the 7th century, how can you possibly think that length of ownership means anything at all? Muslims "conquered" that region and made it an integral part of their lands, how is that ANY different than what the ancient Israelites had done?
I guess Greece should control much of Turkey then, as the Eastern Roman Empire ruled over those lands for...well, about a thousand years. A thousand years of legal, religious, and cultural kinship that puts the ancient Israeli kingdoms to shame in its complexity. The entire map of Europe would have to be redrawn and the Americas...wow, I wouldn't even want to tackle that.
I just don't understand how people can use this argument like it actually means anything; that historical ties to a land necessitates moral justification of modern-day property rights, that one's homeland as prescribed by religious teaching does not, in any way, really mean anything at all when it comes to reality. Repeating the idiocy behind many of the Zionist arguments and justifications without giving it critical thought and without thinking about how well that belief structure functions in the modern world is the height of ignorance.
Lastly:
Did you actually think before writing this? Palestine has been controlled by Islamic powers from 634 AD until ~1918. The Ottomans weren't Arab by ethnicity, granted, but what a foolish thing to say.
Oh, except for the Crusades. So that land has only been Arab for about 1200 years.
Haha.
This is like reading a kid's textbook on American colonial history, everything was perfectly rosy between people with a few random disputes with natives that were settled via the exchange of gifts and food.
Hell, I'd be surprised if Israeli politicians themselves still actually buy the complete victim argument, I don't think anyone's taken that card seriously since the 90s. Put it back in the deck, kid.
On that note, only a fool would honestly believe that quasi-Biblical claims to land would justify forced immigration and subjugation of native peoples (who, like Gandhi said, cannot be faulted for resisting in any way) and that those claims translate in any way to modern day property rights or provide sufficient moral justification.
Nalgene, what's your point? Who are "The Arabs"? Does that blanket generalization cross state boundaries? Are the Syrians on the offensive? Egyptians? Saudis? Who? Blanket generalizations do much more harm than good, especially when it comes to that particular region of the world.
I mean, really?:
According to you, Israelites conquered that region and made it their homeland for thousands of years. Does length of time determine proper ownership now? Muslims have controlled that land since the 7th century, how can you possibly think that length of ownership means anything at all? Muslims "conquered" that region and made it an integral part of their lands, how is that ANY different than what the ancient Israelites had done?
I guess Greece should control much of Turkey then, as the Eastern Roman Empire ruled over those lands for...well, about a thousand years. A thousand years of legal, religious, and cultural kinship that puts the ancient Israeli kingdoms to shame in its complexity. The entire map of Europe would have to be redrawn and the Americas...wow, I wouldn't even want to tackle that.
I just don't understand how people can use this argument like it actually means anything; that historical ties to a land necessitates moral justification of modern-day property rights, that one's homeland as prescribed by religious teaching does not, in any way, really mean anything at all when it comes to reality. Repeating the idiocy behind many of the Zionist arguments and justifications without giving it critical thought and without thinking about how well that belief structure functions in the modern world is the height of ignorance.
Lastly:
Did you actually think before writing this? Palestine has been controlled by Islamic powers from 634 AD until ~1918. The Ottomans weren't Arab by ethnicity, granted, but what a foolish thing to say.
Oh, except for the Crusades. So that land has only been Arab for about 1200 years.
Great let me remind you that Isreal has claims to the land predating Islam as a whole. If you want to argue that they had control of the land for longer fine, I'd win that argument... Unless that is you try to use UNESCO's revisionist claims that Ruth's tomb (even though it has been genetically shown that 95% of ALL known Jews share certain genetic markers that show that they are related to the person buried there.) is actually an ancient Islamic Mosque. You'll probably ignore this simple fact too, claiming that I am using religious statements to prove a point.
Now if we want to accuse Isreal of human rights violations, then more blame falls on the Arab world than on Israel. It is against most UN rulings to use "humanitarian aid" to conceal weapons shipments. Which Arab "humanitarian organizations" have been doing for decades.
So I have a question for you, why do you defend the Islamic world when they have stated that they want Jews exterminated? Where have I heard that before, Oh, that's right Hitler. I don't hear any of you "peace and goodwill" people decrying Isreal's treatment of Palestinians arguing that it was wrong of us to charge most of Germany's military with warcrimes Post WWII. The difference here is that instead of having the short end of the stick, the Jews now have the upperhand.
All in all, no matter what you try to claim to back up your stance that Isreal is wrong, every shred of evidence you have, is taken out of context. Palistine had control of the land prior to Isreal, true, but they drove the Jews out many centuries before. Isreal limits the movements of all Palistinians, true but they didn't at first until the Palistinians showed an intent to kill any Jew that was readily available for them to attack. Isreal was just arbitrarially created to appease europe's guilty conscience. True, but not before an indepth study to determine a fair border to a land that is their anscestral home. Isreal is an agressor in the region, now yes, but they weren't when they got there, they were attacked first, and they won, then they were attacked again, so now yes they do take agressive action to protect their citizens.
Anyone that claims that Isreal is the sole country to blame in the middle east is wearing blinders to the Violence done to them with out any provokation from them. How easily you people forget who the agressors really were, yes it's 40 years later but in all honesty every concession Isreal has been willing to make has been turned down by the poor opressed palistinian. Hell they even killed their own well respected leader when he got close to a real honest peace treaty that would restore palistinian lands. Or have you forgotten that too.
Ok. Let's try again.
You can't claim that the land in Palestine is the "ancestral homeland" of the Jews when it was a result of conquest and when the Arab Muslims can claim the exact same legitimacy as a result of their conquest. Both groups are, like most contemporary nations, foreign to the land and claim legitimacy built solely on conquest. If you afford the Jews the "right" to live in that land based on their ancestral ties (from conquest), the Arab Muslims are afforded the exact same rights based on THEIR own conquest in the 7th century. There's no difference. Length of time doesn't mean anything. Why would it?
You can't possibly claim that the Jews have "MORE" of a right to occupy the land when both claims are founded on brutal conquest and subjugation of native peoples. You have to exclude religious justifications as a matter of course, thus the conquest of the Caanites and the subsequent evolution of Israelite kingdoms is the sole moral justification of the establishment of a Jewish "homeland". Likewise, the Arab Muslim conquest of the very same region has the exact same amount of "quantifiable" moral justification.
Now if we want to accuse Isreal of human rights violations, then more blame falls on the Arab world than on Israel. It is against most UN rulings to use "humanitarian aid" to conceal weapons shipments. Which Arab "humanitarian organizations" have been doing for decades.
And likewise, Israeli settlements breach resolutions passed by the Security Council and the subsequent legality of settlements. Moreover, claiming that Arab nations have much worse human rights records is logically irrelevant as the state in question is Israeli, which is a prosperous modern democracy and must be held accountable for its actions. Arab nations must be held accountable as well, but the issue here is Israel, not her neighbors.
So I have a question for you, why do you defend the Islamic world when they have stated that they want Jews exterminated? Where have I heard that before, Oh, that's right Hitler. I don't hear any of you "peace and goodwill" people decrying Isreal's treatment of Palestinians arguing that it was wrong of us to charge most of Germany's military with warcrimes Post WWII. The difference here is that instead of having the short end of the stick, the Jews now have the upperhand.
I love these generalizations.
The ISLAMIC WORLD? huh? Man, that's a pretty big place. 1.57 billion Muslims (the Muslim world) have stated they want the Jews exterminated? I'd love a source (preferably several) where the entire ISLAMIC WORLD (Caps are needed because big places need big letters) have unanimously affirmed the universal desire for the full extermination of the Jewish ethnoreligious group.
The later parts of the snippet I quoted above just doesn't make sense at all, I don't even understand what you're saying. Are you comparing Palestinian resistance to Israeli advancements to German warcrimes??? I don't even know, maybe you can clarify this point.
All in all, no matter what you try to claim to back up your stance that Isreal is wrong, every shred of evidence you have, is taken out of context. Palistine had control of the land prior to Isreal, true, but they drove the Jews out many centuries before.
You say "Palestine" had control of the land prior to Israel, I assume you mean when the Ottomans and later British controlled that area? You then say they, again assuming the Arabs? drove the Jews out "many centuries before" When was this? 7th century conquest? Where the Caliphate conquered Palestine and Syria from...the Christian Roman Empire? Oh, this was also when the Muslims adopted a policy of religious toleration, which resulted in goodwill towards the Arabs from minority groups given the severity of Byzantine persecution? Likewise, the later Umayyad dynasty and even later the Ottoman Empire were some of the safest places in the world for the Jewish people, given the severity of Christian persecution. Funny.
Isreal limits the movements of all Palistinians, true but they didn't at first until the Palistinians showed an intent to kill any Jew that was readily available for them to attack. Isreal was just arbitrarially created to appease europe's guilty conscience. True, but not before an indepth study to determine a fair border to a land that is their anscestral home. Isreal is an agressor in the region, now yes, but they weren't when they got there, they were attacked first, and they won, then they were attacked again, so now yes they do take agressive action to protect their citizens.
Palestinians showed intent to kill any Jew? Right, because the Jews were oh-so-peaceful and exhibited such non-violent tendencies. Even assassinating British politicians.
Of course, atrocities were committed by both sides. Then again, if you come into my house and tell me that you're taking it over, I'm going to hit you. Even more so if you tell me that thousands of years ago, the land I now occupy belonged to your members of your ethnic group and that now justifies the seizure of my land.
Anyone that claims that Isreal is the sole country to blame in the middle east is wearing blinders to the Violence done to them with out any provokation from them. How easily you people forget who the agressors really were, yes it's 40 years later but in all honesty every concession Isreal has been willing to make has been turned down by the poor opressed palistinian. Hell they even killed their own well respected leader when he got close to a real honest peace treaty that would restore palistinian lands. Or have you forgotten that too.
Who the aggressors really were? If the UN decreed that a portion of Europe was to become a Muslim state for the Muslim people where the indigenous population is largely non-Muslim, you'd guarantee there would be violence and rightfully so!
I absolutely hate quoting famous people in arguments, it's really pretentious and reflects badly, but I'll do it anyway. Gandhi:
Why should they not, like other peoples of the earth, make that country
their home where they are born and where they earn their livelihood?
Palestine belongs to the Arabs in the same sense that England belongs to the English or France to the French. It is wrong and inhuman to impose the Jews on the Arabs. What is going on in Palestine today cannot be justified by any moral code of conduct. The mandates have no sanction but that of the last war. Surely it would be a crime against humanity to reduce the proud Arabs so that Palestine can be restored to the Jews partly or wholly as their
national home. The nobler course would be to insist on a just treatment of
the Jews wherever they are born and bred. The Jews born in France are French in precisely the same sense that Christians born in France are French.
their home where they are born and where they earn their livelihood?
Palestine belongs to the Arabs in the same sense that England belongs to the English or France to the French. It is wrong and inhuman to impose the Jews on the Arabs. What is going on in Palestine today cannot be justified by any moral code of conduct. The mandates have no sanction but that of the last war. Surely it would be a crime against humanity to reduce the proud Arabs so that Palestine can be restored to the Jews partly or wholly as their
national home. The nobler course would be to insist on a just treatment of
the Jews wherever they are born and bred. The Jews born in France are French in precisely the same sense that Christians born in France are French.
And...
And now a word to the Jews in Palestine. I have no doubt that they are going
about it in the wrong way. The Palestine of the Biblical conception is not a
geographical tract. It is in their hearts. But if they must look to the
Palestine of geography as their national home, it is wrong to enter it under
the shadow of the British gun. A religious act cannot be performed with the
aid of the bayonet or the bomb. They can settle in Palestine only by the
goodwill of the Arabs. They should seek to convert the Arab heart.
The same God rules the Arab heart who rules the Jewish heart... They will
find the world opinion in their favor in their religious aspiration. There are
hundreds of ways of reasoning with the Arabs, if they will only discard the
help of the British bayonet. As it is, they are co-sharers with the
British in despoiling a people who have done no wrong to them. I am not
defending the Arab excesses. I wish they had chosen the way of non-violence
in resisting what they rightly regarded as an unwarrantable encroachment
upon their country. But according to the accepted canons of right and wrong,
nothing can be said against the Arab resistance in the face of
overwhelming odds.
about it in the wrong way. The Palestine of the Biblical conception is not a
geographical tract. It is in their hearts. But if they must look to the
Palestine of geography as their national home, it is wrong to enter it under
the shadow of the British gun. A religious act cannot be performed with the
aid of the bayonet or the bomb. They can settle in Palestine only by the
goodwill of the Arabs. They should seek to convert the Arab heart.
The same God rules the Arab heart who rules the Jewish heart... They will
find the world opinion in their favor in their religious aspiration. There are
hundreds of ways of reasoning with the Arabs, if they will only discard the
help of the British bayonet. As it is, they are co-sharers with the
British in despoiling a people who have done no wrong to them. I am not
defending the Arab excesses. I wish they had chosen the way of non-violence
in resisting what they rightly regarded as an unwarrantable encroachment
upon their country. But according to the accepted canons of right and wrong,
nothing can be said against the Arab resistance in the face of
overwhelming odds.
Moreover, Israel has yet to offer a peace deal to the Palestinians that would produce a truly viable state. In addition, Israel's refusal to acquiesce to the demands of the Palestinians to halt settlement construction isn't comparable to Palestinian attacks-- Palestinian rocket attacks are decentralized as there does not exist a strong authority in the Palestinian regions to hem them in.
