|
Stay on topic. I cannot put it more clearly then that. Derailments will be met with consequences. ~Nyovne |
On December 01 2012 03:30 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2012 03:28 Elroi wrote:On December 01 2012 03:23 KwarK wrote:On December 01 2012 03:21 oneofthem wrote:
that this crisis is happening on israel's doorsteps does in itself put responsibility on israel to do something, particularly when active measures are contributing to the ongoing situation.
This would be why Israel gives a colossal amount of humanitarian aid to Palestine? Which doesn't correspond even to a small bit to what they make out of the land that legally belongs to the Palestinians? They don't let the Palestinians trade or export their goods, they don't give them access to what used to be their cultivable land, they don't let them fish more than 10 km from the cost. They keep them alive, barely, but talking about humanitarian aid is just too much, in my opinion. I think you mean legally belonged to the British when they inherited the rights of the Turks. Either way, dwelling on the injustices of 60 years ago does absolutely nothing to help the Palestinians alive today.
When you talk about it sounds almost like the Israelis just happens to be there. It sounds like it was by accidents that they are continually violating the borders from 67 (the legal borders as I see it). But it is, as I understand it, a politically and religiously very conscious way of ethnically cleansing the land from Palestinians. (Yes, the word ethnic cleaning actually fits here I think... But like whether water boarding is torture or not, you can twist the words around, exchange them for innocent ones.) I hope I am making sens, this is a very difficult topic for me to discuss since I am very much emotionally invested into this.
Chomsky described this colonial politics in a debate in an interesting way:
It's given accurately by the leading academic specialist on the occupation, Harvard's Sara Roy, as she writes that under the terms of disengagement, Gazans are virtually sealed within the Strip, while West Bankers, their lands dismembered by relentless Israeli settlement, will continue to be penned into fragmented geographic spaces, isolated behind and between walls and barriers.
Her judgment is affirmed by Israel's leading specialist on the West Bank, Meron Benvenisti, who writes that 'the separation walls snaking through the West Bank will create three Bantustans (his words): north, central and south, all virtually separated from East Jerusalem, the center of Palestinian commercial, cultural and political life. And he adds that this, what he calls the soft transfer from Jerusalem, that is an unavoidable result of the separation wall, might achieve its goal. Quoting still, 'the goal of disintegration of the Palestinian community, after many earlier attempts, have failed.' 'The human disaster being planned,' he continues, 'will turn hundreds of thousands of people into a sullen community, hostile, and nurturing a desire for revenge.' So, another example of the sacrifice of security through expansion that's been going on for a long time.
A European Union report concludes that U.S.-backed Israeli programs will virtually end the prospects for a viable Palestinian state by the cantonization and by breaking the organic links between East Jerusalem and the West Bank. Human Rights Watch, in a recent statement, concurs.
|
On December 01 2012 03:52 blinken wrote:
It is hard to really understand why Hamas is elected, since we can't fathom what a populace is really like when it has lived in the prison like conditions it has for so long.
who put them in that prison?
The US and Israel are not interested in Palestinian interests, as this problem would have been solved long before the rise of Hamas.
(edit: many, not all) Palestinian leaders don't want a solution which includes Israel existing.
I can't find a good argument from the Israeli side. I mean, what is the argument? Is it "god promised us this land! he promised! why are we being attacked for ripping down homes and destroying families when god promised us this land!? it's in the bible people!"
how about: you don't get to slaughter children because their great-grandparents may or may not have taken your great-grandparents land? does that argument hold any water with you? because that is the position of Hamas, that they should and will "drive the Jews into the sea."
I would never elect an organization like Hamas for anything, no matter what someone had done to me. and I have every reason to expect the Palestinians to hold themselves to that same standard. they are not helpless and they are not primitive beasts; they are human beings and they can be held responsible for their own actions. and it is unfair to not consider Israel's position when they allow elections, and Hamas is widely elected. that doesn't help anything, and there is no reason on Earth that Israel should be expected to work with Hamas, no matter how they came into power.
|
United States43165 Posts
On December 01 2012 04:00 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2012 03:48 sc2superfan101 wrote:On December 01 2012 03:40 WhiteDog wrote:On December 01 2012 03:38 sc2superfan101 wrote:On December 01 2012 03:12 blinken wrote:
The fact is, when debating this subject, the Israelis can't use facts, because all the facts are against them, so they use clever tactics to sway public opinion and discredit those speaking the truth. this is a bit much, man. neither side is perfectly innocent, but to claim that there is no fault in the Palestinian position is a bit ridiculous, or that Israel cannot make an argument with facts. here is a fact: 804 deaths by suicide bombings since 1989; the vast majority coming from the last decade. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Palestinian_suicide_attacks#Total_number_of_fatalities.2C_by_year2,256 rockets have been fired from Gaza into Israel in 2012 alone http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Palestinian_rocket_attacks_on_Israel,_20128,342 people wounded in terror attacks http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Terrorism- Obstacle to Peace/Palestinian terror since 2000/Victims of Palestinian Violence and Terrorism sinc.htmyou don't condone these actions, but then you say that the Palestinians don't have any course of action that they can take. that isn't true, because they do have other courses of action that they can take, namely: not electing and supporting Hamas. giving the middle finger to the Arab countries that are using them and instead working with the US and Israel for a peaceful solution would be another good step. it's a little ridiculous to pretend like there is no argument from the Israeli side, no matter what Noam Chomsky says. Now compare with the Palestinian killed and injured in that period. It's a 7 for 1 ratio and worst since 2008-2009. true, and that is unfortunate. but who is the aggressor here? which of them has a policy of attack and aggression, and which has a policy of defense? which side, if it stopped it's attacks or incursions, would be eliminated, and which would be accepted? and importantly, though very few ever consider it, which is a legitimate, legal, democratic nation and which isn't? that makes a world of difference when we're talking about attacks from one side to another. What is a democracy for you, explain to me. Because they have election in Gaza, it's a democracy in this regard, while in Israel there is a legal difference made between Jew Israeli and Arab Israeli, which goes against the idea of a democracy. Please explain me, why is Palestine not a democracy. Also, prove to me that the Palestinians are the agressor...
The legal difference between Israeli citizens of Arab and non Arab backgrounds is defined mainly by immunity from conscription. Arab Israeli citizens can still vote (indeed one of the few places in which female Arabs have equal rights), still work, still run for public office and so forth, they are simply not forced to take up arms against Arabs from other nations against their will. While that exemption does make a legal distinction between them I don't think it's fair to say it makes Israel undemocratic, not while they still get to vote.
|
On December 01 2012 04:05 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2012 04:00 WhiteDog wrote:On December 01 2012 03:48 sc2superfan101 wrote:On December 01 2012 03:40 WhiteDog wrote:On December 01 2012 03:38 sc2superfan101 wrote:On December 01 2012 03:12 blinken wrote:
The fact is, when debating this subject, the Israelis can't use facts, because all the facts are against them, so they use clever tactics to sway public opinion and discredit those speaking the truth. this is a bit much, man. neither side is perfectly innocent, but to claim that there is no fault in the Palestinian position is a bit ridiculous, or that Israel cannot make an argument with facts. here is a fact: 804 deaths by suicide bombings since 1989; the vast majority coming from the last decade. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Palestinian_suicide_attacks#Total_number_of_fatalities.2C_by_year2,256 rockets have been fired from Gaza into Israel in 2012 alone http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Palestinian_rocket_attacks_on_Israel,_20128,342 people wounded in terror attacks http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Terrorism- Obstacle to Peace/Palestinian terror since 2000/Victims of Palestinian Violence and Terrorism sinc.htmyou don't condone these actions, but then you say that the Palestinians don't have any course of action that they can take. that isn't true, because they do have other courses of action that they can take, namely: not electing and supporting Hamas. giving the middle finger to the Arab countries that are using them and instead working with the US and Israel for a peaceful solution would be another good step. it's a little ridiculous to pretend like there is no argument from the Israeli side, no matter what Noam Chomsky says. Now compare with the Palestinian killed and injured in that period. It's a 7 for 1 ratio and worst since 2008-2009. true, and that is unfortunate. but who is the aggressor here? which of them has a policy of attack and aggression, and which has a policy of defense? which side, if it stopped it's attacks or incursions, would be eliminated, and which would be accepted? and importantly, though very few ever consider it, which is a legitimate, legal, democratic nation and which isn't? that makes a world of difference when we're talking about attacks from one side to another. What is a democracy for you, explain to me. Because they have election in Gaza, it's a democracy in this regard, while in Israel there is a legal difference made between Jew Israeli and Arab Israeli, which goes against the idea of a democracy. Please explain me, why is Palestine not a democracy. Also, prove to me that the Palestinians are the agressor... The legal difference between Israeli citizens of Arab and non Arab backgrounds is defined mainly by immunity from conscription. Arab Israeli citizens can still vote (indeed one of the few places in which female Arabs have equal rights), still work, still run for public office and so forth, they are simply not forced to take up arms against Arabs from other nations against their will. While that exemption does make a legal distinction between them I don't think it's fair to say it makes Israel undemocratic, not while they still get to vote.
As soon as you just make a difference in your population out of ethnic caracteristic you are not a democracy. It is marked on their identity card wheither they are arab or jew, therefore it's not a democracy. I don't really understand what there is to talk about, it's pretty clear.
|
United States43165 Posts
On December 01 2012 04:03 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2012 03:59 KwarK wrote:On December 01 2012 03:55 oneofthem wrote:On December 01 2012 03:50 KwarK wrote:On December 01 2012 03:42 oneofthem wrote:On December 01 2012 03:40 KwarK wrote:On December 01 2012 03:39 oneofthem wrote:On December 01 2012 03:36 KwarK wrote:On December 01 2012 03:34 oneofthem wrote:On December 01 2012 03:28 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
By Palestinian do you mean an Israeli citizen of Arab descent? Ethnicity and nationality are different things, an ethnically Palestinian Israeli citizen has all the same rights as any other Israeli and is furthermore not required to do compulsory military service. um, no, i obviously mean those who are denied the rights that israeli citizenship confer. You haven't clarified who you mean at all. You have in fact said "those who are denied the rights do not have the rights". Again, an ethnic Palestinian with Israeli citizenship has all the same rights as any other Israeli including the right to work. An ethnic Palestinian with Iraqi citizenship would not have those rights. Please clarify who you think Israel is denying rights to in terms of both ethnicity and nationality. when you have people in desperate conditions and are not allowed integration into your economy because they don't have the rights to do so, those are the people i am talking about. taking your starting point as legal categories when discussing the impact of those very categories is circular. You still haven't clarified beyond "those with no rights have no rights". I will concede that those with no rights do indeed have no rights however I continue to make the argument that those with no rights do not include Arabs with Israeli citizenship. "those have no rights" is not a natural fact. it's that way because israel does not recognize their rights. it would be like me robbing you and then say i do not recognize your property rights, because you have none. basically, whenever there is an actual problem of someone suffering or being treated badly, there is a palestinian that i am interested in talking about. my concern is that some people are clearly in desperate straits because their rights are not recognized by israel. this is called a human rights problem. I do not have the right to work in Israel because I am not an Israeli citizen. Equally Palestinians who are not Israeli citizens do not have the right to work. Denying them the right to work is in no way unreasonable, it is very much within the powers of a sovereign state and is one of those exercised by every state in the world. I still have no idea who you think you are talking about or what rights you think they are being denied and am beginning to think you don't either. I'll state again, if you are a Palestinian ethnically who is also a citizen of Israel then you have all the same rights and privileges as any other Israeli citizen from any background imaginable. work rights are a kind of barrier. the market in that area by physical constraints includes all the palestinian territories. taking away these artifices of exclusion would seem very reasonable if you stop operating in national level categories. None of the words you are using mean anything. You have still not clarified which group you feel is being denied rights. I don't know if you're simply not a native English speaker or if you're some kind of bot that just combines words at random but you have failed to communicate your point (if you even have one). you think barriers to entry to a labor market is a novel concept? when you have people who are physically present in a place, but are not allowed to participate in the economy, then that's a problem caused by lack of rights. when you remove the layer of national identities from the situation and just look at as a domestic problem, the lack of rights is certainly the main thing you'd identify.
Giving every Palestinian full Israeli citizen rights is called the one state solution and it involves the annexation of Palestine and the absorption of the remaining Palestinian land into Israel. It is opposed by the Palestinian Authority. While Israel remains distinct from Palestine it will continue to have its own citizenship, however 20% of the population of Israel is ethnically non Jewish, the vast majority of that being Arab Israeli.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
kwark, the idea is that when you restrict people's movements and participation in an economy, they'll get really fucked up. it's not hard to see.
Following the outbreak of the Second Intifada in 2000, Israel imposed severe restrictions
on the employment of Palestinians within its borders. We study the effect of
this policy change on the involvement of West Bank Palestinians in fatal confrontations
with Israelis during the first phase of the Intifada. Identification relies on the fact that
variation in the pre-Intifada employment rate in Israel across Palestinian localities was
not only considerable but also unrelated to prior levels of involvement in the conflict.
We find robust evidence that localities that suffered from a sharper drop in employment
opportunities were more heavily involved in the conflict.
http://pluto.huji.ac.il/~azussman/permits.pdf
the pre intifada level of work permits was about 250k, which is about 20ish% of the palestinian workforce. economic and social integration is still the only solution, whether in a one state or two state framework.
|
United States43165 Posts
On December 01 2012 04:08 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2012 04:05 KwarK wrote:On December 01 2012 04:00 WhiteDog wrote:On December 01 2012 03:48 sc2superfan101 wrote:On December 01 2012 03:40 WhiteDog wrote:On December 01 2012 03:38 sc2superfan101 wrote:On December 01 2012 03:12 blinken wrote:
The fact is, when debating this subject, the Israelis can't use facts, because all the facts are against them, so they use clever tactics to sway public opinion and discredit those speaking the truth. this is a bit much, man. neither side is perfectly innocent, but to claim that there is no fault in the Palestinian position is a bit ridiculous, or that Israel cannot make an argument with facts. here is a fact: 804 deaths by suicide bombings since 1989; the vast majority coming from the last decade. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Palestinian_suicide_attacks#Total_number_of_fatalities.2C_by_year2,256 rockets have been fired from Gaza into Israel in 2012 alone http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Palestinian_rocket_attacks_on_Israel,_20128,342 people wounded in terror attacks http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Terrorism- Obstacle to Peace/Palestinian terror since 2000/Victims of Palestinian Violence and Terrorism sinc.htmyou don't condone these actions, but then you say that the Palestinians don't have any course of action that they can take. that isn't true, because they do have other courses of action that they can take, namely: not electing and supporting Hamas. giving the middle finger to the Arab countries that are using them and instead working with the US and Israel for a peaceful solution would be another good step. it's a little ridiculous to pretend like there is no argument from the Israeli side, no matter what Noam Chomsky says. Now compare with the Palestinian killed and injured in that period. It's a 7 for 1 ratio and worst since 2008-2009. true, and that is unfortunate. but who is the aggressor here? which of them has a policy of attack and aggression, and which has a policy of defense? which side, if it stopped it's attacks or incursions, would be eliminated, and which would be accepted? and importantly, though very few ever consider it, which is a legitimate, legal, democratic nation and which isn't? that makes a world of difference when we're talking about attacks from one side to another. What is a democracy for you, explain to me. Because they have election in Gaza, it's a democracy in this regard, while in Israel there is a legal difference made between Jew Israeli and Arab Israeli, which goes against the idea of a democracy. Please explain me, why is Palestine not a democracy. Also, prove to me that the Palestinians are the agressor... The legal difference between Israeli citizens of Arab and non Arab backgrounds is defined mainly by immunity from conscription. Arab Israeli citizens can still vote (indeed one of the few places in which female Arabs have equal rights), still work, still run for public office and so forth, they are simply not forced to take up arms against Arabs from other nations against their will. While that exemption does make a legal distinction between them I don't think it's fair to say it makes Israel undemocratic, not while they still get to vote. As soon as you just make a difference in your population out of ethnic caracteristic you are not a democracy. It is marked on their identity card wheither they are arab or jew, therefore it's not a democracy. I don't really understand what there is to talk about, it's pretty clear.
I think you need a dictionary quite badly. You do not understand the words that you are using.
|
Allow me throw a little nuke in this thread: does Israel past half century expansionism (on a smaller scale) mirrors Hitler's ruled Germany "conquest" for "vital space" ? If that's true, palestinians can be seen as french/italian/spanish/whatever resistance were.
|
United States43165 Posts
On December 01 2012 04:11 HomeWorld wrote:
Allow me throw a little nuke in this thread: does Israel past half century expansionism (on a smaller scale) mirrors Hitler's ruled Germany "conquest" for "vital space" ? If that's true, palestinians can be seen as french/italian/spanish/whatever resistance were.
No, it doesn't. And just in case you think you're clever for making the "Israel is the new Hitler" argument, you're not. It's a really, really stupid argument.
|
On December 01 2012 04:13 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2012 04:11 HomeWorld wrote:
Allow me throw a little nuke in this thread: does Israel past half century expansionism (on a smaller scale) mirrors Hitler's ruled Germany "conquest" for "vital space" ? If that's true, palestinians can be seen as french/italian/spanish/whatever resistance were. No, it doesn't. And just in case you think you're clever for making the "Israel is the new Hitler" argument, you're not. It's a really, really stupid argument.
I'm not saying that, I'm just trying to find a god damn good reason for all this mess that happens there. Also, please back up your "really stupid argument" by some fine arguments against it.
|
On December 01 2012 04:11 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2012 04:08 WhiteDog wrote:On December 01 2012 04:05 KwarK wrote:On December 01 2012 04:00 WhiteDog wrote:On December 01 2012 03:48 sc2superfan101 wrote:On December 01 2012 03:40 WhiteDog wrote:On December 01 2012 03:38 sc2superfan101 wrote:On December 01 2012 03:12 blinken wrote:
The fact is, when debating this subject, the Israelis can't use facts, because all the facts are against them, so they use clever tactics to sway public opinion and discredit those speaking the truth. this is a bit much, man. neither side is perfectly innocent, but to claim that there is no fault in the Palestinian position is a bit ridiculous, or that Israel cannot make an argument with facts. here is a fact: 804 deaths by suicide bombings since 1989; the vast majority coming from the last decade. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Palestinian_suicide_attacks#Total_number_of_fatalities.2C_by_year2,256 rockets have been fired from Gaza into Israel in 2012 alone http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Palestinian_rocket_attacks_on_Israel,_20128,342 people wounded in terror attacks http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Terrorism- Obstacle to Peace/Palestinian terror since 2000/Victims of Palestinian Violence and Terrorism sinc.htmyou don't condone these actions, but then you say that the Palestinians don't have any course of action that they can take. that isn't true, because they do have other courses of action that they can take, namely: not electing and supporting Hamas. giving the middle finger to the Arab countries that are using them and instead working with the US and Israel for a peaceful solution would be another good step. it's a little ridiculous to pretend like there is no argument from the Israeli side, no matter what Noam Chomsky says. Now compare with the Palestinian killed and injured in that period. It's a 7 for 1 ratio and worst since 2008-2009. true, and that is unfortunate. but who is the aggressor here? which of them has a policy of attack and aggression, and which has a policy of defense? which side, if it stopped it's attacks or incursions, would be eliminated, and which would be accepted? and importantly, though very few ever consider it, which is a legitimate, legal, democratic nation and which isn't? that makes a world of difference when we're talking about attacks from one side to another. What is a democracy for you, explain to me. Because they have election in Gaza, it's a democracy in this regard, while in Israel there is a legal difference made between Jew Israeli and Arab Israeli, which goes against the idea of a democracy. Please explain me, why is Palestine not a democracy. Also, prove to me that the Palestinians are the agressor... The legal difference between Israeli citizens of Arab and non Arab backgrounds is defined mainly by immunity from conscription. Arab Israeli citizens can still vote (indeed one of the few places in which female Arabs have equal rights), still work, still run for public office and so forth, they are simply not forced to take up arms against Arabs from other nations against their will. While that exemption does make a legal distinction between them I don't think it's fair to say it makes Israel undemocratic, not while they still get to vote. As soon as you just make a difference in your population out of ethnic caracteristic you are not a democracy. It is marked on their identity card wheither they are arab or jew, therefore it's not a democracy. I don't really understand what there is to talk about, it's pretty clear. I think you need a dictionary quite badly. You do not understand the words that you are using.
I think he is making sens, Kwark. There are many reports showing the discrimination against Arabs living in the Jewish state. On top of my head I remember one about the big sums that are spent to make good Jewish schools as compared to the Arab schools in Israel, difficulties in getting the right to construct houses in Arab areas (its more expensive, slower administration etc) and that it is a lot easier for an Arab to lose citizenship than for a Jew.
|
United States43165 Posts
On December 01 2012 04:16 HomeWorld wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2012 04:13 KwarK wrote:On December 01 2012 04:11 HomeWorld wrote:
Allow me throw a little nuke in this thread: does Israel past half century expansionism (on a smaller scale) mirrors Hitler's ruled Germany "conquest" for "vital space" ? If that's true, palestinians can be seen as french/italian/spanish/whatever resistance were. No, it doesn't. And just in case you think you're clever for making the "Israel is the new Hitler" argument, you're not. It's a really, really stupid argument. I'm not saying that, I'm just trying to find a god damn good reason for all this mess that happens there. Also, please back up your "really stupid argument" by some fine arguments against it.
The reason what happens there happens is because both sides have legitimate grievances and there are too many human factors for a lasting peace to endure. Nobody there is Hitler, in fact most problems in the world don't involve anyone being Hitler and never have. There was a fairly big spike in Hitler related problems in the mid 30s that lasted until the mid 40s but that was an anomaly.
|
On December 01 2012 04:16 HomeWorld wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2012 04:13 KwarK wrote:On December 01 2012 04:11 HomeWorld wrote:
Allow me throw a little nuke in this thread: does Israel past half century expansionism (on a smaller scale) mirrors Hitler's ruled Germany "conquest" for "vital space" ? If that's true, palestinians can be seen as french/italian/spanish/whatever resistance were. No, it doesn't. And just in case you think you're clever for making the "Israel is the new Hitler" argument, you're not. It's a really, really stupid argument. I'm not saying that, I'm just trying to find a god damn good reason for all this mess that happens there. Also, please back up your "really stupid argument" by some fine arguments against it.
... In case you didn't notice, there is never a good reason for shit that happens. Humans make mistakes. On both sides.
|
On December 01 2012 04:08 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2012 04:05 KwarK wrote:On December 01 2012 04:00 WhiteDog wrote:On December 01 2012 03:48 sc2superfan101 wrote:On December 01 2012 03:40 WhiteDog wrote:On December 01 2012 03:38 sc2superfan101 wrote:On December 01 2012 03:12 blinken wrote:
The fact is, when debating this subject, the Israelis can't use facts, because all the facts are against them, so they use clever tactics to sway public opinion and discredit those speaking the truth. this is a bit much, man. neither side is perfectly innocent, but to claim that there is no fault in the Palestinian position is a bit ridiculous, or that Israel cannot make an argument with facts. here is a fact: 804 deaths by suicide bombings since 1989; the vast majority coming from the last decade. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Palestinian_suicide_attacks#Total_number_of_fatalities.2C_by_year2,256 rockets have been fired from Gaza into Israel in 2012 alone http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Palestinian_rocket_attacks_on_Israel,_20128,342 people wounded in terror attacks http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Terrorism- Obstacle to Peace/Palestinian terror since 2000/Victims of Palestinian Violence and Terrorism sinc.htmyou don't condone these actions, but then you say that the Palestinians don't have any course of action that they can take. that isn't true, because they do have other courses of action that they can take, namely: not electing and supporting Hamas. giving the middle finger to the Arab countries that are using them and instead working with the US and Israel for a peaceful solution would be another good step. it's a little ridiculous to pretend like there is no argument from the Israeli side, no matter what Noam Chomsky says. Now compare with the Palestinian killed and injured in that period. It's a 7 for 1 ratio and worst since 2008-2009. true, and that is unfortunate. but who is the aggressor here? which of them has a policy of attack and aggression, and which has a policy of defense? which side, if it stopped it's attacks or incursions, would be eliminated, and which would be accepted? and importantly, though very few ever consider it, which is a legitimate, legal, democratic nation and which isn't? that makes a world of difference when we're talking about attacks from one side to another. What is a democracy for you, explain to me. Because they have election in Gaza, it's a democracy in this regard, while in Israel there is a legal difference made between Jew Israeli and Arab Israeli, which goes against the idea of a democracy. Please explain me, why is Palestine not a democracy. Also, prove to me that the Palestinians are the agressor... The legal difference between Israeli citizens of Arab and non Arab backgrounds is defined mainly by immunity from conscription. Arab Israeli citizens can still vote (indeed one of the few places in which female Arabs have equal rights), still work, still run for public office and so forth, they are simply not forced to take up arms against Arabs from other nations against their will. While that exemption does make a legal distinction between them I don't think it's fair to say it makes Israel undemocratic, not while they still get to vote. As soon as you just make a difference in your population out of ethnic caracteristic you are not a democracy. It is marked on their identity card wheither they are arab or jew, therefore it's not a democracy. I don't really understand what there is to talk about, it's pretty clear.
I don't understand how marking ethnicity on an identification card makes a nation undemocratic. The ethnicity of a person doesn't make them ineligible to vote, and at least in my opinion not being forced into military service is a positive, not a negative. Isn't freedom to vote for whoever you want basically the description of a democracy? If my ID card said "white" or something like that on it, the USA would still be a democratic nation.
|
United States43165 Posts
On December 01 2012 04:18 Elroi wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2012 04:11 KwarK wrote:On December 01 2012 04:08 WhiteDog wrote:On December 01 2012 04:05 KwarK wrote:On December 01 2012 04:00 WhiteDog wrote:On December 01 2012 03:48 sc2superfan101 wrote:On December 01 2012 03:40 WhiteDog wrote:On December 01 2012 03:38 sc2superfan101 wrote:On December 01 2012 03:12 blinken wrote:
The fact is, when debating this subject, the Israelis can't use facts, because all the facts are against them, so they use clever tactics to sway public opinion and discredit those speaking the truth. this is a bit much, man. neither side is perfectly innocent, but to claim that there is no fault in the Palestinian position is a bit ridiculous, or that Israel cannot make an argument with facts. here is a fact: 804 deaths by suicide bombings since 1989; the vast majority coming from the last decade. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Palestinian_suicide_attacks#Total_number_of_fatalities.2C_by_year2,256 rockets have been fired from Gaza into Israel in 2012 alone http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Palestinian_rocket_attacks_on_Israel,_20128,342 people wounded in terror attacks http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Terrorism- Obstacle to Peace/Palestinian terror since 2000/Victims of Palestinian Violence and Terrorism sinc.htmyou don't condone these actions, but then you say that the Palestinians don't have any course of action that they can take. that isn't true, because they do have other courses of action that they can take, namely: not electing and supporting Hamas. giving the middle finger to the Arab countries that are using them and instead working with the US and Israel for a peaceful solution would be another good step. it's a little ridiculous to pretend like there is no argument from the Israeli side, no matter what Noam Chomsky says. Now compare with the Palestinian killed and injured in that period. It's a 7 for 1 ratio and worst since 2008-2009. true, and that is unfortunate. but who is the aggressor here? which of them has a policy of attack and aggression, and which has a policy of defense? which side, if it stopped it's attacks or incursions, would be eliminated, and which would be accepted? and importantly, though very few ever consider it, which is a legitimate, legal, democratic nation and which isn't? that makes a world of difference when we're talking about attacks from one side to another. What is a democracy for you, explain to me. Because they have election in Gaza, it's a democracy in this regard, while in Israel there is a legal difference made between Jew Israeli and Arab Israeli, which goes against the idea of a democracy. Please explain me, why is Palestine not a democracy. Also, prove to me that the Palestinians are the agressor... The legal difference between Israeli citizens of Arab and non Arab backgrounds is defined mainly by immunity from conscription. Arab Israeli citizens can still vote (indeed one of the few places in which female Arabs have equal rights), still work, still run for public office and so forth, they are simply not forced to take up arms against Arabs from other nations against their will. While that exemption does make a legal distinction between them I don't think it's fair to say it makes Israel undemocratic, not while they still get to vote. As soon as you just make a difference in your population out of ethnic caracteristic you are not a democracy. It is marked on their identity card wheither they are arab or jew, therefore it's not a democracy. I don't really understand what there is to talk about, it's pretty clear. I think you need a dictionary quite badly. You do not understand the words that you are using. I think he is making sens, Kwark. There are many reports showing the discrimination against Arabs living in the Jewish state. On top of my head I remember one about the big sums that are spent to make good Jewish schools as compared to the Arab schools in Israel, difficulties in getting the right to construct houses in Arab areas (its more expensive, slower administration etc) and that it is a lot easier for an Arab to lose citizenship than for a Jew.
Still doesn't make it not a democracy. The word democracy does not mean "a state which does not include ethnic backgrounds on ID cards", it's about how the government is elected. Discrimination is obviously wrong and there is a case that there is illegal discrimination against the non Jewish minority of Israeli citizens. It's a problem. However it is a problem that has nothing to do with whether or not it is a democracy unless you completely redefine what democracy means which is what he has done. Furthermore the distinction also allows Arab Israelis protection that they would not otherwise have had.
|
On December 01 2012 04:04 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2012 03:52 blinken wrote:
It is hard to really understand why Hamas is elected, since we can't fathom what a populace is really like when it has lived in the prison like conditions it has for so long. who put them in that prison? Show nested quote +
The US and Israel are not interested in Palestinian interests, as this problem would have been solved long before the rise of Hamas.
(edit: many, not all) Palestinian leaders don't want a solution which includes Israel existing. Show nested quote +
I can't find a good argument from the Israeli side. I mean, what is the argument? Is it "god promised us this land! he promised! why are we being attacked for ripping down homes and destroying families when god promised us this land!? it's in the bible people!"
how about: you don't get to slaughter children because their great-grandparents may or may not have taken your great-grandparents land? does that argument hold any water with you?
That argument doesn't hold a drop of water with me, possibly because I don't understand it. "Slaughtering children" would be better attributed to the Israelis in this context, since obviously they've killed more children. Next, what are you implying with "may or may not have taken... land." This is implying that you feel the Jews have a right to this land. There have been barely any Jews living in that geographic location since the third Jewish revolt against the Roman Empire (Bar Kokhba Revolt,) almost two thousand years ago. It would be like saying Italy has a right to France because it once was a part of the Roman Empire.
The Jewish population was practically nothing in the region known as Palestine for almost the entire period from the third revolt to the start of the 20th century. I don't understand, do people think there were a sizable amount of Jews living there the entire time.
|
United States43165 Posts
On December 01 2012 04:22 blinken wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2012 04:04 sc2superfan101 wrote:On December 01 2012 03:52 blinken wrote:
It is hard to really understand why Hamas is elected, since we can't fathom what a populace is really like when it has lived in the prison like conditions it has for so long. who put them in that prison?
The US and Israel are not interested in Palestinian interests, as this problem would have been solved long before the rise of Hamas.
(edit: many, not all) Palestinian leaders don't want a solution which includes Israel existing.
I can't find a good argument from the Israeli side. I mean, what is the argument? Is it "god promised us this land! he promised! why are we being attacked for ripping down homes and destroying families when god promised us this land!? it's in the bible people!"
how about: you don't get to slaughter children because their great-grandparents may or may not have taken your great-grandparents land? does that argument hold any water with you? That argument doesn't hold a drop of water with me, possibly because I don't understand it. "Slaughtering children" would be better attributed to the Israelis in this context, since obviously they've killed more children. Next, what are you implying with "may or may not have taken... land." This is implying that you feel the Jews have a right to this land. There have been barely any Jews living in that geographic location since the third Jewish revolt against the Roman Empire (Bar Kokhba Revolt,) almost two thousand years ago. It would be like saying Italy has a right to France because it once was a part of the Roman Empire. The Jewish population was practically nothing in the region known as Palestine for almost the entire period from the third revolt to the start of the 20th century. I don't understand, do people think there were a sizable amount of Jews living there the entire time.
Speaking for myself I give the "it's our ancestral homeland from 2000 years ago" argument no weight whereas I give the "we live here now" argument an awful lot of weight. It is simply not realistic to put all the Israelis back where they came from, a lot of them were born there.
|
On December 01 2012 04:11 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2012 04:08 WhiteDog wrote:On December 01 2012 04:05 KwarK wrote:On December 01 2012 04:00 WhiteDog wrote:On December 01 2012 03:48 sc2superfan101 wrote:On December 01 2012 03:40 WhiteDog wrote:On December 01 2012 03:38 sc2superfan101 wrote:On December 01 2012 03:12 blinken wrote:
The fact is, when debating this subject, the Israelis can't use facts, because all the facts are against them, so they use clever tactics to sway public opinion and discredit those speaking the truth. this is a bit much, man. neither side is perfectly innocent, but to claim that there is no fault in the Palestinian position is a bit ridiculous, or that Israel cannot make an argument with facts. here is a fact: 804 deaths by suicide bombings since 1989; the vast majority coming from the last decade. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Palestinian_suicide_attacks#Total_number_of_fatalities.2C_by_year2,256 rockets have been fired from Gaza into Israel in 2012 alone http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Palestinian_rocket_attacks_on_Israel,_20128,342 people wounded in terror attacks http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Terrorism- Obstacle to Peace/Palestinian terror since 2000/Victims of Palestinian Violence and Terrorism sinc.htmyou don't condone these actions, but then you say that the Palestinians don't have any course of action that they can take. that isn't true, because they do have other courses of action that they can take, namely: not electing and supporting Hamas. giving the middle finger to the Arab countries that are using them and instead working with the US and Israel for a peaceful solution would be another good step. it's a little ridiculous to pretend like there is no argument from the Israeli side, no matter what Noam Chomsky says. Now compare with the Palestinian killed and injured in that period. It's a 7 for 1 ratio and worst since 2008-2009. true, and that is unfortunate. but who is the aggressor here? which of them has a policy of attack and aggression, and which has a policy of defense? which side, if it stopped it's attacks or incursions, would be eliminated, and which would be accepted? and importantly, though very few ever consider it, which is a legitimate, legal, democratic nation and which isn't? that makes a world of difference when we're talking about attacks from one side to another. What is a democracy for you, explain to me. Because they have election in Gaza, it's a democracy in this regard, while in Israel there is a legal difference made between Jew Israeli and Arab Israeli, which goes against the idea of a democracy. Please explain me, why is Palestine not a democracy. Also, prove to me that the Palestinians are the agressor... The legal difference between Israeli citizens of Arab and non Arab backgrounds is defined mainly by immunity from conscription. Arab Israeli citizens can still vote (indeed one of the few places in which female Arabs have equal rights), still work, still run for public office and so forth, they are simply not forced to take up arms against Arabs from other nations against their will. While that exemption does make a legal distinction between them I don't think it's fair to say it makes Israel undemocratic, not while they still get to vote. As soon as you just make a difference in your population out of ethnic caracteristic you are not a democracy. It is marked on their identity card wheither they are arab or jew, therefore it's not a democracy. I don't really understand what there is to talk about, it's pretty clear. I think you need a dictionary quite badly. You do not understand the words that you are using.
Or maybe you need to reflect. If there is a distinction between Arabs and Jewish on their identity card, how can you assure that your state is democratic, since all institution, like the police force or the tribunal, will be able to know if you are jewish or arab. How can you assure an equal treatment of each citizen if you make disparities between them ?
From Wikipedia :
"While there is no universally accepted definition of "democracy," equality and freedom have both been identified as important characteristics of democracy since ancient times." Equality before law is the basis of a democracy.
Also the distinction between Jewish and Arabs goes beyond the simple designation of their ethnicity. Israel was, at the foundation, a jewish state, and legislations such as the Law of Return, the Absentee Property Law or the Citizenship Law all define Israel as an ethnocratie and not a democracy.
|
United States43165 Posts
On December 01 2012 04:26 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2012 04:11 KwarK wrote:On December 01 2012 04:08 WhiteDog wrote:On December 01 2012 04:05 KwarK wrote:On December 01 2012 04:00 WhiteDog wrote:On December 01 2012 03:48 sc2superfan101 wrote:On December 01 2012 03:40 WhiteDog wrote:On December 01 2012 03:38 sc2superfan101 wrote:On December 01 2012 03:12 blinken wrote:
The fact is, when debating this subject, the Israelis can't use facts, because all the facts are against them, so they use clever tactics to sway public opinion and discredit those speaking the truth. this is a bit much, man. neither side is perfectly innocent, but to claim that there is no fault in the Palestinian position is a bit ridiculous, or that Israel cannot make an argument with facts. here is a fact: 804 deaths by suicide bombings since 1989; the vast majority coming from the last decade. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Palestinian_suicide_attacks#Total_number_of_fatalities.2C_by_year2,256 rockets have been fired from Gaza into Israel in 2012 alone http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Palestinian_rocket_attacks_on_Israel,_20128,342 people wounded in terror attacks http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Terrorism- Obstacle to Peace/Palestinian terror since 2000/Victims of Palestinian Violence and Terrorism sinc.htmyou don't condone these actions, but then you say that the Palestinians don't have any course of action that they can take. that isn't true, because they do have other courses of action that they can take, namely: not electing and supporting Hamas. giving the middle finger to the Arab countries that are using them and instead working with the US and Israel for a peaceful solution would be another good step. it's a little ridiculous to pretend like there is no argument from the Israeli side, no matter what Noam Chomsky says. Now compare with the Palestinian killed and injured in that period. It's a 7 for 1 ratio and worst since 2008-2009. true, and that is unfortunate. but who is the aggressor here? which of them has a policy of attack and aggression, and which has a policy of defense? which side, if it stopped it's attacks or incursions, would be eliminated, and which would be accepted? and importantly, though very few ever consider it, which is a legitimate, legal, democratic nation and which isn't? that makes a world of difference when we're talking about attacks from one side to another. What is a democracy for you, explain to me. Because they have election in Gaza, it's a democracy in this regard, while in Israel there is a legal difference made between Jew Israeli and Arab Israeli, which goes against the idea of a democracy. Please explain me, why is Palestine not a democracy. Also, prove to me that the Palestinians are the agressor... The legal difference between Israeli citizens of Arab and non Arab backgrounds is defined mainly by immunity from conscription. Arab Israeli citizens can still vote (indeed one of the few places in which female Arabs have equal rights), still work, still run for public office and so forth, they are simply not forced to take up arms against Arabs from other nations against their will. While that exemption does make a legal distinction between them I don't think it's fair to say it makes Israel undemocratic, not while they still get to vote. As soon as you just make a difference in your population out of ethnic caracteristic you are not a democracy. It is marked on their identity card wheither they are arab or jew, therefore it's not a democracy. I don't really understand what there is to talk about, it's pretty clear. I think you need a dictionary quite badly. You do not understand the words that you are using. Or maybe you need to reflect. If there is a distinction between Arabs and Jewish on their identity card, how can you assure that your state is democratic
By letting them stand and vote in free and fair elections which is what Israel does. That's why it's democratic.
|
On December 01 2012 04:16 HomeWorld wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2012 04:13 KwarK wrote:On December 01 2012 04:11 HomeWorld wrote:
Allow me throw a little nuke in this thread: does Israel past half century expansionism (on a smaller scale) mirrors Hitler's ruled Germany "conquest" for "vital space" ? If that's true, palestinians can be seen as french/italian/spanish/whatever resistance were. No, it doesn't. And just in case you think you're clever for making the "Israel is the new Hitler" argument, you're not. It's a really, really stupid argument. I'm not saying that, I'm just trying to find a god damn good reason for all this mess that happens there. Also, please back up your "really stupid argument" by some fine arguments against it.
well, for one, there are Jews still alive today (though very few) who lived through some of the most hellish treatment of all time, which came directly at the orders of Hitler. and we're not talking about a few isolated incidents, or even 7,000 Jews. we're talking about 2/3s of the population of Europe's Jewry. wiped out for no other reason than that they were Jewish. almost half of the entire world's Jewish population suffered in the Holocaust. invoking the name of Hitler in any kind of comparison with the Jews as a whole is disgusting primarily because of that. because there are people who I have met who saw their entire families, sometimes their entire towns, murdered.
furthermore, it is disgusting because Hitler was not fighting largely defensive wars against multiple countries, with little to no international support. we can discuss what level of technology or military prowess the early Zionists and Israeli's did or didn't have, but it is undeniable that they have not taken over half of Europe or come close to taking as much land as Hitler did. even further, Hitler and Nazi Germany never ceded land back to the people they conquered, and they never allowed them any democratic elections. they didn't provide them with funding, support, electricity, and other forms of aid. they gassed them by the thousands if they were "undesirables" and they subjugated them if they weren't.
in no way, in no shape, in no conception, and by no definition could Israel ever be compared with Nazi Germany, and to do so is one of the most horrible things a person can do, in my opinion. it is deliberately invoking one of the most horrific acts of human cruelty ever visited upon the world at the victims of that cruelty. and on a purely objective note, it could not possibly be an accurate comparison as the situations are as different as night and day.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
