|
Stay on topic. I cannot put it more clearly then that. Derailments will be met with consequences. ~Nyovne |
On December 01 2012 04:28 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2012 04:26 WhiteDog wrote: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.
Democracy is not only about vote... You need free press, freedom of association and equality before law for it to be a real democracy.
Explain me, how can make sure your legal institution will treat equally every citizen if the same institution makes an ethnic distinction between citizens ? In France, we consider that even making ethnic statistics is forbidden because it goes against the basic principle of democracy that all citizen equal and thus equally french.
|
On December 01 2012 04:19 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2012 04:16 HomeWorld wrote: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.
Let me ask you another question: Please show me an existing border conflict between two nations (planet wide) other than Israeli/Palestinian one. There are none (with very few exceptions, mostly light skirmishes that aren't even news worthy)
Anyway, the way I see it, UN started this mess ( back in '47 - UN General Assembly Resolution - partition of british mandate for palestine) , UN should solve it.
|
On December 01 2012 04:25 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2012 04:22 blinken wrote: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.
I support a two state solution, so I am not implying that we move the Israelis anywhere.
What holds more weight, "it's our ancestral homeland from 2000 years ago and we still live here," or, "we live here now because we waged several wars to be here and are conducting practices condemned by the UN and international law."
Yeah, that's a tough one.
|
On December 01 2012 04:19 KwarK wrote:
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.
That's just what Hitler would say, Hitler!
|
United States43956 Posts
On December 01 2012 04:31 HomeWorld wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2012 04:19 KwarK wrote:On December 01 2012 04:16 HomeWorld wrote: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. Let me ask you another question: Please show me an existing border conflict between two nations (planet wide) other than Israeli/Palestinian one. There are none (with very few exceptions, mostly light skirmishes that aren't even news worthy) Anyway, the way I see it, UN started this mess ( back in '47 - UN General Assembly Resolution - partition of british mandate for palestine) , UN should solve it.
You need to read more, there are dozens of ongoing conflicts. North Korea still fires shells at South Korea from time to time, Pakistan and India still shoot at each other, Turkey and Syria exchange fire and those are just three recent ones between established states. Once you get into Africa you just have all out war all over the place. The fact that you don't read the news does not mean these things don't happen.
|
On December 01 2012 04:32 blinken wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2012 04:25 KwarK wrote:On December 01 2012 04:22 blinken wrote: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. I support a two state solution, so I am not implying that we move the Israelis anywhere. What holds more weight, "it's our ancestral homeland from 2000 years ago and we still live here," or, "we live here now because we waged several wars to be here and are conducting practices condemned by the UN and international law." Yeah, that's a tough one.
Boiling down each side into pathetically oversimple statements does not make for a convincing argument. In fact, it simply makes you looks disingenuous.
|
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.
if you really think it's okay for Hamas to blow up Israeli schoolchildren... for any reason... then yeah, we can't argue about it. I really, really hope that's not what you're saying, and I don't think it is, but that is the argument. Hamas has openly tried, and succeeded, in murdering Israeli children, and they have repeatedly made open their intention to continue doing so as long as Israel remains. (edit: ahhh, I understand now. disregard my first sentence)
the Jewish population was about 43,000 out of 500,000 total in 1890. that's not an insignificant amount. and yes, a lot of Jews did immigrate to Palestine and Israel during the 30s and 40s. I wonder why...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Palestine#Demographics_in_the_Ottoman_period
(edit 2: you do realize that there were no Jews in those areas for a reason other than Jews choosing to leave, right? ain't nobody has anything on the Jews when it comes to persecution and losing your home.)
|
On November 02 2011 00:54 konadora wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2011 00:50 buhhy wrote:On November 02 2011 00:47 konadora wrote:On November 02 2011 00:46 SirMilford wrote:On November 02 2011 00:44 konadora wrote:
uh, what kind of stupid law is that that forces a government to cut financial ties to a global organisation because of one country? on what basis? It would be from their relation with Israel almost certainly. sorry i'm not really into politics, but what was the relation between the US, israel and palestine? genuinely curious. Israel has quite the lobby power in the US. As a result, the US administration is generally pro-Israel. The US stood behind Israel pretty much from its inception. There's a reason why the neighboring Arab states have been unable to destroy Israel. Show nested quote +On November 02 2011 00:49 Nizaris wrote:^US is closely allied with Israel. Israel hates Palestine since they want their land. therefore US can't show "sympathy" towards Palestine. On November 02 2011 00:47 Kupon3ss wrote:
Well this isn't surprising, as appealing to the Jewish community earns American politicians an insane amount of votes and funding while being fair to Palestine earns nothing for elections. hoooray for democracy. what a shame. i'm glad the unesco had what it takes to accept a 20% loss of income for what is the right thing to do. thanks for the replies. i think i saw it in a documentary film that lots of jews run the major banks and corporations in the US? is that why this is happening? bringing such issues in the face of human rights.... such a shame. thanks for the responses!
I would just want to make things clear, its not "jews controlling anything", its Zionists, a lot of jews are not Zionists but in order to be a zionist one has to be a jew.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zionism
also, Israel is a way for the US to keep the control of the middle-east thus getting the oil etc etc, you know how it is, by promoting a minority and putting them in charge, its so much easier to keep control over an occupied territory, but now Im really getting off topic...
Im so glad that this is happening, although a bit douchy by the US to stop the funding.
|
On December 01 2012 04:37 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2012 04:32 blinken wrote:On December 01 2012 04:25 KwarK wrote:On December 01 2012 04:22 blinken wrote: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. I support a two state solution, so I am not implying that we move the Israelis anywhere. What holds more weight, "it's our ancestral homeland from 2000 years ago and we still live here," or, "we live here now because we waged several wars to be here and are conducting practices condemned by the UN and international law." Yeah, that's a tough one. Boiling down each side into pathetically oversimple statements does not make for a convincing argument. In fact, it simply makes you looks disingenuous.
Perhaps reading the preceding comments, rather then jumping in at the end and making grand assumptions does not make for a convincing post. In fact, it makes you look myopic.
|
On December 01 2012 04:34 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2012 04:31 HomeWorld wrote:On December 01 2012 04:19 KwarK wrote:On December 01 2012 04:16 HomeWorld wrote: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. Let me ask you another question: Please show me an existing border conflict between two nations (planet wide) other than Israeli/Palestinian one. There are none (with very few exceptions, mostly light skirmishes that aren't even news worthy) Anyway, the way I see it, UN started this mess ( back in '47 - UN General Assembly Resolution - partition of british mandate for palestine) , UN should solve it. You need to read more, there are dozens of ongoing conflicts. North Korea still fires shells at South Korea from time to time, Pakistan and India still shoot at each other, Turkey and Syria exchange fire and those are just three recent ones between established states. Once you get into Africa you just have all out war all over the place. The fact that you don't read the news does not mean these things don't happen.
The nations you mention fall under ''light skirmishes'' he mentioned, as of now. In Africa I know only about Sudan's problem, are there any other border problems of the same magnitude as Palestine/Israel?
|
On December 01 2012 04:34 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2012 04:31 HomeWorld wrote:On December 01 2012 04:19 KwarK wrote:On December 01 2012 04:16 HomeWorld wrote: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. Let me ask you another question: Please show me an existing border conflict between two nations (planet wide) other than Israeli/Palestinian one. There are none (with very few exceptions, mostly light skirmishes that aren't even news worthy) Anyway, the way I see it, UN started this mess ( back in '47 - UN General Assembly Resolution - partition of british mandate for palestine) , UN should solve it. You need to read more, there are dozens of ongoing conflicts. North Korea still fires shells at South Korea from time to time, Pakistan and India still shoot at each other, Turkey and Syria exchange fire and those are just three recent ones between established states. Once you get into Africa you just have all out war all over the place. The fact that you don't read the news does not mean these things don't happen.
I did said "excepting light skirmishes", your examples aren't fierce fights for territories but just exactly what I excluded from that post : ppl throwing "tomatoes" at each others. On a 1 to 10 scale your examples are at the bottom compared to Palestinian/Israelian situation.
|
On December 01 2012 04:40 HomeWorld wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2012 04:34 KwarK wrote:On December 01 2012 04:31 HomeWorld wrote:On December 01 2012 04:19 KwarK wrote:On December 01 2012 04:16 HomeWorld wrote: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. Let me ask you another question: Please show me an existing border conflict between two nations (planet wide) other than Israeli/Palestinian one. There are none (with very few exceptions, mostly light skirmishes that aren't even news worthy) Anyway, the way I see it, UN started this mess ( back in '47 - UN General Assembly Resolution - partition of british mandate for palestine) , UN should solve it. You need to read more, there are dozens of ongoing conflicts. North Korea still fires shells at South Korea from time to time, Pakistan and India still shoot at each other, Turkey and Syria exchange fire and those are just three recent ones between established states. Once you get into Africa you just have all out war all over the place. The fact that you don't read the news does not mean these things don't happen. I did said "excepting light skirmishes", your examples aren't fierce fights for territories but just exactly what I excluded from that post : ppl throwing "tomatoes" at each others. On a 1 to 10 scale your examples are at the bottom compared to Palestinian/Israelian situation.
Palestine isn't a nation. you said border fights between two nations. Palestine/Israel doesn't fit your definition.
|
On December 01 2012 04:28 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2012 04:16 HomeWorld wrote: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 li ttle 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.
Well the Lebensraum idea that Hitler described in Mein Kampf and the zionist progress since the 1920's seems awfully similar.
Also what are you talking about, that they've had no international support? You realise Israel syphons trillions of dollars worth of foreign taxpayer money from various countries to wage war against the native population of the Middle East?
|
United States43956 Posts
On December 01 2012 04:40 HomeWorld wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2012 04:34 KwarK wrote:On December 01 2012 04:31 HomeWorld wrote:On December 01 2012 04:19 KwarK wrote:On December 01 2012 04:16 HomeWorld wrote: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. Let me ask you another question: Please show me an existing border conflict between two nations (planet wide) other than Israeli/Palestinian one. There are none (with very few exceptions, mostly light skirmishes that aren't even news worthy) Anyway, the way I see it, UN started this mess ( back in '47 - UN General Assembly Resolution - partition of british mandate for palestine) , UN should solve it. You need to read more, there are dozens of ongoing conflicts. North Korea still fires shells at South Korea from time to time, Pakistan and India still shoot at each other, Turkey and Syria exchange fire and those are just three recent ones between established states. Once you get into Africa you just have all out war all over the place. The fact that you don't read the news does not mean these things don't happen. I did said "excepting light skirmishes", your examples aren't fierce fights for territories but just exactly what I excluded from that post : ppl throwing "tomatoes" at each others. On a 1 to 10 scale your examples are at the bottom compared to Palestinian/Israelian situation.
There aren't fierce fights for territories in Palestine, there are terrorists firing rockets on one side and the army responding on the other or pre-emptively striking known terrorists whereas NK and SK are actually at war with each other. You seem to have absolutely no understanding of what the Israel Palestine situation involves, nor what any other conflict involves.
|
On December 01 2012 04:03 Elroi wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2012 03:30 KwarK wrote: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: Show nested quote +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.
I know many people are talking to you at the same time, Kwark, but you never responded to this post...
|
On December 01 2012 04:42 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2012 04:40 HomeWorld wrote:On December 01 2012 04:34 KwarK wrote:On December 01 2012 04:31 HomeWorld wrote:On December 01 2012 04:19 KwarK wrote:On December 01 2012 04:16 HomeWorld wrote: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. Let me ask you another question: Please show me an existing border conflict between two nations (planet wide) other than Israeli/Palestinian one. There are none (with very few exceptions, mostly light skirmishes that aren't even news worthy) Anyway, the way I see it, UN started this mess ( back in '47 - UN General Assembly Resolution - partition of british mandate for palestine) , UN should solve it. You need to read more, there are dozens of ongoing conflicts. North Korea still fires shells at South Korea from time to time, Pakistan and India still shoot at each other, Turkey and Syria exchange fire and those are just three recent ones between established states. Once you get into Africa you just have all out war all over the place. The fact that you don't read the news does not mean these things don't happen. I did said "excepting light skirmishes", your examples aren't fierce fights for territories but just exactly what I excluded from that post : ppl throwing "tomatoes" at each others. On a 1 to 10 scale your examples are at the bottom compared to Palestinian/Israelian situation. Palestine isn't a nation. you said border fights between two nations. Palestine/Israel doesn't fit your definition.
You are confusing terms here, nation ~= country.
|
On December 01 2012 04:39 blinken wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2012 04:37 farvacola wrote:On December 01 2012 04:32 blinken wrote:On December 01 2012 04:25 KwarK wrote:On December 01 2012 04:22 blinken wrote: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. I support a two state solution, so I am not implying that we move the Israelis anywhere. What holds more weight, "it's our ancestral homeland from 2000 years ago and we still live here," or, "we live here now because we waged several wars to be here and are conducting practices condemned by the UN and international law." Yeah, that's a tough one. Boiling down each side into pathetically oversimple statements does not make for a convincing argument. In fact, it simply makes you looks disingenuous. Perhaps reading the preceding comments, rather then jumping in at the end and making grand assumptions does not make for a convincing post. In fact, it makes you look like myopic.
I've made no grand assumptions; you attempted to elicit a particular response from fellow posters via offering forth an entirely useless dichotomy. In fact, having read pretty much this entire thread, I'd say the gesture was borne out of an unwillingness to effectively listen to the opposition, hence the rigid and oversimple reductionism. Attempting to understand the opposing side is far more productive than dressing them up so that you can shoot them down.
|
On December 01 2012 04:42 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2012 04:40 HomeWorld wrote:On December 01 2012 04:34 KwarK wrote:On December 01 2012 04:31 HomeWorld wrote:On December 01 2012 04:19 KwarK wrote:On December 01 2012 04:16 HomeWorld wrote: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. Let me ask you another question: Please show me an existing border conflict between two nations (planet wide) other than Israeli/Palestinian one. There are none (with very few exceptions, mostly light skirmishes that aren't even news worthy) Anyway, the way I see it, UN started this mess ( back in '47 - UN General Assembly Resolution - partition of british mandate for palestine) , UN should solve it. You need to read more, there are dozens of ongoing conflicts. North Korea still fires shells at South Korea from time to time, Pakistan and India still shoot at each other, Turkey and Syria exchange fire and those are just three recent ones between established states. Once you get into Africa you just have all out war all over the place. The fact that you don't read the news does not mean these things don't happen. I did said "excepting light skirmishes", your examples aren't fierce fights for territories but just exactly what I excluded from that post : ppl throwing "tomatoes" at each others. On a 1 to 10 scale your examples are at the bottom compared to Palestinian/Israelian situation. Palestine isn't a nation. you said border fights between two nations. Palestine/Israel doesn't fit your definition.
It is a nation recognised by over 130 other states. It is a nation.
|
On December 01 2012 04:43 EtherealBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2012 04:28 sc2superfan101 wrote:On December 01 2012 04:16 HomeWorld wrote: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 li ttle 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. Well the Lebensraum idea that Hitler described in Mein Kampf and the zionist progress since the 1920's seems awfully similar. Also what are you talking about, that they've had no international support? You realise Israel syphons trillions of dollars worth of foreign taxpayer money from various countries to wage war against the native population of the Middle East?
what similarities?
they syphon trillions of dollars? do you have any idea how much money a trillion dollars is?
|
United States43956 Posts
On December 01 2012 04:43 EtherealBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2012 04:28 sc2superfan101 wrote:On December 01 2012 04:16 HomeWorld wrote: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 li ttle 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. Well the Lebensraum idea that Hitler described in Mein Kampf and the zionist progress since the 1920's seems awfully similar.
Not really. While both identified that people generally need land to live on this is not an idea that is especially unique to Hitler, Zionism or anything else. It's more unique for people to hold the opposite stance, for example pirates. Hitler and the Jews are similar in that both do not seek to make a living by roving the high seas and hunting treasure but that's about it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
