|
Stay on topic. I cannot put it more clearly then that. Derailments will be met with consequences. ~Nyovne |
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, 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.
This is why in white-dominant countries, we paint the black people white to avoid discrimination. The opposite is true in countries like Sudan.
Wait a second
Nope.
Sorry, this idea of democracy based on an ethnic blindness is not really useful. There are two possibilities that arise from your claim:
1. You are correct. This means that there are not and have never been any democratic systems in the world because as you said, "How can you assure an equal treatment of each citizen if you make disparities between them?". By that logic, any place there are people with skin tones bordering on black and people with skin tones bordering on white, you cannot have a democratic state. Their ethnicity appears different.
2. You are wrong.
You could however say that it is unfair for states to categorize people by ethnicity. Unfortunately they do. The question then becomes whether or not the distinction is harmful. Kwark has pointed out that from a legal perspective the distinction is beneficial.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
the prominence of historical memory is itself the problem in these conflicts. a successful palestinian campaign has to press for their rights in such a way that it makes clear to israel that it is in their mutual interest to live together as equals. it's a domestic discrimination situation with more resemblance to Watts than anything else. the invocation of historical justice claims is only contingent and not really reflective of the true nature of the 'conflict'.
the alternative is to go the way of native american tribes. too bloody to happen. thus not going to happen.
http://www.ifad.org/events/gc/34/nen/factsheet/palestine.pdf
Occupation, conflict, the separation wall, trade restrictions, closure politics and movement restrictions hinder
the access of Palestinians to agricultural areas. According to the World Bank these measures have caused the
worst economic depression in recent history
Even though the Palestinian Authority has free trade agreements with the European Union, the United States,
Turkey and Canada, the Occupied Territories depends on Israel for 90 per cent of its export and this limits
agricultural growth. Israeli goods constitute 80 per cent of total imports to the Occupied territories
Seventy per cent of young people in Gaza and 24 per cent of young people in the West Bank are unemployed
youth unemployment in palestine is incredibly high, education level abysmally low. more than 50% of the population there is under 25. the continual contrast between their lives and the lives of israelis nearby is a pretty convincing backdrop for whatever group level story you want to tell, be it true historical injustices, or imaginary conspiracies. young people are very enthusiastic risk takers, it's a pretty explosive combination.
i don't think israel can absorb all the people though, but they should do much more to correct the economic malaise. their current approach is not working.
|
On December 01 2012 05:00 NicolBolas wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2012 04:52 KwarK wrote:On December 01 2012 04:44 Elroi wrote:On December 01 2012 04:03 Elroi wrote: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: 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... I believe the political will within Israel to preserve a viable Palestinian state when the Palestinians themselves either do not wish to create a two state solution or are unable to police their more extreme elements is fading. There are, of course, extremists within Israel who would rather see Palestine disappear and moderates who, when faced with Palestinian resistance, simply put the needs of Israel first. It's an ongoing process that is a result of the polarisation caused by the conflict and it will continue until one side inevitably wins and the other loses. Palestine needs to rein in its more extreme elements, if it can do so then the higher aspirations of Israel and international pressure will force a solution. That I don't buy. Israel has done enough bad acting in this war to make me suspicious of any "higher aspirations" they might have. Their opposition of Palestinian statehood being a prime example. There is no reason for them to oppose statehood other than their own personal self-interest. They don't want the Palestinians to be able to come to the bargaining table as equals or even slightly more equally. They want to force the Palestinians to do everything exactly as they want. Israel ceded the moral high ground long ago. To me, the only difference between the two is which one has the bigger army.
Well said. Imagine what this mess would be if palestinians were able to field same the amount of main battle tanks assorted with some nukes for assured mutual annihilation. Nothing but "endless" peace talks, which is good. But for now, we have "terrorists" at one side and whatever on the other side.
|
United States42826 Posts
On December 01 2012 05:07 HomeWorld wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2012 05:00 NicolBolas wrote:On December 01 2012 04:52 KwarK wrote:On December 01 2012 04:44 Elroi wrote:On December 01 2012 04:03 Elroi wrote: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: 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... I believe the political will within Israel to preserve a viable Palestinian state when the Palestinians themselves either do not wish to create a two state solution or are unable to police their more extreme elements is fading. There are, of course, extremists within Israel who would rather see Palestine disappear and moderates who, when faced with Palestinian resistance, simply put the needs of Israel first. It's an ongoing process that is a result of the polarisation caused by the conflict and it will continue until one side inevitably wins and the other loses. Palestine needs to rein in its more extreme elements, if it can do so then the higher aspirations of Israel and international pressure will force a solution. That I don't buy. Israel has done enough bad acting in this war to make me suspicious of any "higher aspirations" they might have. Their opposition of Palestinian statehood being a prime example. There is no reason for them to oppose statehood other than their own personal self-interest. They don't want the Palestinians to be able to come to the bargaining table as equals or even slightly more equally. They want to force the Palestinians to do everything exactly as they want. Israel ceded the moral high ground long ago. To me, the only difference between the two is which one has the bigger army. Well said. Imagine what this mess would be if palestinians were able to field same the amount of main battle tanks assorted with some nukes for assured mutual annihilation. Nothing but "endless" peace talks, which is good. But for now, we have "terrorists" at one side and whatever on the other side.
Is your stance now that you concede it is nothing like WWII but "imagine if it was, then it would be"?
|
On December 01 2012 05:04 Art.FeeL wrote:
Can anyone explain why Israel and USA (and some other nations too) opposed the status upgrade Palestine got. Their words are usually that of ''resolving the conflict through negotiations'' and this UN thing doesn't really oppose it. They also say that they are for a Palestinian state so shouldn't they vote for? Anyone with more insight?
Rejecting nations were: Canada, Czech Republic, Israel, Marshall Islands, Micronesia (Federated States of), Nauru, Palau, Panama, and United States of America.
Their general interest is most likely lessening the power of the Palestinians' negotiating position, so a step towards UN recognition is not really what they're wanting to see.
|
On December 01 2012 05:06 blinken wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2012 04:57 SupLilSon wrote:On December 01 2012 04:50 blinken wrote:On December 01 2012 04:47 SupLilSon wrote:On December 01 2012 04:39 blinken wrote: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:
[quote]
who put them in that prison?
[quote]
(edit: many, not all) Palestinian leaders don't want a solution which includes Israel existing.
[quote]
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. Making posts without knowing what you are talking about makes you look idiotic. I agree with Farva here. Haha, an ad hom without an ounce of substance. You sir are a gentleman and a scholar. Your posts show you haven't taken any care to read the history of the conflict or you are just being willfully ignorant and biased. If you thing Israel waged several wars with the intention of conquest then you need to read a history book. If anything, my posts have shown the complete opposite, but I doubt you've taken the time to read them as in today's society the ad hom rules all. Definition of conquest: The subjugation and assumption of control of a place or people by use of military force. Israel was given the land and almost immediately several Arab countries declared war on them. In your mind, the Israelis are defending land that was given to them. In reality, the Israelis knew they would have to fight for it, and were given enough arms to combat 5 nations alone. Tell me, if their intentions didn't involve conquest, why did they possess a military capable of defeating the combined forces of 5 Arab nations?
Wow. READ A HISTORY BOOK! You really think the initial Israeli settlers, many of whom purchased land legally, were doing so knowing they would engage in a war with 5 established Arab nations? These people werent soldiers... many just wanted a home after the Holocaust ravaged theirs. They didn't have the extensive military network they do now. You really don't know much about the history. If Israel wanted to they could take 10 times the land they have now. You are seriously delusional if you believe what you are typing.
|
On December 01 2012 04:48 blinken wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2012 04:37 sc2superfan101 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. 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 The Jewish people started moving back to Israel before the rise of Nazi Germany. It was a concerted plan from diaspora communites across the globe to reoccupy the promised land. Go back a little farther, 1800. 7000 Jews to almost 250k Muslims. 1690, only 2k Jews. Your link only proves my point. I don't want to get into the topic of Hamas blowing up schoolchildren. Your looking for kneejerk reactions with a comment like this, asserting that Hamas is sitting there with laser guided missiles pointed towards children. Children have died on both sides, more on the Palestinian, so take your extreme emotion-evoking comments elsewhere.
What is this moving back thing you speak of? Most of the Jews in Israel are originally from Germany, USSR, Poland, etc. They are white Europeans. Their ancestors had converted to Judaism. It is just a religious myth that ALL Jews come from ancient Canaan. In fact, almost all the descendants of the ancient Israelites are Muslim by religion today haha. There is this thing called proselytizing, and like other religions, Judaism has done a good amount of it. That's why you find Jews all over the place. "Moving back to Israel" is like saying Catholics "moving back to Italy". It's just silly.
|
On December 01 2012 05:11 SupLilSon wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2012 05:06 blinken wrote:On December 01 2012 04:57 SupLilSon wrote:On December 01 2012 04:50 blinken wrote:On December 01 2012 04:47 SupLilSon wrote:On December 01 2012 04:39 blinken wrote: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:
[quote]
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. Making posts without knowing what you are talking about makes you look idiotic. I agree with Farva here. Haha, an ad hom without an ounce of substance. You sir are a gentleman and a scholar. Your posts show you haven't taken any care to read the history of the conflict or you are just being willfully ignorant and biased. If you thing Israel waged several wars with the intention of conquest then you need to read a history book. If anything, my posts have shown the complete opposite, but I doubt you've taken the time to read them as in today's society the ad hom rules all. Definition of conquest: The subjugation and assumption of control of a place or people by use of military force. Israel was given the land and almost immediately several Arab countries declared war on them. In your mind, the Israelis are defending land that was given to them. In reality, the Israelis knew they would have to fight for it, and were given enough arms to combat 5 nations alone. Tell me, if their intentions didn't involve conquest, why did they possess a military capable of defeating the combined forces of 5 Arab nations? Wow. READ A HISTORY BOOK! You really think the initial Israeli settlers, many of whom purchased land legally, were doing so knowing they would engage in a war with 5 established Arab nations? These people werent soldiers... many just wanted a home after the Holocaust ravaged theirs. They didn't have the extensive military network they do now. You really don't know much about the history. If Israel wanted to they could take 10 times the land they have now. You are seriously delusional if you believe what you are typing.
You read history, Israelis started to arm themselves way before 1948 - heck even before the second world war.
Purchased legally - lol - they bought all the land with foreign capitals. Very fair.
|
On December 01 2012 05:08 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2012 05:07 HomeWorld wrote:On December 01 2012 05:00 NicolBolas wrote:On December 01 2012 04:52 KwarK wrote:On December 01 2012 04:44 Elroi wrote:On December 01 2012 04:03 Elroi wrote: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: 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... I believe the political will within Israel to preserve a viable Palestinian state when the Palestinians themselves either do not wish to create a two state solution or are unable to police their more extreme elements is fading. There are, of course, extremists within Israel who would rather see Palestine disappear and moderates who, when faced with Palestinian resistance, simply put the needs of Israel first. It's an ongoing process that is a result of the polarisation caused by the conflict and it will continue until one side inevitably wins and the other loses. Palestine needs to rein in its more extreme elements, if it can do so then the higher aspirations of Israel and international pressure will force a solution. That I don't buy. Israel has done enough bad acting in this war to make me suspicious of any "higher aspirations" they might have. Their opposition of Palestinian statehood being a prime example. There is no reason for them to oppose statehood other than their own personal self-interest. They don't want the Palestinians to be able to come to the bargaining table as equals or even slightly more equally. They want to force the Palestinians to do everything exactly as they want. Israel ceded the moral high ground long ago. To me, the only difference between the two is which one has the bigger army. Well said. Imagine what this mess would be if palestinians were able to field same the amount of main battle tanks assorted with some nukes for assured mutual annihilation. Nothing but "endless" peace talks, which is good. But for now, we have "terrorists" at one side and whatever on the other side. Is your stance now that you concede it is nothing like WWII but "imagine if it was, then it would be"?
My stance is very clear (guess it wasn't). I dislike wars, I dislike people getting killed, I like people settling their problems in an amicable way. And to be quite honest I despise power play (recent US action)
Also I do not condone whatever palestinians do, they have no choice, no one are giving them an alternate peaceful opportunity right now. It's all about compromise a thing that the one in the position to do it doesn't.
|
On December 01 2012 04:52 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2012 04:44 Elroi wrote:On December 01 2012 04:03 Elroi wrote: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: 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... I believe the political will within Israel to preserve a viable Palestinian state when the Palestinians themselves either do not wish to create a two state solution or are unable to police their more extreme elements is fading. There are, of course, extremists within Israel who would rather see Palestine disappear and moderates who, when faced with Palestinian resistance, simply put the needs of Israel first. It's an ongoing process that is a result of the polarisation caused by the conflict and it will continue until one side inevitably wins and the other loses. Palestine needs to rein in its more extreme elements, if it can do so then the higher aspirations of Israel and international pressure will force a solution.
I don't think you can expect much from the Palestinians, given the situation they are in. They have very limited access to education and medicare. In Gaza, about half of the population is under 15 years old. They are desperate. The desperation leads to fanaticism. And the Israelis keep them desperate to make them look illegitimate and renegade in the eyes of the world. Meanwhile they steal their land. What is so frustrating and hard to understand is that the Palestinians, even though the region is more or less uncivilized, are more humane, in my opinion, than the well educated, rich, healthy, modern Israelis.
That is barbarism in heart of civilization as I see it. And here is actually an important parallel that you sort of can draw between Nazi Germany and the situation in Israel... How can this happen in a civilized country? How can they live with themselves? and that is also what is so incredibly appalling with the return of Fascism in Europe today. I mean we have to ask ourselves, are we really this rotten? Doesn't civilization and enlightenment mean more? (I'm sorry this became sort of a rant.) I'm thinking of a recent event in Sweden: we had a scandal last week involving two members of parliament arming themselves with iron pipes and saying racist slurs to people in the streets. The result was that the party gained in popularity. It is impossible for me to understand how violence and sympathy with violence can come so naturally to 'civilized' people.
|
On December 01 2012 05:12 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2012 04:48 blinken wrote:On December 01 2012 04:37 sc2superfan101 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. 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 The Jewish people started moving back to Israel before the rise of Nazi Germany. It was a concerted plan from diaspora communites across the globe to reoccupy the promised land. Go back a little farther, 1800. 7000 Jews to almost 250k Muslims. 1690, only 2k Jews. Your link only proves my point. I don't want to get into the topic of Hamas blowing up schoolchildren. Your looking for kneejerk reactions with a comment like this, asserting that Hamas is sitting there with laser guided missiles pointed towards children. Children have died on both sides, more on the Palestinian, so take your extreme emotion-evoking comments elsewhere. What is this moving back thing you speak of? Most of the Jews in Israel are originally from Germany, USSR, Poland, etc. They are white Europeans. Their ancestors had converted to Judaism. It is just a religious myth that ALL Jews come from ancient Canaan. In fact, almost all the descendants of the ancient Israelites are Muslim by religion today haha. There is this thing called proselytizing, and like other religions, Judaism has done a good amount of it. That's why you find Jews all over the place. "Moving back to Israel" is like saying Catholics "moving back to Italy". It's just silly.
This is utterly wrong, the Ashkenazi bloodline is notoriously "pure" in that it includes far fewer divergences than almost any other ethnic genealogy in the world. I've seen you spouting this nonsense before, but I do not understand where it comes from.
In an ethnic sense, an Ashkenazi Jew is one whose ancestry can be traced to the Jews of Central and Eastern Europe. For roughly a thousand years, the Ashkenazim were a reproductively isolated population in Europe, despite living in many countries, with little inflow or outflow from migration, conversion, or intermarriage with other groups, including other Jews. Human geneticists have identified genetic variations that have high frequencies among Ashkenazi Jews, but not in the general European population. This is true for patrilineal markers (Y-chromosome haplotypes) as well as for matrilineal markers (mitotypes).[13]
Since the middle of the 20th century, many Ashkenazi Jews have intermarried, both with members of other Jewish communities and with people of other nations and faiths, while some Jews have also adopted children from other ethnic groups or parts of the world and raised them as Jews. Conversion to Judaism, rare for nearly 2,000 years, has become more common.[14]
A 2006 study found Ashkenazi Jews to be a clear, homogeneous genetic subgroup. Strikingly, regardless of the place of origin, Ashkenazi Jews can be grouped in the same genetic cohort — that is, regardless of whether an Ashkenazi Jew's ancestors came from Poland, Russia, Hungary, Lithuania, or any other place with a historical Jewish population, they belong to the same ethnic group. The research demonstrates the endogamy of the Jewish population in Europe and lends further credence to the idea of Ashkenazi Jews as an ethnic group. Moreover, though intermarriage among Jews of Ashkenazi descent has become increasingly more common, many Haredi Jews, particularly members of Hasidic or Hareidi sects, continue to marry exclusively fellow Ashkenazi Jews. This trend keeps Ashkenazi genes prevalent and also helps researchers further study the genes of Ashkenazi Jews with relative ease. It is noteworthy that these Haredi Jews often have extremely large families.[15]
Source
And before you tell me about Sephardic and Mizrahi Jews, the Ashkenazi account for around 80% of the worlds Jewish population.
|
On December 01 2012 05:11 SupLilSon wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2012 05:06 blinken wrote:On December 01 2012 04:57 SupLilSon wrote:On December 01 2012 04:50 blinken wrote:On December 01 2012 04:47 SupLilSon wrote:On December 01 2012 04:39 blinken wrote: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:
[quote]
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. Making posts without knowing what you are talking about makes you look idiotic. I agree with Farva here. Haha, an ad hom without an ounce of substance. You sir are a gentleman and a scholar. Your posts show you haven't taken any care to read the history of the conflict or you are just being willfully ignorant and biased. If you thing Israel waged several wars with the intention of conquest then you need to read a history book. If anything, my posts have shown the complete opposite, but I doubt you've taken the time to read them as in today's society the ad hom rules all. Definition of conquest: The subjugation and assumption of control of a place or people by use of military force. Israel was given the land and almost immediately several Arab countries declared war on them. In your mind, the Israelis are defending land that was given to them. In reality, the Israelis knew they would have to fight for it, and were given enough arms to combat 5 nations alone. Tell me, if their intentions didn't involve conquest, why did they possess a military capable of defeating the combined forces of 5 Arab nations? Wow. READ A HISTORY BOOK! You really think the initial Israeli settlers, many of whom purchased land legally, were doing so knowing they would engage in a war with 5 established Arab nations? These people werent soldiers... many just wanted a home after the Holocaust ravaged theirs. They didn't have the extensive military network they do now. You really don't know much about the history. If Israel wanted to they could take 10 times the land they have now. You are seriously delusional if you believe what you are typing.
Notice how this person immediately insults me, questions my legitimacy, brings up the holocaust and then brags about Israeli power? If you aren't a Zionist you should convert because your tactics are excellent.
No, I'm sure most of the civilians had no idea there would be fighting involved in occupying land where every country around them is Muslim, including the one they are occupying. /sarcasm
I would call any military able to defeat the combined forces of 5 more mature countries extensive.
Post facts from now on or I won't even reply.
|
On December 01 2012 05:06 blinken wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2012 04:57 SupLilSon wrote:On December 01 2012 04:50 blinken wrote:On December 01 2012 04:47 SupLilSon wrote:On December 01 2012 04:39 blinken wrote: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:
[quote]
who put them in that prison?
[quote]
(edit: many, not all) Palestinian leaders don't want a solution which includes Israel existing.
[quote]
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. Making posts without knowing what you are talking about makes you look idiotic. I agree with Farva here. Haha, an ad hom without an ounce of substance. You sir are a gentleman and a scholar. Your posts show you haven't taken any care to read the history of the conflict or you are just being willfully ignorant and biased. If you thing Israel waged several wars with the intention of conquest then you need to read a history book. If anything, my posts have shown the complete opposite, but I doubt you've taken the time to read them as in today's society the ad hom rules all. Definition of conquest: The subjugation and assumption of control of a place or people by use of military force. Israel was given the land and almost immediately several Arab countries declared war on them. In your mind, the Israelis are defending land that was given to them. In reality, the Israelis knew they would have to fight for it, and were given enough arms to combat 5 nations alone. Tell me, if their intentions didn't involve conquest, why did they possess a military capable of defeating the combined forces of 5 Arab nations?
They were heavily subsidized, and to an extent are still subsidized. They were granted the land by the UN once the English turned it over to the UN to divide up. Very legal like. Why did they get it? Combination of Western/European guilt and some rather substantial support during WW2, conversely much of the local population , who honestly weren't a big fan of being controlled by the English in the first place had been more interested in the Nazis winning. Arguably being detached from the actual war most of the local populations really didn't understand what was going. This made their protests about the Jews getting land go mostly ignored, they bet on the wrong horse.
As they say, to the victor the spoils. Fair deal to the natives? Nope, I'd be mad too. So they did the next best thing and everyone passed the guns around and invaded Israel, fair enough really. Then they lost, because its fucking stupid to invade a country being propped up by literally at the time every damn major world power. Including the world's largest super power.
Its honestly been a really raw deal for today's Palestinians. Their only real hope has been to plead for representation as citizens in a single member state and reign in on their extremists, or most of what kwark said. Their biggest hurdle in trying for the two state scenario is there's absolutely zero reasons why anyone who actually matters on the political stage would side with them over Israel. They aren't offering anything of value to anyone else.
|
On December 01 2012 05:15 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2012 05:11 SupLilSon wrote:On December 01 2012 05:06 blinken wrote:On December 01 2012 04:57 SupLilSon wrote:On December 01 2012 04:50 blinken wrote:On December 01 2012 04:47 SupLilSon wrote:On December 01 2012 04:39 blinken wrote:On December 01 2012 04:37 farvacola wrote:On December 01 2012 04:32 blinken wrote:On December 01 2012 04:25 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
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. Making posts without knowing what you are talking about makes you look idiotic. I agree with Farva here. Haha, an ad hom without an ounce of substance. You sir are a gentleman and a scholar. Your posts show you haven't taken any care to read the history of the conflict or you are just being willfully ignorant and biased. If you thing Israel waged several wars with the intention of conquest then you need to read a history book. If anything, my posts have shown the complete opposite, but I doubt you've taken the time to read them as in today's society the ad hom rules all. Definition of conquest: The subjugation and assumption of control of a place or people by use of military force. Israel was given the land and almost immediately several Arab countries declared war on them. In your mind, the Israelis are defending land that was given to them. In reality, the Israelis knew they would have to fight for it, and were given enough arms to combat 5 nations alone. Tell me, if their intentions didn't involve conquest, why did they possess a military capable of defeating the combined forces of 5 Arab nations? Wow. READ A HISTORY BOOK! You really think the initial Israeli settlers, many of whom purchased land legally, were doing so knowing they would engage in a war with 5 established Arab nations? These people werent soldiers... many just wanted a home after the Holocaust ravaged theirs. They didn't have the extensive military network they do now. You really don't know much about the history. If Israel wanted to they could take 10 times the land they have now. You are seriously delusional if you believe what you are typing. You read history, Israelis started to arm themselves way before 1948 - heck even before the second world war. Purchased legally - lol - they bought all the land with foreign capitals. Very fair.
lol fair? You speak of fair? Where the fairness in 5 Arab nations invading a group of settlers with the intention of killing every single Jewish man, woman and child? Of fucking course they were arming themselves, but they weren't doing so with the intention of conquest. The lengths you go through to paint Israelis and Jews as bloodthirsty and manipulative is disgusting.
|
On December 01 2012 05:15 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2012 05:11 SupLilSon wrote:On December 01 2012 05:06 blinken wrote:On December 01 2012 04:57 SupLilSon wrote:On December 01 2012 04:50 blinken wrote:On December 01 2012 04:47 SupLilSon wrote:On December 01 2012 04:39 blinken wrote:On December 01 2012 04:37 farvacola wrote:On December 01 2012 04:32 blinken wrote:On December 01 2012 04:25 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
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. Making posts without knowing what you are talking about makes you look idiotic. I agree with Farva here. Haha, an ad hom without an ounce of substance. You sir are a gentleman and a scholar. Your posts show you haven't taken any care to read the history of the conflict or you are just being willfully ignorant and biased. If you thing Israel waged several wars with the intention of conquest then you need to read a history book. If anything, my posts have shown the complete opposite, but I doubt you've taken the time to read them as in today's society the ad hom rules all. Definition of conquest: The subjugation and assumption of control of a place or people by use of military force. Israel was given the land and almost immediately several Arab countries declared war on them. In your mind, the Israelis are defending land that was given to them. In reality, the Israelis knew they would have to fight for it, and were given enough arms to combat 5 nations alone. Tell me, if their intentions didn't involve conquest, why did they possess a military capable of defeating the combined forces of 5 Arab nations? Wow. READ A HISTORY BOOK! You really think the initial Israeli settlers, many of whom purchased land legally, were doing so knowing they would engage in a war with 5 established Arab nations? These people werent soldiers... many just wanted a home after the Holocaust ravaged theirs. They didn't have the extensive military network they do now. You really don't know much about the history. If Israel wanted to they could take 10 times the land they have now. You are seriously delusional if you believe what you are typing. You read history, Israelis started to arm themselves way before 1948 - heck even before the second world war. Purchased legally - lol - they bought all the land with foreign capitals. Very fair.
In fact, the Israelis may been militant as long as 4000 years ago!!
Oh wait we're not talking about those israelis? We're talking about the zionist shadow collective that controls the world? Carry on then.
And damn that foreign capital man. It just ain't right. If I ran a state we wouldn't have no damn foreign capital from nobody.
And then we'd be North Korea.
|
On December 01 2012 05:23 SupLilSon wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2012 05:15 WhiteDog wrote:On December 01 2012 05:11 SupLilSon wrote:On December 01 2012 05:06 blinken wrote:On December 01 2012 04:57 SupLilSon wrote:On December 01 2012 04:50 blinken wrote:On December 01 2012 04:47 SupLilSon wrote:On December 01 2012 04:39 blinken wrote:On December 01 2012 04:37 farvacola wrote:On December 01 2012 04:32 blinken wrote:
[quote]
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. Making posts without knowing what you are talking about makes you look idiotic. I agree with Farva here. Haha, an ad hom without an ounce of substance. You sir are a gentleman and a scholar. Your posts show you haven't taken any care to read the history of the conflict or you are just being willfully ignorant and biased. If you thing Israel waged several wars with the intention of conquest then you need to read a history book. If anything, my posts have shown the complete opposite, but I doubt you've taken the time to read them as in today's society the ad hom rules all. Definition of conquest: The subjugation and assumption of control of a place or people by use of military force. Israel was given the land and almost immediately several Arab countries declared war on them. In your mind, the Israelis are defending land that was given to them. In reality, the Israelis knew they would have to fight for it, and were given enough arms to combat 5 nations alone. Tell me, if their intentions didn't involve conquest, why did they possess a military capable of defeating the combined forces of 5 Arab nations? Wow. READ A HISTORY BOOK! You really think the initial Israeli settlers, many of whom purchased land legally, were doing so knowing they would engage in a war with 5 established Arab nations? These people werent soldiers... many just wanted a home after the Holocaust ravaged theirs. They didn't have the extensive military network they do now. You really don't know much about the history. If Israel wanted to they could take 10 times the land they have now. You are seriously delusional if you believe what you are typing. You read history, Israelis started to arm themselves way before 1948 - heck even before the second world war. Purchased legally - lol - they bought all the land with foreign capitals. Very fair. lol fair? You speak of fair? Where the fairness in 5 Arab nations invading a group of settlers with the intention of killing every single Jewish man, woman and child? Of fucking course they were arming themselves, but they weren't doing so with the intention of conquest. The lengths you go through to paint Israelis and Jews as bloodthirsty and manipulative is disgusting.
5 Arab nation... It's like 5 thin guy ganging up on a tank. I don't see it as unfair.
On December 01 2012 05:26 Jormundr wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2012 05:15 WhiteDog wrote:On December 01 2012 05:11 SupLilSon wrote:On December 01 2012 05:06 blinken wrote:On December 01 2012 04:57 SupLilSon wrote:On December 01 2012 04:50 blinken wrote:On December 01 2012 04:47 SupLilSon wrote:On December 01 2012 04:39 blinken wrote:On December 01 2012 04:37 farvacola wrote:On December 01 2012 04:32 blinken wrote:
[quote]
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. Making posts without knowing what you are talking about makes you look idiotic. I agree with Farva here. Haha, an ad hom without an ounce of substance. You sir are a gentleman and a scholar. Your posts show you haven't taken any care to read the history of the conflict or you are just being willfully ignorant and biased. If you thing Israel waged several wars with the intention of conquest then you need to read a history book. If anything, my posts have shown the complete opposite, but I doubt you've taken the time to read them as in today's society the ad hom rules all. Definition of conquest: The subjugation and assumption of control of a place or people by use of military force. Israel was given the land and almost immediately several Arab countries declared war on them. In your mind, the Israelis are defending land that was given to them. In reality, the Israelis knew they would have to fight for it, and were given enough arms to combat 5 nations alone. Tell me, if their intentions didn't involve conquest, why did they possess a military capable of defeating the combined forces of 5 Arab nations? Wow. READ A HISTORY BOOK! You really think the initial Israeli settlers, many of whom purchased land legally, were doing so knowing they would engage in a war with 5 established Arab nations? These people werent soldiers... many just wanted a home after the Holocaust ravaged theirs. They didn't have the extensive military network they do now. You really don't know much about the history. If Israel wanted to they could take 10 times the land they have now. You are seriously delusional if you believe what you are typing. You read history, Israelis started to arm themselves way before 1948 - heck even before the second world war. Purchased legally - lol - they bought all the land with foreign capitals. Very fair. In fact, the Israelis may been militant as long as 4000 years ago!! Oh wait we're not talking about those israelis? We're talking about the zionist shadow collective that controls the world? Carry on then. And damn that foreign capital man. It just ain't right. If I ran a state we wouldn't have no damn foreign capital from nobody. And then we'd be North Korea.
Are you denying the fact that the Irgun, created in 1931, and the Haganah, created in 1920, were the ground of the Israeli Defense Force of today ? Or the "4000 years ago" that you pulled out is just here to makes everybody believe I just spouted some nonsense ?
|
On December 01 2012 05:23 SupLilSon wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2012 05:15 WhiteDog wrote:On December 01 2012 05:11 SupLilSon wrote:On December 01 2012 05:06 blinken wrote:On December 01 2012 04:57 SupLilSon wrote:On December 01 2012 04:50 blinken wrote:On December 01 2012 04:47 SupLilSon wrote:On December 01 2012 04:39 blinken wrote:On December 01 2012 04:37 farvacola wrote:On December 01 2012 04:32 blinken wrote:
[quote]
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. Making posts without knowing what you are talking about makes you look idiotic. I agree with Farva here. Haha, an ad hom without an ounce of substance. You sir are a gentleman and a scholar. Your posts show you haven't taken any care to read the history of the conflict or you are just being willfully ignorant and biased. If you thing Israel waged several wars with the intention of conquest then you need to read a history book. If anything, my posts have shown the complete opposite, but I doubt you've taken the time to read them as in today's society the ad hom rules all. Definition of conquest: The subjugation and assumption of control of a place or people by use of military force. Israel was given the land and almost immediately several Arab countries declared war on them. In your mind, the Israelis are defending land that was given to them. In reality, the Israelis knew they would have to fight for it, and were given enough arms to combat 5 nations alone. Tell me, if their intentions didn't involve conquest, why did they possess a military capable of defeating the combined forces of 5 Arab nations? Wow. READ A HISTORY BOOK! You really think the initial Israeli settlers, many of whom purchased land legally, were doing so knowing they would engage in a war with 5 established Arab nations? These people werent soldiers... many just wanted a home after the Holocaust ravaged theirs. They didn't have the extensive military network they do now. You really don't know much about the history. If Israel wanted to they could take 10 times the land they have now. You are seriously delusional if you believe what you are typing. You read history, Israelis started to arm themselves way before 1948 - heck even before the second world war. Purchased legally - lol - they bought all the land with foreign capitals. Very fair. lol fair? You speak of fair? Where the fairness in 5 Arab nations invading a group of settlers with the intention of killing every single Jewish man, woman and child? Of fucking course they were arming themselves, but they weren't doing so with the intention of conquest. The lengths you go through to paint Israelis and Jews as bloodthirsty and manipulative is disgusting.
You may be confusing cause and effect. What if the 5 Arab nations attacked as a response to Jews arming themselves?
|
On December 01 2012 05:04 Art.FeeL wrote:
Can anyone explain why Israel and USA (and some other nations too) opposed the status upgrade Palestine got. Their words are usually that of ''resolving the conflict through negotiations'' and this UN thing doesn't really oppose it. They also say that they are for a Palestinian state so shouldn't they vote for? Anyone with more insight?
Basically it's a double standard. Leaders have had them since leaders have existed.
Most governing entities always have had two main goals to satisfy, the first being running a successful nation, and the second being the morale of the people and whether or not they believe that the governing entity is doing a good job. Without both goals satisfied, the governing entity in question runs the risk of failure.
Israel is at war with Palestine, America supports Israel in everything it does, but Americas population does not want to see itself as arming a nation that will outright destroy another (that nation being Palestine).
So in the media the USA talks about resolutions and peace efforts but out of the spotlight it acts like the hard asshole it is in accordance with its geopolitical/geoeconomic and militaristic strategies.
Hamas is the governing body of the west bank of Palestine, and has a military wing/component to it. Whether it is a terrorist organization or a resistance movement literally depends on your view of Israel and whether or not you see Israels slow growth into Palestine and the controversial actions which accompanied Israels growth are just cause for rebellion from the Palestinians.
|
Canada would have been much smarter to have abstained. Oh well, I'm not Stephen Harper.
|
On December 01 2012 05:27 Art.FeeL wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2012 05:23 SupLilSon wrote:On December 01 2012 05:15 WhiteDog wrote:On December 01 2012 05:11 SupLilSon wrote:On December 01 2012 05:06 blinken wrote:On December 01 2012 04:57 SupLilSon wrote:On December 01 2012 04:50 blinken wrote:On December 01 2012 04:47 SupLilSon wrote:On December 01 2012 04:39 blinken wrote:On December 01 2012 04:37 farvacola wrote:
[quote]
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. Making posts without knowing what you are talking about makes you look idiotic. I agree with Farva here. Haha, an ad hom without an ounce of substance. You sir are a gentleman and a scholar. Your posts show you haven't taken any care to read the history of the conflict or you are just being willfully ignorant and biased. If you thing Israel waged several wars with the intention of conquest then you need to read a history book. If anything, my posts have shown the complete opposite, but I doubt you've taken the time to read them as in today's society the ad hom rules all. Definition of conquest: The subjugation and assumption of control of a place or people by use of military force. Israel was given the land and almost immediately several Arab countries declared war on them. In your mind, the Israelis are defending land that was given to them. In reality, the Israelis knew they would have to fight for it, and were given enough arms to combat 5 nations alone. Tell me, if their intentions didn't involve conquest, why did they possess a military capable of defeating the combined forces of 5 Arab nations? Wow. READ A HISTORY BOOK! You really think the initial Israeli settlers, many of whom purchased land legally, were doing so knowing they would engage in a war with 5 established Arab nations? These people werent soldiers... many just wanted a home after the Holocaust ravaged theirs. They didn't have the extensive military network they do now. You really don't know much about the history. If Israel wanted to they could take 10 times the land they have now. You are seriously delusional if you believe what you are typing. You read history, Israelis started to arm themselves way before 1948 - heck even before the second world war. Purchased legally - lol - they bought all the land with foreign capitals. Very fair. lol fair? You speak of fair? Where the fairness in 5 Arab nations invading a group of settlers with the intention of killing every single Jewish man, woman and child? Of fucking course they were arming themselves, but they weren't doing so with the intention of conquest. The lengths you go through to paint Israelis and Jews as bloodthirsty and manipulative is disgusting. You may be confusing cause and effect. What if the 5 Arab nations attacked as a response to Jews arming themselves?
Again, if you'd care to actually read a history book you'd know that your statement is ridiculous. Why would 5 established nations need to invade a group of settlers with intentions of "Driving the Jews into the sea."
I don't even know why I bother with TL general sometimes. Peace.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
