I hate not having a sound card (or headphones) at work. I'm going to have to wait until I get home to watch this.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Actually, that wasn't so much Pro-Israel as it was anti-land-for-peace deals. As such it must target the parties in Israel's government who are in favor of such deals.
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
To Lisa, with whom I have had many unproductive discusions on the topic, the two are the same.
Posted by Valentine014 (Member # 5981) on :
quote: In 2000, Israel turned over south Lebanon to terrorists. The terror threat grew larger. In 2005, Israel turned over the Gaza Strip to terrorists, including Al-qaeda. The terror threat grew larger still. Now, Israel proposes to turn over nearly all the West Bank to our terrorists enemies. Albert Einstein defined insanity as, "doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." We cannot afford any more of this insanity.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Pelegius: To Lisa, with whom I have had many unproductive discusions on the topic, the two are the same.
Well, duh. They are.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Valentine014:
quote: In 2000, Israel turned over south Lebanon to terrorists. The terror threat grew larger. In 2005, Israel turned over the Gaza Strip to terrorists, including Al-qaeda. The terror threat grew larger still. Now, Israel proposes to turn over nearly all the West Bank to our terrorists enemies. Albert Einstein defined insanity as, "doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." We cannot afford any more of this insanity.
Was that really Einstein? Huh. I guess he was smart.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Well, duh. They are.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
wow I actually like that commercial, I agree 100%.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Looks like a fairly effective ad. Though I don't think there's really much point to it. You'd have to blanket the major population centers of the US, and even then they won't really find enough people who care to get a sizeable amount to actually call their congressman. People rarely ever call their congressman even when something effects them personally, let alone when something effects a foreign nation.
Plus, it assumes that the Knesset gives two hoots about the opinion of even a hundred congressman. I'd be incredibly surprised if they did.
As a close, I could easily see a counter argument saying that the last dozen or so years of Israel's policies have either kept the status quo of the terrorist threats they face, or made it worse. Which would make Einstein's argument true, only working to the antithesis of the ad's stance.
Giving the West Bank to Palestine is a huge majority of what they want. It puts the international ball in their court. The question "What next?" is firmly on their side. If they squander it, and things get worse, Israel can do what they've always done anyway and simply reoccupy the land to restore order, or the world can look upon the situation, firmly side with Israel and consider it's options.
Other than the question of the illegal settlements in the West Bank, I don't really see what the bruhaha is over removing military forces from the area. They can move back in with impunity whenever they want if they don't like the situation. Hell, it's what they ALWAYS do whenever a pullout or ceasefire is called. Some idiot murderer drives a car into a pizzeria and there's tanks, apaches and hornets all over Gaza.
Pulling out of the West Bank is a win/win for Israel. Either they get peace from a satisfied Palestinian people, or they get universal world appreciate of their moral supremacy, and support for any policy (short of genocide or forcing a mass exodus) they wish to employ it fixing the problem at hand.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Giving the West Bank to Palestine is a huge majority of what they want. It puts the international ball in their court.
Pardon me, Lyrhawn, but weren't you one of the many, many people who less than a year ago were saying, "Pulling out of Gaza puts the international ball in the Palestinians' court"?
Because, you know, that turned out so well. And there's so much pressure on the Palestinians to counter the Gaza pullout with something -- anything -- to show their own good faith.
Unfortunately, they have none.
A week hadn't gone by after 9000 Jews were rendered homeless for this insane gesture before the Palestinians started firing missiles into Israel from the ruins of Jewish towns.
Now Israel is supposed to make another 100,000 Jews homeless in order to give the Arabs a staging ground right in the heartland of Israel?
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: The question "What next?" is firmly on their side. If they squander it, and things get worse, Israel can do what they've always done anyway and simply reoccupy the land to restore order,
Sure. Like they've done with Gaza. "What they've always done anyway" is vile and dishonest, Lyrhawn, particularly in the face of Israel not doing so with Gaza.
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: or the world can look upon the situation, firmly side with Israel and consider it's options.
You said almost the same exact thing last year, Lyrhawn, with regards to Gaza. Do I need to pull up your posts and rub them in your face?
Einstein was right about insanity. So what does that say about someone like you, Lyrhawn, who makes grand sounding claims like this about Israel pulling out of Gaza, and then repeats the same exact claims about pulling out of Judea and Samaria even after they turned out to be completely untrue with Gaza?
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Other than the question of the illegal settlements in the West Bank, I don't really see what the bruhaha is over removing military forces from the area.
They aren't illegal. The very few that are illegal by Israeli law are a drop in the bucket. We're talking about established cities. Not even towns, but cities.
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: They can move back in with impunity whenever they want if they don't like the situation. Hell, it's what they ALWAYS do whenever a pullout or ceasefire is called.
Crap. This crosses the line from misunderstanding to intentional lying, Lyrhawn. The Arabs have been waging war against Israel from Gaza since the pullout. Has Israel gone back in? Don't look now, but I think your dishonesty is showing.
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Some idiot murderer drives a car into a pizzeria and there's tanks, apaches and hornets all over Gaza.
Hasn't happened. And you may think that repeating the lie over and over again will make people believe it to be the case (and you may be right -- that technique certainly worked in Germany), but I'd hope that the people on Hatrack are bright enough to see through your deceptions.
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Pulling out of the West Bank is a win/win for Israel. Either they get peace from a satisfied Palestinian people, or they get universal world appreciate of their moral supremacy,
Like they did when they put 9000 Jews into refugee camps last year? You made this same ludicrous claim last year. I told you at the time that it wouldn't happen, but you insisted it would.
People like you have been repeating this same mantra for years:
"Give them autonomy, and the world will applaud!"
Um, no.
"And if they abuse the autonomy, you can just roll back in and end it."
Um, no.
"Give them rifles so that they can keep order. If they use the rifles against Israel, you can just roll back in and take them back."
Um, no.
"Pull out of Gaza, and the world will applaud!"
Um, no.
"And if they use Gaza as a staging ground for terrorist strikes, you can just roll back in and put a stop to it."
Um, no.
And when Israel has gone in in limited force to try and fight against the terrorists without completely reversing the mad concessions that we made, the world has gone berserk in its condemnation. And claimed that any action whatsoever on Israel's part to defend herself is a provocation that is morally equivalent to the Arab butchery and atrocities that spurred it. And now, it's:
"Pull out of Judea and Samaria and put another 100,000 Jews into refugee camps, and the world will applaud!"
Um, no.
"And if they use Judea and Samaria as a staging ground for terrorist strikes, you can just roll back in and put a stop to it."
Um, no.
You know Heinlein's Razor, right? "Never attribute to malice what can be attributed to stupidity." It's true. But a friend of mine recently pointed out to me that even if that's true, "Any sufficiently harmful stupidity is indistinguishable from malice."
I don't know if you're malicious, or whether you really believe the things you say, Lyrhawn, but it's indistinguishable from malice.
Posted by calaban (Member # 2516) on :
It is tough to appease a group that aligns itself with the fundamentalists of a religion that has beleifs such as these:
“But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practice regular charity [i.e. embrace Islam], then open the way for them: for Allah is oft forgiving, most merciful” (Koran 9:5).
You cannot bargain with a group thats only belief of fair compromise is death, or enslavement by means of heavy taxes placed upon the heads of the infidel.
Any concessions made by Israel will not be interpreted by extremists in the Arab world as a peace gestures. Instead they will be received as a weakening resolve and the hand of god delivering the land to them.
I don't think that Islamic extremism is a problem the west can peacefully resolve. Unfortunately because of thier willingness to be brutally and unhumanly violent, these are the people that hold sway in that region. Until those within the faith that want peace stand up to them and choose to overcome thier terror driven tyranny, the problem will remain. Israel can only defend itself; appeasement will bring only thier distruction.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
So we are quoting scripture now to show that a given religion is evil? Well, perhaps those in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.
quote:Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.
But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.
Can you guess where this pearl of morality comes from? Which religious leader was ordered by god to give his men this order?
I will give you a hint, it is not in the Koran.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Except Jews aren't usually considered Pagans by standard Islam (and neither are Christians).
-Bok
Posted by calaban (Member # 2516) on :
I'm not saying that there is no blame to go around. If you carefully read what I wrote, I also don't even include all of Islam. What I did say is that there are extremists within Islam who use that scripture to kill people today. Now. They consider it thier devine right and responsibility to scourge nonbelievers from the face of the planet.
If we want to turn this into a discussion of religion and the horrible things that have been done by parties related to religions centered around God, Allah and science alike I really don't have the time.
However the current discussion is about the potential fruit that appeasement can produce for the state of Israel. And despite the good intentions that might exist within many living the region, the Islamic people who define policy there are barbaric in thier methods and have no concern for human life. They don't want peace and will do all that is within thier means to make sure there is none.
There are those who decry the efforts of Israel to defend itself. While they have not been wholely blameless in thier efforts, my observation is that they are much more willing to show good faith than thier counterparts.
Posted by calaban (Member # 2516) on :
quote:Originally posted by Bokonon: Except Jews aren't usually considered Pagans by standard Islam (and neither are Christians).
-Bok
True: However they are infidels, and many use this and similar passages as the motivation behind thier anti-western sentiment.
Posted by Luet13 (Member # 9274) on :
I think there should be a Jewish home state. However, I think we can all see the difficulties in the way Israel was created.
It's always reminded me of what happened in Europe after WWI when the Allies carved up the continent in such a way that another war was inevitable.
Israel was created in a similar way. All those Palestinians were already there. I DON'T think they've gone about fighting their cause in the right way. Not in the least. It's not okay to blow oneself or others up in the name of God.
But don't the Palestinians deserve a homeland too?
AGAIN: DON'T GET ME WRONG. I believe that there should be some way to compromise so that the Jews, the Palestinians, and the Christians can live together in the Holy Land. It is, after all, holy to all three groups.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Point of order: Many Palestinans are Christian. I believe you meant to say that the area is sacred to Jews, Muslims, and Christians.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
quote:Originally posted by Luet13: AGAIN: DON'T GET ME WRONG. I believe that there should be some way to compromise so that the Jews, the Palestinians, and the Christians can live together in the Holy Land. It is, after all, holy to all three groups.
How come I never hear, "Jews, Muslims, and Christians living together in peace in the Holy Land." Its always, "Jews, Palestineans, and Christians."
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
They have one. About 3/4 of Palestine was given to Amir Abdullah (great-grandfather of the current King Abdullah) as the Emirate of Transjordan. Which is now the kingdom of Jordan.
So the Arabs got 3/4 of Palestine. And then in 1947, they were offered half of what was left. That would be 7/8 of Palestine. But they weren't willing to let the Jews have even 1/8 of the land, despite the fact that the Jews had actually bought the land they were living on. Despite the fact that the land they bought had been theirs before the Arabs came in and conquered it.
The fact that they're calling it Jordan these days doesn't make it any less the area known as Palestine. Why is it that the Jews have to give up their homeland so that the Arabs can have yet another state? There's already a Palestinian Arab state. A Palestinian homeland. But that's not what they want.
They were given Gaza. As a gift. As a reward for all the terror and murder they'd committed. Did they declare a state in their now fully independent land? No. Nor will they if, God forbid, they are given Judea and Samaria. Because a state isn't what they're after. They're dogs in the manger, Luet. They don't want a state; they want us not to have one.
As to your last line, it is absolutely not holy to Islam. It never has been. They never claimed it to be until the state of Israel came into existence.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by dkw: Point of order: Many Palestinans are Christian. I believe you meant to say that the area is sacred to Jews, Muslims, and Christians.
Point of order: That land has never been considered holy to Islam. Except insofar as any land that was once controlled by Islam is holy to them, it indicating that Allah is on their side.
Posted by Luet13 (Member # 9274) on :
Thanks dkw, I did mean Jews, Muslims, and Christians.
Oops.
I reiterate my orginal point: I don't think ANYONE has gone about this correctly. That includes all sides. And no I don't think extremists should be rewarded with land, but not all Muslims are extremists. Also, Muslims have Holy Sites in Jerusalem. It's a fact. I don't think it has anything to do with former control.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Xavier: So we are quoting scripture now to show that a given religion is evil? Well, perhaps those in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.
quote:Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.
But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.
Can you guess where this pearl of morality comes from? Which religious leader was ordered by god to give his men this order?
I will give you a hint, it is not in the Koran.
I think that scripture is the most oft quoted scripture in the entire bible. You do not prove anything by quoting it other then you think you are the first clever anti christian to come across it.
If you want to compare modern day Islam with middle ages Christianity or even Ancient Judaism, you do more of a disservice to Islam then to Christains or Jews. Why don't you go find the last instance of a man/woman being officially condemned by either religion for converting or leaving islam and then do the same for Christians/Jews. Oh what a month ago a man was almost officially executed by the Afghanistan government for converting to Christianity? Oh what the Salem Witch trials are the last time you found Christians doing similar things?
I grew up in Malaysia (majority muslim) and I remember my 3rd grade teacher (an American) announced he was getting married to a native Malaysian, and that because his wife was muslim he had to convert. I remember even at that young age being confused and asking "why can't she convert to your religion, or why can't you just keep your own religion." His response was "Thats just not how it works." I was VERY disattisfied with that answer.
I agree it was shameful, the manner that Israel was formed, but that is WW2 history, nobody is going to stand for the eradication or mass exodus of Israel. Its there to stay now, yes the did not get along with their Palestinian neighbors, and its both side's fault that there is so much bad blood. But all that aside, Israel HAS given up land to Palestine, The people in Palestine who want to offer the olive leaf are hard pressed to control the extremism that demands the destruction of all Jews.
The US and other European Countries have told Hammas "We cannot work with you unless you renounce your goal to destroy Israel." These countries are all telling Israel, "We cannot work with you unless you recognize Palestine." Hammas cannot agree to that because they used their anti Israeli platform to win election. If you wan't to argue Israel has done nothing, you are simply ignoring the facts. If you want to argue they do not do enough, well thats fine, you can have an opinion. But why don't you list out what Palestine is doing as a sovereign country and then list what you expect from Israel. I think you will find the 2 lists embarassing when placed together.
Palestine deserves respect, its own land, its own government, and help from the international community (all of which it has received by the way). Israel deserves at least 1 year free from suicide bombings and missile launchings, before we can tell them to stop retaliating. If the US had Mexico sending in 1 suicide bomber a YEAR, we would wig out and crush them into submission. Israel can hardly go a month without something happening.
Israel deals with countries like Iran saying "We will destroy Israel." And it allows countries in Europe and America to fight the diplomatic battle before resorting to violence. If Iran said "We will destroy the US as soon as we are able." Do you think the US would let Europe say, "Let us handle this?"
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Luet13: Thanks dkw, I did mean Jews, Muslims, and Christians.
Oops.
I reiterate my orginal point: I don't think ANYONE has gone about this correctly. That includes all sides. And no I don't think extremists should be rewarded with land, but not all Muslims are extremists. Also, Muslims have Holy Sites in Jerusalem. It's a fact. I don't think it has anything to do with former control.
Israel respects the holy sites of others. The Muslims, by contrast, trash Jewish holy sites whenever they manage to gain control of them.
They don't get to take our land just because they have holy sites on them. Particularly when those "holy sites" were built atop the single most holy site in the world for Jews.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
quote:I think that scripture is the most oft quoted scripture in the entire bible. You do not prove anything by quoting it other then you think you are the first clever anti christian to come across it.
If you want to compare modern day Islam with middle ages Christianity or even Ancient Judaism, you do more of a disservice to Islam then to Christains or Jews. Why don't you go find the last instance of a man/woman being officially condemned by either religion for converting or leaving islam and then do the same for Christians/Jews. Oh what a month ago a man was almost officially executed by the Afghanistan government for converting to Christianity? Oh what the Salem Witch trials are the last time you found Christians doing similar things?
Excuse me, sir, but where did I try to compare Islam to anything?
Someone posted a piece of the Koran, in what appeared to be an attempt to show that Islam is, by its nature, violent against non-Muslims (though, of course, I could have misinterpreted the intent).
I responded by (attempting) to point out that someone could make a similar case for both Judaism and Christianity by using the scripture recognized as canon for both religions.
I did this to show the flaws in the statement about Islam based on their scripture, not to make any similar claims about Christianity or Judaism from their scripture.
Perhaps I could have written it in a manner which more clearly displayed my intentions, but sometimes I get flippant .
I've seen far too many people point to the violence in the Koran to "prove" that Islam is an evil religion, when Judaism and Christianity both have scripture which is as violent as is possible. (Though I do not claim that calaban was doing such.)
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:If you want to compare modern day Islam with middle ages Christianity or even Ancient Judaism, you do more of a disservice to Islam then to Christains or Jews. Why don't you go find the last instance of a man/woman being officially condemned by either religion for converting or leaving islam and then do the same for Christians/Jews.
1977 , for example? Or, let me guess, those aren't True Christians (tm).
Posted by calaban (Member # 2516) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:If you want to compare modern day Islam with middle ages Christianity or even Ancient Judaism, you do more of a disservice to Islam then to Christains or Jews. Why don't you go find the last instance of a man/woman being officially condemned by either religion for converting or leaving islam and then do the same for Christians/Jews.
1977 , for example? Or, let me guess, those aren't True Christians (tm).
Wow. I marvel at how wholly unrelated that article is to Appeasement and Israel. Fringe lunatics? Might as well site Jeffery Dahmer or the Unibomber. You will find wackos everywhere, but you don't find mainstream christians beating women to death for voting or people killing family members for joining another religion. Those things happen in Muslim nations, among those that can be considered mainstream Muslims. If you really want an example of christans willing to be horrible in the name of thier religion you only have to look at some of the underlying motivation of the "troubles" in Ireland.
That we can find no shortage of the inadequacies encompassing all of the parties is not in debate. We are talking about the potential for appeasment in the middle east to produce any other fruit but the destruction of Israel.
I would like some compelling arguments that there can be a peaceful outcome in the region, with supporting actions of good faith from the Palestinian party as examples of how it can possibly work. To me it seems Israel gives and gets nothing I return but empty promises and more dead people.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Well, I certainly don't want to dispute that it's more common in Islam; what I objected to was the Salem hangings as the last instance of it. If nothing else, there were witch burnings for quite some time after Salem, in Europe; which was at the time way more 'mainstream' than any exiled lunatic fringe clinging to the American coastline.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Israel respects the holy sites of others. The Muslims, by contrast, trash Jewish holy sites whenever they manage to gain control of them.
She's certainly right about that. Throughout history in fact, Muslims have trashed or converted the holy sites of others en masse. Thousands of churches across Northern Africa were either converted to mosques or razed to the ground during their conquest. The Hagia Sophia in Constantinople, arguably one of the modern wonders of the world, a building that almosted bankrupted Byzantium under (I think) Justinian, was turned into a mosque by the conquering Muslim Turks. Other than individual sites, which for historical reasons they have left sacrosanct, Muslims more than I think most any other religion have defiled the holy sites of others.
If you want a recent example, check out what the Taliban has done in Afghanistan.
starLisa -
I'm not going to point/counterpoint you on your lengthy repetitive post from above. It'll just waste my time and yours. But I think you misunderstand part of what I said. Since the pullout of Gaza, no, there hasn't been a major incursion of Israeli forces, but how long as that been? Less than a year? I'm talking about all the time before it, unless you're trying to deny all the Israeli military actions in Gaza and the West Bank over the last couple dozen years, and more specifically, since the most recent round of hostilities started in the 90's.
Go ahead and refuse it if you want, I might have some time this weekend to find a couple dozen articles that talk about Israeli military incursions into Gaza. If you want to define the scope of my argument for me, you can go ahead and do so, it just makes it that much easier to point out how you're trying to warp my words to fit your argument.
I think you even called me, or at least compared me to Nazis in your post above, which was sweet of you, thanks. I know how much you like to call other people horrible names, so I'm glad I gave you the chance to do so. "Today I called someone a Nazi." Snaps for starLisa!
There's nowhere for Palestine to go after this. And while I'm sorry about the 9,000 refugees, all of whom were given nice sums of money, and help from the Israeli government, don't you think it's a little ironic to be trying to throw that in my face, coming from a person who has little or no sympathy for the 1.3 MILLION Palestinian refugees in Jordan? Just thought I'd ask.
Feel free to call me a liar again, or worse, a malicious Nazi. I don't get that from anyone else, so it's always nice to have a source of invective hatred to amuse me.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Well, I certainly don't want to dispute that it's more common in Islam; what I objected to was the Salem hangings as the last instance of it. If nothing else, there were witch burnings for quite some time after Salem, in Europe; which was at the time way more 'mainstream' than any exiled lunatic fringe clinging to the American coastline.
I am glad you at least agree its more prominent in Islam KOM. I just threw the Salem Witch Trials out there because it was the last official purging of unbelievers that I could think of off the top of my head. I admit I took alittle bit of opinion liscence with that statement.
Just trying to make the point that Islam is STILL very aggressive when it comes to its neighbors, and retaining its devotees. The only places that have such strict policies for missionaries of other faiths are Muslim nations and Communist China/Korea. The larget Buddha in the history of the world used to be in Afghanistan until some Muslim militants blew it up with dynamite.
I knew a certain man in my congregation when I lived in Hong Kong who was from Afghanistan, they claimed to have geneology all the way back to Mohammed. His roommate was a Mormon in college and he was naturally curious as to the Book of Mormon his roomie was reading. His roommate let him read it and he was converted by it. He informed his family of his conversion and his family hired men to seek him out and kill him "to save his soul."
After 15 years of hiding and trying to talk to his family, he is able to talk to some of his siblings. His parents still will not speak to him, and he cannot visit Afghanistan as he has been black marked and would most likely be killed.
I do not hate Islam at all, I LOVED living in Malaysia. The Muslims I had as friends, as teachers, and who my parents hired as drivers and gardeners were awesome people.
My point is that I think RECENTLY Israel has been trying to make peace with Palestine, and right now they are seeing no benefit for doing so. The attitudes of Israel/Palestine 10,20,30,100,1000 years ago to me are irrelevant. People need to look at whats going on RIGHT now. And right now I fail to see significant moves by the Palestinian nation towards peace. I admire Abbas ALOT, I think he is definately trying hard to make this work. But 1 and his party are not enough, I am looking at Hammas the apparent (representatives of the popular vote) and what their goals and actions are.
Peace is more than the absence of violence, but I think that abscence is still more than Hammas has been able to handle.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: starLisa -
It's "Lisa". The "star" is silent.
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Since the pullout of Gaza, no, there hasn't been a major incursion of Israeli forces, but how long as that been? Less than a year? I'm talking about all the time before it, unless you're trying to deny all the Israeli military actions in Gaza and the West Bank over the last couple dozen years, and more specifically, since the most recent round of hostilities started in the 90's.
Of course there have been. What there hasn't been was a reversal of the concessions Israel made. Those who said that the Palestinian Authority wouldn't dare commit acts of war against Israel, because after all, Israel is so much stronger, were full of it. They, like you, are full of grandiose claims about what will surely happen if Israel just gives a little more and a little more. You, and they, have a track record of exactly zero. And we're the ones who pay for your mistakes. In blood.
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I think you even called me, or at least compared me to Nazis in your post above, which was sweet of you, thanks.
I compared your use of the big lie technique to the German use of that same technique during WWII. Deal with it.
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: There's nowhere for Palestine to go after this. And while I'm sorry about the 9,000 refugees, all of whom were given nice sums of money,
Another lie. The Sharon government claimed that such would be the case, but it wasn't. Those evicted from their homes were not only not paid for those homes, but are still required to pay the mortgages on those homes. Even though the homes are now rubble.
And before you ask, they can't just default, because mortgages in Israel impose a lein on all your property. Not just the object of the mortgage.
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: and help from the Israeli government,
Equally false. Check your facts, rather that parroting what you'd like to be true.
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: don't you think it's a little ironic to be trying to throw that in my face, coming from a person who has little or no sympathy for the 1.3 MILLION Palestinian refugees in Jordan? Just thought I'd ask.
You mean the Palestinians who are there, in Palestine? But who insist on our part of it as well? No, I have no sympathy whatsoever for them. To the extent that they have any right to this area at all, they are in their homeland.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
quote:The Sharon government claimed that such would be the case, but it wasn't. Those evicted from their homes were not only not paid for those homes, but are still required to pay the mortgages on those homes. Even though the homes are now rubble.
And before you ask, they can't just default, because mortgages in Israel impose a lein on all your property. Not just the object of the mortgage.
I've read a LOT of articles about the settlements and about the evictions. This is the first I've heard of any of those folks having mortgages, let alone having to pay them back after the government kicked them out.
I wonder a few things:
1) I wonder about the wisdom of anyone giving a mortgage to someone to build in disputed territory.
2) I wonder where all the tales of people being paid to move into those areas came from. Surely this wasn't all just propaganda since it seemed to be coming from all sides -- like a commonly acknowledged fact that many of the settler areas were populated by new arrivals from foreign lands, and by people specifically recruited to go live there many in exchange for a home free of cost.
I do think it's appalling if these people are being made pawns in the game of government interactions. Even if they were willing pawns in the first place, they don't deserve financial disaster as a result.
Surely before they built they were warned that the area was a likely bargaining chip? Surely whoever gave them a mortgage understood the risk that the title to the land wasn't free and clear...
This really does defy logic, sL. Unless someone was funding those settlers to prove a point, regardless of what the government was saying.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:You mean the Palestinians who are there, in Palestine? But who insist on our part of it as well? No, I have no sympathy whatsoever for them. To the extent that they have any right to this area at all, they are in their homeland.
As opposed to the Israelis who are still in Israel? Sounds like the same thing to me.
Posted by Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy (Member # 9384) on :
quote:Unless someone was funding those settlers to prove a point, regardless of what the government was saying.
That's exactly what was going on. For a long time, there was a widely-held sentiment among the more extreme right-wing segments of the Israeli population that Israel could not (in the "what is possible" sense, not the "what is politically expedient" sense) pull out of the disputed areas if there were Jews living there.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: I've read a LOT of articles about the settlements and about the evictions. This is the first I've heard of any of those folks having mortgages, let alone having to pay them back after the government kicked them out.
Read here. Or here. What, you thought they were given homes for free?
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: I wonder a few things:
1) I wonder about the wisdom of anyone giving a mortgage to someone to build in disputed territory.
The whole damned state is "disputed". People aren't supposed to live their lives?
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: 2) I wonder where all the tales of people being paid to move into those areas came from.
Israel has a policy of giving preferred mortgage terms to people buying in areas that are higher priority, and to people to whom it wants to give perks.
For example, new immigrants get special terms. Those who have served in the army get better terms (which is most people, but there are exceptions; Olmert's son didn't serve). If you get a mortgage for property in a development town, you get better terms than if you buy in a city like Jerusalem or Tel Aviv. And so on.
When we bought in Beit Shemesh, they wouldn't allow us to buy together. You have to be relatives of the first degree, and they didn't consider me and my partner to be relatives of any degree. So we did it all in my partner's name. Why? Because legally, she was a single mother, which pushed her priority up. Ironically, had they recognized us as a couple, we wouldn't have gotten as good terms.
One piece of the mortgage was a conditional grant. Like $10K or so. If we kept the place for X years without selling, it was forgiven. Otherwise, it was to be paid back like everything else. But it was a small fraction of the whole.
The mortgages in the territories are a lot like that. Some small component might be a conditional grant, and maybe another piece might have a lower interest rate. But it certainly wasn't free.
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: Surely before they built they were warned that the area was a likely bargaining chip? Surely whoever gave them a mortgage understood the risk that the title to the land wasn't free and clear...
It was free and clear. And it was not intended to be a bargaining chip. You're reading your 2006 view of things into how they really were.
Do you know that in Israel, you can't actually buy land? No, you lease land. You can own the structure on it, but the land itself gets leased for 99 years. I kid you not. And when you buy land in the territories, they do a title search to ensure that the land isn't registered to anyone else. Including Arabs, btw, regardless of the nutty things some people claim. I worked in a mortgage bank and saw this myself.
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: This really does defy logic, sL. Unless someone was funding those settlers to prove a point, regardless of what the government was saying.
The government never considered that land to be a bargaining chip. Never. I don't know where you got the idea that it did.
Now, you can ask, legitimately, in that case, why not just annex it? Doesn't refusing to state, legally, that the land is a part of the State of Israel send a mixed message? Doesn't it imply that we don't really see the land as a permanent possession?
It's a valid question. Generally, when a government or a company comes up with something stunningly stupid and inconsistent, it's the result of a compromise. One group pulling one way, and another pulling another way.
Israel didn't want to annex the territories, because then we would have had to give citizenship rights to the Arabs living there. Which I think is pretty understandable.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy:
quote:Unless someone was funding those settlers to prove a point, regardless of what the government was saying.
That's exactly what was going on. For a long time, there was a widely-held sentiment among the more extreme right-wing segments of the Israeli population that Israel could not (in the "what is possible" sense, not the "what is politically expedient" sense) pull out of the disputed areas if there were Jews living there.
Among those Israelis with a moral sense left. You label them as "the more extreme right-wing segments of the Israeli population" merely to demonize them. It's crap.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
More abuse for the refugees.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Thanks for the links sL. I read them all and have come away with the firm conclusion that Israel's government sucks.
Question about the source -- I gather their bias is toward the conservative side of things. Has their position been rebutted by the government or are there contrary news reports that would give a different side of things? I mean, this stuff is pretty damning, but as we've seen in the US, the news is often slanted by the policies of the editors & owners of the media outlets.
Lastly, I'm perplexed about your response to the "bargaining chip" thing. I've been hearing about land-for-peace deals, disputed settlement areas, and give-backs for a long, long time. Are you saying that last summer's implementation really came as a big surprise to people, especially bankers? Or was it that these particular areas were never up for discussion before? I'm not really strong on recent history of the various regions and their fate in the political process. But I was under the impression that the first settlers were removed from areas that had been the most fiercely disputed and criticized in international circles. You know, the ones that we in the west kept urging Israel to stop settling in at all...
Oh...one other thing. Is it true that settlement in disputed areas is still going on? I know you said the "whole country" is disputed, but I think you understand what I mean -- the areas taken over in 1967 -- are settlements still going into those places? And how many of those places are also under discussion for turn over to the PA?
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: Thanks for the links sL. I read them all and have come away with the firm conclusion that Israel's government sucks.
No argument here. But it's worth considering why the Israeli government sucks. They're trying to be all things to all people. Engaging in half measures, because they're afraid of the repercussions of full measures.
I absolutely do blame Israel for a lot of Palestinian suffering. But not the same way most people do. If they'd simply annexed Judea, Samaria and Gaza in 1967, and moved the local Arabs into Jordan and Egypt and Syria and Lebanon, the world would hardly have screamed too badly. Instead, they did exactly what I referred to in that essay I wrote over on Ornery. They refused to accept victory. And the world has gone to hell ever since.
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: Question about the source -- I gather their bias is toward the conservative side of things. Has their position been rebutted by the government or are there contrary news reports that would give a different side of things?
You can check out HaAretz, which always gives the extreme left wing position on everything. For stuff more in the center, there's the Jerusalem Post (which used to be called the Palestine Post before the state was declared in 1948, for those who think that "Palestinian" meant "Arab Palestinian" back then).
But you won't find rebuttals in those papers. They prefer to simply downplay the problem (Post) or ignore it altogether and blame it all on the refugees themselves (HaAretz).
While it's true that Arutz 7 has a national bias, that merely means that they report things that other papers may not see as newsworthy. I'm sure the opposite is true as well. Arutz 7 is unlikely to trumpet stories that are embarrassing to us, as HaAretz would.
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: I mean, this stuff is pretty damning, but as we've seen in the US, the news is often slanted by the policies of the editors & owners of the media outlets.
True enough. But every news outlet has to choose how to emphasize what. Those that claim to be utterly impartial are engaging in deception. Often self-deception, I'll grant you, but deception nonetheless. Someone decides whether an item goes on the front page with a banner headline or whether an item gets buried on page 38.
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: Lastly, I'm perplexed about your response to the "bargaining chip" thing. I've been hearing about land-for-peace deals, disputed settlement areas, and give-backs for a long, long time.
Sure. Some land. Not all land. And even the "some land" has been a matter of major dispute among Israelis.
Israel used to have an iron rule against negotiating with terrorists. A sensible one, in my opinion, and one which, when it was finally broken, has led to nothing but tragedy. If you agree to negotiate with terrorists, you proclaim to the world that terrorism works.
I know it's 2006, but surely you can remember how these things were dealt with originally. Everyone recognized the fact that the PLO was a terrorist organization. Only radical lefties like Hillary Rodham supported their kind of nihilistic violence. People used to have a gut revulsion to that kind of thing.
Israel, the US, everyone else... they used to have a policy that forbade ever giving in to such barbarity. Regardless of the cost. Because they knew the cost of giving in to it would be unimaginably greater. As it has been.
The PLO, which was created in 1964, when the "Palestine" that they wanted to liberate was the lands inside the Green Line. When the "West Bank" was held by Jordan, the Gaza Strip was held by Egypt, and the Golan Heights were in Syrian hands.
They were nothing but a terrorist group. They tried to overthrow King Hussein of Jordan in 1970, because Jordan is the greater part of Palestine, and Hussein put them down violently. They went to Lebanon, where they kept attacking Israel until Israel finally invaded in 1982. And while Israel got bogged down there, they did succeed in making the PLO flee to Tunis. Where they sat, powerless, until Rabin and Clinton decided to rehabilitate them and give them autonomy.
The Oslo Agreement was the first big proclamation that you can be an unrepentant, active terrorist, and be rewarded. You can even get a Nobel Peace Prize without ever renouncing your intent to obliterate another country and support terrorist attacks against it.
And Israelis... Israelis have grown weary. And they're willing to accept almost anything, if it can be spun in such a way as to make it look like the Arabs will finally just leave us alone.
Don't underestimate the power of fatigue to cloud people's minds.
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: Are you saying that last summer's implementation really came as a big surprise to people, especially bankers?
Of course it did, Bob. Sharon was elected in a landslide, campaigning against withdrawing from Gaza. You can try and blur that by saying that politicians lie, but this wasn't just a lie. This was a Trojan Horse of major proportions. The outrage against pulling out of Gaza was so extreme that he won an enormous victory in the polls. And then proceeded to do exactly what the electorate had demanded not be done.
Israel isn't America. Compared to the Arab regimes, it's a wonderful democracy. But it's a young country, and still heavily influenced by the founders, who were die-hard socialists. Stalinists, in many cases. There's no actual representative government. You vote for a party list, rather than individuals. If a party wins 10 seats, the top ten people on the list take seats in the Knesset. If they later decide to leave the party, they retain their seats (!) even though they never won them in the first place.
Sharon wasn't even elected. The Likud Party was, and he had the first place on that list. When he left the Likud, because the Likud itself was fighting him on leaving Gaza (since it's against not only the party platform, but a violation of the party's constitution), he remained as Prime Minister. He kept his seat. And when he had his stroke, the Prime Ministership passed, not to #2 on the Likud list, but to #2 on the breakaway party that he founded.
It's not like when Gerald Ford was President without ever having been elected. That, at least, went according to the Constitution, and the duly elected representatives of the American people. This was more like a junta.
When you live in chaos, it's very difficult to plan for the long term. With this politician saying, "We're going to do X" and that politician saying "We're going to do Y", do you expect banks to change their policies? It's not really realistic. Furthermore, the banks only have a small say in these mortgages. The government dictates what mortgages have to be given.
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: Or was it that these particular areas were never up for discussion before? I'm not really strong on recent history of the various regions and their fate in the political process. But I was under the impression that the first settlers were removed from areas that had been the most fiercely disputed and criticized in international circles.
You know, the ones that we in the west kept urging Israel to stop settling in at all...
The west doesn't want Israel doing anything outside of the Green Line. That includes people putting an addition on their house. There are neighborhoods of Jerusalem itself, like Gilo and Armon HaNetziv, which are outside of the Green Line and are considered "settlements" to the West. I used to live in Maaleh Adumim, a large city in Judea. If you went there, you'd wonder what the word "settlement" even means. I'm sure you have an image of tents or prefab buildings with dirt streets and the like. We're talking actual towns and cities.
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: Oh...one other thing. Is it true that settlement in disputed areas is still going on? I know you said the "whole country" is disputed, but I think you understand what I mean -- the areas taken over in 1967 -- are settlements still going into those places? And how many of those places are also under discussion for turn over to the PA?
The Olmert government is mostly preventing even the expansion of infrastructure in existing towns and cities. New ones are not being created.
Posted by Robin Kaczmarczyk (Member # 9067) on :
Jews and Pelestinians.. Are they not all Semitic?
Brothers.. Cain and Abel.. Time to GIVE IT UP!
Maybe Mexico should take over the whole Middle East in the name of the United Nations.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
Robin, you win the prize for the most pointless and off the wall post. Muy congratulations.
Posted by David G (Member # 8872) on :
quote:Originally posted by Robin Kaczmarczyk: Brothers.. Cain and Abel.. Time to GIVE IT UP!
Maybe you meant, instead, to refer to Isaac and Ishmael?
Posted by Bean Counter (Member # 6001) on :
Hidden in Israel is a highly skilled war machine that can and will tear Iran, Syria and any collection of Arab States apart. However in order to unleash this war machine backed as it is by the United States she needs a provocation of the first order.
This strategy of giving the Palestinians the tools and confidence they need to go after Israel in total war is simply that, a strategy that urges the Arab States to action while they can still be beaten. It has to happen every couple of generations, in order to give Islam such a taste of defeat that they dare not come back until an entire generation has died with the shame and fear they always learn.
The only real fear is that the opening sally will involve a nuclear weapon, given the priceless nature of the cities and the close areas involved that is a chance Israel will not accept. So the division is not about the need for war, it is about whether a nuclear threat exists that will force Israel to act as aggressor.
I am sure that President Bush is under a great deal of pressure from Israel to act as aggressor on their behalf in the Iran situation as will any President committed to the existence of the State of Israel. If the danger reaches a certain threshold Israel will go after Iranian production facilities and let the chips fall as they will. If this unites the Arab world against Israel then they are more then able to defend themselves. If we are the aggressors in Iran, think on this... we will save the lives of a million Arabs who will then not need to throw themselves against Israel in a hopeless war.
BC
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
quote:Originally posted by Bean Counter: Hidden in Israel is a highly skilled war machine that can and will tear Iran, Syria and any collection of Arab States apart. However in order to unleash this war machine backed as it is by the United States she needs a provocation of the first order.
This strategy of giving the Palestinians the tools and confidence they need to go after Israel in total war is simply that, a strategy that urges the Arab States to action while they can still be beaten. It has to happen every couple of generations, in order to give Islam such a taste of defeat that they dare not come back until an entire generation has died with the shame and fear they always learn.
The only real fear is that the opening sally will involve a nuclear weapon, given the priceless nature of the cities and the close areas involved that is a chance Israel will not accept. So the division is not about the need for war, it is about whether a nuclear threat exists that will force Israel to act as aggressor.
I am sure that President Bush is under a great deal of pressure from Israel to act as aggressor on their behalf in the Iran situation as will any President committed to the existence of the State of Israel. If the danger reaches a certain threshold Israel will go after Iranian production facilities and let the chips fall as they will. If this unites the Arab world against Israel then they are more then able to defend themselves. If we are the aggressors in Iran, think on this... we will save the lives of a million Arabs who will then not need to throw themselves against Israel in a hopeless war.
BC
I personally don't think Palestine has any connection with the other Arab nations other then religions, especially Iran. Sure they talk loud, but none of them really care about the fate of the Palestineans, other then being a thorn in Israel's side. Iranians don't even consider themselves Arab, but Persian. Egypt has even stopped Palestineans from crossing their borders seeking refuge.
I don't see the Arab nations joining forces ever because they can't agree on anything themselves.
[ May 24, 2006, 04:54 PM: Message edited by: Stephan ]
Posted by Bean Counter (Member # 6001) on :
I agree that the Palestinians are just an excuse, and the Arab Nations are separate from Iran and do not trust it, but they have all traditionally agreed on the goal of the destruction of Israel. It seems to bring them all together. Iraq and Iran fought for years to determine who would get to do the honors.
None of that changes the fact that unilateral action by Israel will be seen as justification for war, and any action that includes Israel will be portrayed as being lead by Israel.
BC
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Bean Counter: Hidden in Israel is a highly skilled war machine that can and will tear Iran, Syria and any collection of Arab States apart.
That's ridiculous. The myth of the Israeli super-army/super-soldier was invented after 1967. And the current Israeli government doesn't have the will to do any such thing.
quote:Originally posted by Bean Counter: This strategy of giving the Palestinians the tools and confidence they need to go after Israel in total war is simply that, a strategy that urges the Arab States to action while they can still be beaten.
Bean Counter. Acid Dropper. Whatever it is you're taking, I want some of that. Israel is not engaging in some grand strategy. It's running in fear.
quote:Originally posted by Bean Counter: It has to happen every couple of generations, in order to give Islam such a taste of defeat that they dare not come back until an entire generation has died with the shame and fear they always learn.
Hmm. "Always", you say. Without meaning any offense, might I ask what color the sky is on your planet?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Not totally ridiculous. Israel does have a highly trained, powerful army and air force. Especially their air force is an asset, they are more than a match for a combination of any two air forces in the region, excepting maybe the Egyptians.
But it isn't 1967 anymore. The surrounding Arab nations have had more training, and have much better equipment than they had before. Saudi Arabia alone would put up a good fight. They aren't helpless, but they certainly couldn't take on the entire ME by themselves.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote: Palestinian rulers have been given 10 days to recognize Israel implicitly or face a territory-wide referendum on whether effectively to accept the existence of the Jewish state.
Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas urged the Hamas-led government on Thursday to accept the national goal of establishing a Palestinian state in Gaza and the West Bank alongside Israel.
"In 10 days, you have to decide; you have to agree," Abbas told a conference of Palestinian leaders, including Hamas and his Fatah Party, meeting in the West Bank city of Ramallah.
"If you don't agree, then I will say that frankly none of us will be responsible, and in 40 days I will call for a referendum. I will ask my people directly whether they accept or do not accept this [plan]."
Nice to see Abbas getting tough, hopefully he won't be assasinated for his trouble. But from the sound of the article, Hamas will probably turn him down and face a referendum in 40 days, which will either settle the issue, or start a civil war. At least progress is being made, one way or the other.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Israel is also handing weapons to Abbas' inner circle in order to provide protection for him. I thinks Abbas is making an extremely hard move, and I applaud him for it. I am not sure how Hammas will handle the ball now that its in their court, but I do hope they realize recognizing Israel is a better option than civil war.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Recognizing Israel might cause one anyway. I'd rather Hamas stick to their guns and they just let the people choose. If the people decide on recognizing Israel, that gives Hamas an out, rather than having it looks like they've betrayed their base.
Besides, a democratic referendum gives the entire move more legitimacy.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Valentine014:
quote: In 2000, Israel turned over south Lebanon to terrorists. The terror threat grew larger. In 2005, Israel turned over the Gaza Strip to terrorists, including Al-qaeda. The terror threat grew larger still. Now, Israel proposes to turn over nearly all the West Bank to our terrorists enemies. Albert Einstein defined insanity as, "doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." We cannot afford any more of this insanity.
Albert Einstein also refused the position of Prime Minister of Israel.
What. A. Coinkidink.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:Originally posted by Valentine014:
quote: In 2000, Israel turned over south Lebanon to terrorists. The terror threat grew larger. In 2005, Israel turned over the Gaza Strip to terrorists, including Al-qaeda. The terror threat grew larger still. Now, Israel proposes to turn over nearly all the West Bank to our terrorists enemies. Albert Einstein defined insanity as, "doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." We cannot afford any more of this insanity.
Albert Einstein also refused the position of Prime Minister of Israel.
What. A. Coinkidink.
Because he did not feel qualified to fill a political position (which was most likely true). Einstein however was VERY supportive of the creation of the Jewish nation of Israel.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Curious about opinions here... mostly from the "palistinians want peace as much as Israelis" camp...
Will it change your mind if the palistinians have a referrendum and decide they don't want the state of Israel to exist? That they shouldn't recognize the jewish state?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: Curious about opinions here... mostly from the "palistinians want peace as much as Israelis" camp...
Will it change your mind if the palistinians have a referrendum and decide they don't want the state of Israel to exist? That they shouldn't recognize the jewish state?
I will be very disappointed if the Palestinians by majority, vote to not recognize the state of Israel.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
But haven't they in effect done that already, by electing Hamas, which has precisely that for a declared aim?
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
So did Fatah. No different from electing them. Those were pretty much their only two choices, and both have the destruction of Israel in their charters.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
That's really a six of one half dozen of the other argument KoM. The only reason Hamas wasn't elected in the last election was because they specifically stayed out of the election by choice.
And yes Pix, I'll be very disappointed if they decide not to recognize the state of Israel. It would, I have to imagine, change my opinion about the entire situation.
I still wouldn't join Lisa's crazed "ship em all to Jordan (sorry, the OTHER half of Palestine)" plan, but I'd be a lot less supportive of anything at all that involved Israeli concessions for Palestinian gains.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: And yes Pix, I'll be very disappointed if they decide not to recognize the state of Israel. It would, I have to imagine, change my opinion about the entire situation.
I don't believe that for an instant. You don't think it'll happen, so you feel free to make such a statement. If it happens, you won't change your view in the slightest.
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I still wouldn't join Lisa's crazed "ship em all to Jordan (sorry, the OTHER half of Palestine)" plan, but I'd be a lot less supportive of anything at all that involved Israeli concessions for Palestinian gains.
Yeah, right. And you can be sarcastic, but the fact of the matter is that the area called Palestine included Jordan as well. And it's a helluva lot more than just half of it. The Arabs endorsed the idea that Jordan is Palestine for years, until it became clear that doing so made their claims on Israel look utterly infantile.
quote:"Palestine is Jordan and Jordan is Palestine; there is only one land, with one history and one and the same fate," Prince Hassan of the Jordanian National Assembly was quoted as saying on February 2, 1970.
quote:Accordingly, Abdul Hamid Sharif, Prime Minister of Jordan declared, in 1980, "The Palestinians and Jordanians do not belong to different nationalities. They hold the same Jordanian passports, are Arabs and have the same Jordanian culture."
quote:"There should be a kind of linkage because Jordanians and Palestinians are considered by the PLO as one people," according to Farouk Kaddoumi, then head of the PLO Political Department, who gave the statement to Newsweek on March 14, 1977.
quote:On August 23,1959, the Prime Minister of Jordan stated, "We are the Government of Palestine, the army of Palestine and the refugees of Palestine."
quote:"Let us not forget the East Bank of the (River) Jordan, where seventy per cent of the inhabitants belong to the Palestinian nation."
- George Habash, leader of the PFLP section of the PLO, writing in the PLO publication Sha-un Falastinia, February 1970
quote:"With all respect to King Hussein, I suggest that the Emirate of Transjordan was created from oil cloth by Great Britain, which for this purpose cut up ancient Palestine. To this desert territory to the bast of the Jordan (River)., it gave the name Transjordan. But there is nothing in history which carries this name. While since our earliest time there was Palestine and Palestinians. I maintain that the matter of Transjordan is an artificial one, and that Palestine is the basic problem. King Hussein should submit to the wishes of the people, in accordance with the principles of democracy and self-determination, so as-to avoid the fate of his grandfather, Abdullah, or of his cousin, Feisal, both of whom were assassinated."
- Past President Bourguiba of Tunisia, in a public statement, July 1973
quote:"Jordan is not just another Arab state with regard to Palestine but, rather, Jordan is Palestine and Palestine is Jordan in terms of territory, national identity, sufferings, hopes and aspirations, both day and night. Though we are all Arabs and our point of departure is that we are all members of the same people, the Palestinian-Jordanian nation is one and unique, and different from those of the other Arab states."
- Marwan al Hamoud, member of the Jordanian National Consultative Council and former Minister of Agriculture, quoted by Al Rai, Amman, 24th September 1980
Excellent op-ed piece by Rachel Neuwirth. Even more excellent site, explaining how 78% of Palestine was removed from the issue by sleight of hand.
Posted by Jonathan Howard (Member # 6934) on :
Umm... I am not going to argue every last word that was written in this thread (which I can probably do), but rather state my opinion.
Bob, you stated "[...I] have come away with the firm conclusion that Israel's government sucks". This is perfectly true, but I doubt you could say the old government sucked specifically because of their acts in the summer of 2005.
The bottom line is that ALL settlements in the West Bank and Gaza are illegal to some extent. So "they aren't illegal. The very few that are illegal by Israeli law are a drop in the bucket. We're talking about established cities. Not even towns, but cities" is both a false statement, and a tactless one. City or no, it's ILLEGAL. Those lands were NOT annexed (nor was East Jerusalem, by the way), and therefore any intrusion by other people (not previous locals) without immigration to the PA are technically trespassers.
Oh, and as for the moving-to-the-East-bank claim - "the fact that they're calling it Jordan these days doesn't make it any less the area known as Palestine. Why is it that the Jews have to give up their homeland" - it was NEVER Jewish homeland! Read the book of Numbers, for crying out loud! It was NOT promised to the tribes, and it was the decision of two of them to take hold of that land because it was conquered. No divine promise whatsoever.
Still on the topic of religion, "Israel respects the holy sites of others" does not quite follow the burning down Al-Aqsa in 1969? The security forces didn't even intervene! Oh, right! And I forgot all about that %#$^ Goldstein! And as for "particularly when those "holy sites" were built atop the single most holy site in the world for Jews", why the Hell is everyone so obsessed with what the Jews should be grateful was destroyed? Read Maimonides. The Temple was destroyed so we could get closer to God in prayer from the heart without all these ritual sacrifices.
Now, how did the basic theory of trespassing in the West Bank work for the past 39 years? Very simple: some guy, whose religious/political (I wonder how come those two words together make it seem like a theocracy... What about you?) ideology can be classified into the term "Religious Zionism", implements this term by going and building ILLEGALLY a caravan over on some hill. That hill is part of a grove or orchard that belongs to some poor farming family over on the other hill. Now, when that family complains to the authorities about the invasion of their territory, what does the authority (mostly soldiers) do? Request the papers that show ownership of the land.
If the poor guy still has his great-grandfather's papers from the beginning of the century (because with WWI, WWII, the Independence War, the Six Day War and the Intifada in 1987, not to mention the more recent one, who knows what might've happened to some old document) - why, they are in Turkish. And is there anyone in the area who can speak Turkish? Obviously not! So the soldiers disregard the paper, make some lousy promise that a translator will come by, and bugger off. The next day, a new and much rougher soldier comes in to supervise over the area, and he really don't give a #@%$ what happened last week.
From one caravan of this trespasser, that has now been "legalised", more come about. Within a short while the entire hamlet cannot rely on their own capabilities and request the authorities for construction of utilities. When these are provided, the people have a little village that is connected to the next one via a road that Arabs (or Palestinians, I can't remember the soldiers' criteria) may not travel upon. Those who violate this "law" could be shot in the head for reasons of "security", as those people might be riding their donkeys into Israel to blow up! So, of course, we shoot before thinking. One year later, the next hilltop is taken over in the same fashion. You think I'm bullshitting you? Well, see for yourselves. Chayim Yavin made a 6-episode documentary about this, and it might have been translated, though I'm uncertain. Akiva Eldar, however, in his book "Lords of the Land" (hopefully translated), also covers this issue.
Right. There is an issue of security and "who started it" is not much of an issue (and that's ignoring the way they settled Hebron. A few people wanted to celebrate the Sedder there, and were invited for a few days. They still haven't left, even after 39 years; and that is because when the mayor told them after a week or so to get the hell out of his land unless they pay for hotels - the "celebrators" brought SOLDIERS in), something is truly buggered-up if a 12 y.o. girl is walking off to school in the Gaza Strip about 200 metres away from the military station (not even walking towards it, just along the road ike every day) and Major R. decides - for whatever reason - that she is dangerous.
So he emptied two magazines into her.
Sure, the papers had HUGE headings, and big pictures (in the case of our daily comic strip - Ma'ariv), but a short while later the charges were dropped. Why? Because the military police decided that they've more important tasks at hand than being in court trying to justify this case.
Israeli law permits you under Emergency Regulations to be taken away and imprisoned for 48 hours before you are charged. If after those 48 hours you are still have no charges brought against you, you must be released. Well, what about all those Palestinians who have been in prison for what - 8 years - without any criminal cases brought against them? How can it be that the system is exploited by a judge signing some oblique paper and the guy can stay in for another five reasons - STILL WITHOUT CHARGES BROUGHT AGAINST HIM?!
And who allows the army, when they take-over private homes in Hebron for tactical "security" reasons (and legally I think they may not be in for more than 24 hours, and must not take away from the family anything or harm their liberty of movement, nor can they sleep on the family beds - and there are more limitations too), to lock the family (say, 8 people?) up in some tiny room, allow them no food, no water, no toilet-access and on occasion no place to sleep? These things can be around for 5 days, on occasion, and when a neighbour inquires they might shoot the neighbour, and also rape some of the locked-up family's daughters, maybe shoot one or two of the brothers, and then vanish like nothing happened. Oh, did I mention they consume half the cellar too?
Army-dictated policies. I don't know, sounds reminiscent to me of Italian fascism, but that's probably a matter of POV. Although my brother himself was involved - as part of the military police during his service - with some of the legal status that stemmed up from the case where in Nablus a guy was trying to get back home from the city to the village where he lives. The soldiers decided that he's dangerous, tied him up in the hot summer sun, and told him "not to move a $#@%ing inch", then told him they'd be back in a few minutes with water. They went off to drink, and came back a few hours later pissed to the root of their noggins. The guy meanwhile tried to get out of the chains as he was heavily dehydrating, and the soldiers mowed him down with their machine guns. I think they went into military prison for about 3 months.
***
The Disengagement Plan was one that aimed to get the damn IDF policies and manpower out of the territories. The aim was to finally show the world Israel is going away from its classic policies whose effects I slightly described above - the effects of the governmental under-the-table-plan to occupy the territories but NOT annex them, thus keeping over 3 million Palestinians from voting. However, it was done pathetically.
The moment you stick that sick, bigoted religious ideology (dubbed "religious Zionism") into the business (and I would rather not state all the swearwords I have to say about those who unify religion and state), you can excuse anything; if you rely on a deity alone to justify anything (such as Rabbi Aviner who pretty much supports murdering anyone who's ethnically Arab) - you can do whatever the hell you want. What Israel ought have done was let the people who're to be evacuated choose one or two options:
Leave out of will on time, and not wait to be dragged out. In such a case the nation ought have given full support in exchange for all that was lost, and done so in an organised fashion with a deadline of - say - a year before the date of evacuation. This was, of course, not done properly at all, but that's another matter.
If a person refuses to leave, on whatever grounds, allow that person to stay under the new authorities taking over after Israel leaves. That way, if any @#$%-brained hog decides that this pseudo-justified-by-"religion" bigoted ideology is too important, fair enough. Let the bugger stay and rot there out of his/her own will.
I think this entire nation is overly obsessed with the army. Sure, there are enemies, but there's enough propaganda for joining the army so that there'll be no need for conscription. The budget is overly high and some people just don't want this whole guns-in-our-hands business.
***
But the main problem I have with ads like that is the complete stupidity, shallowness and populist nonsense that underlies what they say. For a start, the borders are inaccurate and represent a complete failure to understand the history of the Israeli territorial movements after 1967.
Israel conceded around 66% percent of its territories inbetween 1975 and 1979 for a peace treaty with Egypt. In 2000 Israel retreated from territories it occupied in Lebanon since 1982 in belief that it will cause less deaths. It changed little, if at all; it was time to reduce the expenses and retreat. Right move, wrong method: Israel retreated with its tail inbetween its knees. The retreat was from the Hizballah's attacks, and had NOTHING to do with Gaza, in spite of stickers that were around two summers ago.
The Disengagement Plan was to the PA, and the fact that Hammas won was merely because Israel screwed the Palestinians over for 39 years so that they preferred choosing the people who actually give them food and medical support rather than the old party. Whether Hammas will last or not is a tough question, because now they're out of funds and not doing to well with supporting everybody. HOWEVER, it's about time Israel got its act together and left the West Bank after all the atrocities that the army's committed in Bil'in, the taking over of more territories with the construction of the wall and the settlements' tactic. For the record, Ariel Sharon, after promising to remove illegal settlements in 2003 (I think), only encouraged the putting-up of more.
Plus, I can't stand all this shitty termionology such as "the terror threat grew larger". Terror is NOT the same as terrorism! Plus, who are these ignorant people who siddenly assume they know what the situation of fear is like in Israel? Who're they to say that it's scarier to gew on a bus than it was 5 years ago? And who the hell are they to be so shallow as to call the various concessions as "the same thing"? Oh, and by the way, Al-qaeda had nothing to do with the Disengagement plan, thank you very much. They are incidentally Muslims, but they have little to do with Summer 2005, nothing for than incidental connections via 3rd and 4th parties. Oh, and who's "our terrorists enemies"? The PA? I thought they're forcing Hammas to recognise Israel...
Lisa, I do, however, understand your comparison of people to Nazi Germany entities ("I compared your use of the big lie technique to the German use of that same technique during WWII"). I, frankly, always found the Israeli military police (yes, my brother served there. I know pretty much what it is like) very reminiscent of the Gestapo.
"The whole damned state is "disputed". People aren't supposed to live their lives?" - not if it comes at the expense of others'. Please, just don't give me this whole "peacefully living their lives" bullshit that people like you, whose politics are slightly to the right of Attila the Hun's, have been telling me since 2004. If you call Goldstein "one who lives his life", then I'm sorry, but you're living in a bubble. The same happened in 1969 when after a soldier was killed, at his funeral in Hebron his fellow friends started pillaging the city. Dr Menachem Lorberboim stated in a conference I was in that the first word that came into his mind was "pogrom".
"New immigrants get special terms" - Ha! Right, that's why they were all sent to places like Yeroham and Dimona in the 50s, right? And that's why the "blacks" (!!!) are living in the slums on the outskirts of Jerusalem, right? Some of those came in the early 2000s too. "you get better terms than if you buy in a city like Jerusalem or Tel Aviv" - yeah, such as no air-conditioning when you live in a damned metal caravan in the desert, right?
And as for your POV of the Israeli papers, HaAretz is NOT extreme-left. It's is rather moderate left, except that this whole nation of Israel has its "centre" way too far towards the fascist right. The Jerusalem Post is a pathetic newspaper that my English teacher goes over every weekend and marks all the spelling and grammar mistakes (and if they can't even write, why expect them to know journalism?!) and my father won't even read. At the best you've got someone like Golinkin paid good money to blurt in a word.
"Brothers... Cain and Abel... Time to GIVE IT UP!" Ha! The conclusion of a conference I went to concerning these subjects (all by top-league scholars like Rev. Michael McGarry and Dr Lorberboim I mentioned above) when I posted my troubles about solving it through the educational system was "I don't know". Forget it, it's not going to work like that anytime soon, and it will come after a lot of bloodshed.
"Hidden in Israel is a highly skilled war machine that can and will tear Iran, Syria and any collection of Arab States apart. However in order to unleash this war machine backed as it is by the United States she needs a provocation of the first order" - this is bullshit. Who told you that, the NSA after they left new messages on your answering machine?! If anything, Saudi Arabia with their 5 AWACS are more like that.
"... the Arab Nations are separate from Iran and do not trust it, but they have all traditionally agreed on the goal of the destruction of Israel" - yeah, like Egypt, which is regarded as a new Zionist power in the Middle-East by Syria and ex-Iraq? And your capitalisation of "nations" is really inappropriate here. You make it seem like OSC's Muslim League.
"But haven't they in effect done that already, by electing Hamas, which has precisely that for a declared aim?" - no. hammas was elected because they supply food and medicine to those who don't have it. Also, research in 2004 showed that most actually wanted peace. Right, I know, statistics. But it can definitely be achieved once all the fascists lose their religious zeal or end up like the SA.
"Let live in peace" - Shlomo Artzi. Jonny
[ May 27, 2006, 06:17 PM: Message edited by: Jonathan Howard ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I don't believe that for an instant. You don't think it'll happen, so you feel free to make such a statement. If it happens, you won't change your view in the slightest.
While you're being psychic, could you let me know the winning lotto numbers for the next drawing?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by starLisa:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: And yes Pix, I'll be very disappointed if they decide not to recognize the state of Israel. It would, I have to imagine, change my opinion about the entire situation.
I don't believe that for an instant. You don't think it'll happen, so you feel free to make such a statement. If it happens, you won't change your view in the slightest.
Perhaps this is one of the fundamental differences between the two of us. I'm willing and perfectly able to change my mind as new information presents itself. I believe, at the moment, that the mainstream Palestinian thought, that is, a majority of those people, want peace, know and accept that Israel is there to stay and simple want to settle the matter and move on with their lives.
No, I don't think that the Palestinians will vote to not recognize Israel, but if that is the case, then my opinion and position on the matter will change. If it happens, I'll stand by what I said. If it does not, well, I'll certainly be interested in seeing what you have to say.
Quite frankly, I don't see how you can even make such a statement as you made above. You know almost nothing about me, other than what appear to be chance meetings in threads such as this. I'm not a zealot like you (sorry if you aren't but advocating the things you've advocated certainly makes you sound like one). And I don't see how you can basically accuse me of being a liar, based on absolutely nothing other than what I have to imagine is a serious amount of antipathy towards me.
quote:Originally posted by starLisa:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I still wouldn't join Lisa's crazed "ship em all to Jordan (sorry, the OTHER half of Palestine)" plan, but I'd be a lot less supportive of anything at all that involved Israeli concessions for Palestinian gains.
Yeah, right. And you can be sarcastic, but the fact of the matter is that the area called Palestine included Jordan as well. And it's a helluva lot more than just half of it. The Arabs endorsed the idea that Jordan is Palestine for years, until it became clear that doing so made their claims on Israel look utterly infantile.
If someone took over Michigan's lower peninsula, claimed it as their own, for whatever reason, and then sent me packing to the UP, and wouldn't let me back in, I'd be just as pissed as those people are. Just because I'm still in Michigan doesn't mean it's all just the same thing, which seems to be the basic claim you keep trying to make with Palestine and Jordan.
Regardless of where Palestine is, or was, there are still more than a million people displaced from a home their families have occupied for generations, and I mean actual physical occupation, not just a spiritual connection from a long time ago. Uprooting millions of people and sending them to Jordan just because it used to be called Palestine is just as silly as uprooting the Mitten (Lower Peninsula) and sending them all to the UP (Upper Peninsula).
Posted by Bean Counter (Member # 6001) on :
quote: there are still more than a million people displaced from a home their families have occupied for generations, and I mean actual physical occupation, not just a spiritual connection from a long time ago
There are now... For the same reason there are so many Irish in America, only the Irish became Americans, the Arab States would never let the Palestinians displaced, who numbered only thousands, ever be anything but refugees. They are the victims of Islam for the utility they provide. (Arab Palestinians Displaced approx. 394,900)
BC
[ May 28, 2006, 12:12 PM: Message edited by: Bean Counter ]
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Regardless of where Palestine is, or was, there are still more than a million people displaced from a home their families have occupied for generations, and I mean actual physical occupation, not just a spiritual connection from a long time ago.
There are no "million people displaced". That's completely untrue. As is the part about families occupying the land for generations. They were mostly nomads, and there are very, very few Arabs who lived anywhere in Palestine "for generations".
Nor did they have any right to take up residence there in the first place. We never gave them permission.
Posted by Tristan (Member # 1670) on :
quote:There are no "million people displaced". That's completely untrue.
What do you mean by "completely untrue". Would it be "completely untrue" if it were in fact only 900 000 people displaced? 800 000? Such rhetoric is dangerously close to what the holocaust deniers use when they insist that it is "completely untrue" that the Nazis killed 6 million jews if an objective analysis could confirm only 5.9 million.
quote:Nor did they have any right to take up residence there in the first place. We never gave them permission.
Lovely. Sorry, Lisa. I generally like you, but I think your arguments on this issue do more damage to Israel's reputation (and the reputation of its defenders) than any other single element at Hatrack.
Posted by Robin Kaczmarczyk (Member # 9067) on :
bottom line..
Mexico needs to rule over there.
Posted by Robin Kaczmarczyk (Member # 9067) on :
actually, if we keep the gringos busy, the jews will probably loose to the arabs and the Chinese shall inherit the earth.
Posted by Jonathan Howard (Member # 6934) on :
My dear Centro-Eastern European friend,
Do you mind keeping this thread serious? Some of us actually deal with these things at a personal level, you know? Not all of us jest about these things. I personally like to think I didn't spend 3 days writing my megalopost just for these things to come up afterwords.
I'm no angel, true. I did these things in the past. But puh-lease learn from my mistakes. Please?
quote: The UN Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) administers the only registration system for Palestinian refugees. UNRWA records, however, only include those refugees displaced in 1948 (and their descendents) in need of assistance and located in UNRWA areas of operation - West Bank, Gaza Strip, Jordan, Lebanon, and Syria. Estimates of the refugee and displaced population may also be derived from statistics maintained by the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR); census data from host countries and Israel; and, population growth projections.
It is estimated that there were more than 7 million Palestinian refugees and displaced persons at the beginning of 2003. This includes Palestinian refugees displaced in 1948 and registered for assistance with the UN Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) (3.97 million); Palestinian refugees displaced in 1948 but not registered for assistance (1.54 million); Palestinian refugees displaced for the first time in 1967 (753,000); 1948 internally displaced Palestinians (274,000); and, 1967 internally displaced Palestinians (150,000).
Now you're going to tell me that the UN is wrong, and probably biased right?
And damn, they REALLY should have gotten the written permission of every two thousand year descendent of the Israelites before they moved in right? Give me a break.
Posted by Jonathan Howard (Member # 6934) on :
I think Lisa should spend 10 years living with the Satmer Hassidic cult.
Nothing personal, just political.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jonathan Howard: The bottom line is that ALL settlements in the West Bank and Gaza are illegal to some extent.
I can't believe I'm going to argue this with a high school student, but fine.
In Israel, Jonathan, something is legal if it's legal by Israeli law. Period. You may feel good being a rebel, but don't tell me that Maaleh Adumim and Efrat and Ariel and the like are "illegal to some extent". That's factually wrong. It suits your particular political agenda, but it is not true.
quote:Originally posted by Jonathan Howard: So "they aren't illegal. The very few that are illegal by Israeli law are a drop in the bucket. We're talking about established cities. Not even towns, but cities" is both a false statement, and a tactless one. City or no, it's ILLEGAL. Those lands were NOT annexed (nor was East Jerusalem, by the way),
East Jerusalem was, in fact, annexed. The Golan Heights were semi-annexed. It's a matter of dispute whether extending Israeli law to the Heights counted as annexation. No such dispute exists with regards to East Jerusalem.
quote:Originally posted by Jonathan Howard: and therefore any intrusion by other people (not previous locals) without immigration to the PA are technically trespassers.
Not at all. The PA has only existed since 1994. Furthermore, it is not the government of those areas, so one cannot "immigrate to the PA".
Judea and Samaria were, just like the rest of Israel, Jordan, and the Gaza Strip, parts of the British Mandate for Palestine. Fact. Up until WWI, de facto ownership of that land was in the hands of the Ottoman Empire. Within that political entity, a percentage of the land was owned by absentee Arab landlords, a percentage was owned by Jews, and the greatest part lay fallow.
After WWI, the League of Nations started cutting up the Middle East and creating countries. They created Iraq. They created Syria, which eventually had to be partitioned into Syria and Lebanon, because the Muslims and Christians couldn't get along. And they gave Palestine to the British, for the creation of a Jewish homeland.
In 1922, the British unilaterally gave 78% of the Mandate to the Emir Abdullah. What was left was, still, made up of land owned by absentee Arab landlords and land owned by Jews, though the percentages had been changing, because the Jews had been buying as much land as they could from those absentee landlords. You'd probably consider that "illegal", because the Arabs who were living on those parcels didn't have a say in it. But whoever gave tenants a say on a landlord's choice to sell?
Meanwhile, Arabs who had not lived in Western Palestine started moving there. Why? Because the Jews who had moved back to our land were creating jobs. And in a poverty stricken region like this one, that was very attractive.
So both the Jewish and Arab population was increasing by leaps and bounds. And there was a lot of tension and antagonism. Eventually, the British threw up their hands and gave the Mandate back to the UN (which had replaced the League of Nations after WWII). No political entity existed in that area yet.
In 1947, the UN decided to split Western Palestine into an Arab state and a Jewish state. The Jews accepted this. The Arabs rejected it. And in 1948, the Jews declared a state on their half. The Arabs, as you know, Jonathan, tried to obliterate that state. They didn't declare a state in their half, because that would be acknowledging that the Jews got half. It's pretty much the same reason that the Arabs haven't declared a state in Gaza.
quote:Originally posted by Jonathan Howard: Oh, and as for the moving-to-the-East-bank claim - "the fact that they're calling it Jordan these days doesn't make it any less the area known as Palestine. Why is it that the Jews have to give up their homeland" - it was NEVER Jewish homeland! Read the book of Numbers, for crying out loud! It was NOT promised to the tribes, and it was the decision of two of them to take hold of that land because it was conquered. No divine promise whatsoever.
Irrelevant. Do you want to do this on the basis of religion or on the basis of politics and ownership? You're mixing the two, and you're doing it in a fairly dishonest way. If you're coming from a religious point of view, there are several concentric boundaries of Eretz Yisrael. There are different laws that pertain to each one. Do you want to discuss that, Jonathan?
But if we're talking about law and history, the Palestinian Mandate absolutely did include Jordan.
quote:Originally posted by Jonathan Howard: Still on the topic of religion, "Israel respects the holy sites of others" does not quite follow the burning down Al-Aqsa in 1969?
Are you talking about this this? An Australian Christian who burned down the mosque to hasten the Christian second coming? How lovely. A Jewish teenager is so nihilistic that he's engaging in the kind of anti-Israel propaganda that's going to end with him in a refugee camp. What is it, Jonathan? More trouble with your teachers? Your parents didn't buy you a pony?
quote:Originally posted by Jonathan Howard: The security forces didn't even intervene! Oh, right! And I forgot all about that %#$^ Goldstein! And as for "particularly when those "holy sites" were built atop the single most holy site in the world for Jews", why the Hell is everyone so obsessed with what the Jews should be grateful was destroyed?
So. A Jewish kid who hates his own religion so much that he's happy the Temple was destroyed, and blames his own country for the acts of a crazed Christian fanatic. Thanks, Jonny. You write cogently, for the most part, and it's nice that you've at least made it clear where you're really coming from.
quote:Originally posted by Jonathan Howard: Read Maimonides. The Temple was destroyed so we could get closer to God in prayer from the heart without all these ritual sacrifices.
He wrote nothing of the sort. In the Yad, he makes it clear that the sacrifices are still binding, and will be performed when the Temple is rebuilt. In the Moreh, he suggested that one reason for the sacrifices may have been in order to help us get away from the dominant form of worship at the time the Torah was given. He nowhere suggests that this was the only reason. That's tripe.
quote:Originally posted by Jonathan Howard: Now, how did the basic theory of trespassing in the West Bank work for the past 39 years?
It wasn't trespassing. Trespassing requires an owner who objects. In terms of global politics, that land was owned by the Ottoman Turks. Then by the League of Nations, which became the United Nations. Then it was offered to the Arabs, but they rejected it. No ownership was transferred. In the resulting war, the Jordanians captured Judea and Samaria and annexed it. Only two countries in the entire world recognized that illegal action: Britain and Pakistan. Even the other Arab countries refused to recognize it.
Notice that there were numerous Jewish towns and cities in those areas which existed even before the UN came up with their partition plan. Like Gush Etzion. Which the Arabs destroyed in 1948, and which we rebuilt in 1967. Those are the kinds of "illegal settlements" you're going on about. Land that we bought from the legal owners, and which was conquered from us in war and retaken in war, both wars launched by the Arabs.
Then, in 1967, Jordan tried to wipe Israel off the map, and we took Judea and Samaria back from them.
Did we make a mistake by not immediately annexing it? Sure. But while we chose only to occupy it, we weren't occupying a sovereign nation. That's what "occupation" means in every other case. It means that you roll in and take over someone else's country. That's what happened in 1992, when Saddam occupied Kuwait. Kuwait existed. There was no nation in Judea and Samaria. It was part of the Palestinian Mandate that Jordan had been occupying since 1948.
quote:Originally posted by Jonathan Howard: Very simple: some guy, whose religious/political (I wonder how come those two words together make it seem like a theocracy... What about you?) ideology can be classified into the term "Religious Zionism", implements this term by going and building ILLEGALLY a caravan over on some hill.
I gave a link above that discusses the creation of Gush Etzion. When I lived in Efrat, incidentally, there was a vineyard in the middle of the town that belonged to some local Arab. Despite the constant violence from the Arabs in the area, this guy was allowed to come in every day and work his land. It would have been extremely easy to simply eminent domain it. But we didn't.
You're talking about current hilltop settlement. But that's not who Olmert is talking about evicting from their homes. And if you believe he is, then you're foolish even for a high school kid.
quote:Originally posted by Jonathan Howard: That hill is part of a grove or orchard that belongs to some poor farming family over on the other hill. Now, when that family complains to the authorities about the invasion of their territory, what does the authority (mostly soldiers) do? Request the papers that show ownership of the land.
Absolutely. These Arabs want to claim that they've held title to the land. We know that a very large percentage of them simply moved in and took possession. Very much like the hilltop settlers you're so hot about. Why does their settlement activity have more validity than ours? If they can't demonstrate ownership, they have no more right to the land than anyone else.
quote:Originally posted by Jonathan Howard: If the poor guy
"Poor guy". You've already decided that the Arabs are, a priori, innocent and in the right, and that the Jews are, a priori, guilty and in the wrong. Teen angst is a bummer, Jonny, but when it turns into support of a terrorist nation against your own people, you should really consider therapy.
quote:Originally posted by Jonathan Howard: still has his great-grandfather's papers from the beginning of the century (because with WWI, WWII, the Independence War, the Six Day War and the Intifada in 1987, not to mention the more recent one, who knows what might've happened to some old document) - why, they are in Turkish. And is there anyone in the area who can speak Turkish? Obviously not!
Wrong. I worked at Bank Yerushalayim, a mortgage bank. Most old documents from the Ottoman period were written in Arabic. Not Turkish. Now you're being intentionally dishonest. Tell the people the truth, Jonny.
quote:Originally posted by Jonathan Howard: Right. There is an issue of security and "who started it" is not much of an issue (and that's ignoring the way they settled Hebron. A few people wanted to celebrate the Sedder there, and were invited for a few days. They still haven't left, even after 39 years;
You're ignoring the Jews who lived very peacefully in Hebron until the Arabs massacred the lot of them in 1929. Did Jews find a way to get back to Hebron? Yes. Should we have had to? No. And we're talking 1929, Jonny. Not 2000 years ago.
quote:Originally posted by Jonathan Howard: Israeli law permits you under Emergency Regulations to be taken away and imprisoned for 48 hours before you are charged.
Actually, it allows you to be put away for 6 months or more under Administrative Detention. Something which has been used against both Jews and Arabs.
Why is that law on the books, incidentally? Oh, right. It's a British Mandatory law that was never taken off the books.
quote:Originally posted by Jonathan Howard: The moment you stick that sick, bigoted religious ideology (dubbed "religious Zionism") into the business (and I would rather not state all the swearwords I have to say about those who unify religion and state),
Then leave Israel, nihilist Jonny. Leave like all your Shenken-type friends will leave. Your self-hatred is a little pathetic and a lot tragic, but don't think that you'll be allowed to harm other Jews just because you've swallowed the kind of sick propaganda you posted above.
quote:Originally posted by Jonathan Howard: I think this entire nation is overly obsessed with the army. Sure, there are enemies, but there's enough propaganda for joining the army so that there'll be no need for conscription. The budget is overly high and some people just don't want this whole guns-in-our-hands business.
Yefeh nefesh. All I can say is, "Wahhhh!"
quote:Originally posted by Jonathan Howard: Plus, I can't stand all this shitty termionology such as "the terror threat grew larger". Terror is NOT the same as terrorism!
You attach no meaning to your words.
quote:Originally posted by Jonathan Howard: Oh, and by the way, Al-qaeda had nothing to do with the Disengagement plan, thank you very much.
No one said they did. But they're there in Gaza now. That's what the ad was talking about. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that your crazed attitude resulted in your not listening carefully enough. The alternative would be that you are intentionally misrepresenting what the ad said.
quote:Originally posted by Jonathan Howard: They are incidentally Muslims, but they have little to do with Summer 2005, nothing for than incidental connections via 3rd and 4th parties. Oh, and who's "our terrorists enemies"? The PA? I thought they're forcing Hammas to recognise Israel...
Right. I'll believe that when I see it. They were the ones who voted for Hamas in the first place.
quote:Originally posted by Jonathan Howard: Lisa, I do, however, understand your comparison of people to Nazi Germany entities ("I compared your use of the big lie technique to the German use of that same technique during WWII").
It's really a shame that the people most strongly associated with the invention that that odious technique also engaged in genocide. Now you can't associate anyone with them on one point without it being taken as being connected to the other.
I'm careful with my words. I used "Germans" rather than "Nazis" specifically in order to point to Lyrhawn's use of propaganda and the big lie, rather than genocide. Though I do admit, Jonny, that Lyrhawn is purely outclassed by you. That's probably because he lacks your adolescent hatred.
quote:Originally posted by Jonathan Howard: "New immigrants get special terms" - Ha! Right, that's why they were all sent to places like Yeroham and Dimona in the 50s, right? And that's why the "blacks" (!!!) are living in the slums on the outskirts of Jerusalem, right? Some of those came in the early 2000s too. "you get better terms than if you buy in a city like Jerusalem or Tel Aviv" - yeah, such as no air-conditioning when you live in a damned metal caravan in the desert, right?
Which one of us dealt with new immigrant rights, Jonny? Don't speak of something you know nothing about. The filthy leftists dealt with the Sephardim the way they did for the same reasons that you hate settlers. They were "enlightened" -- as you are. They hated Judaism -- as you do. They were embarrassed as all get out at Jews who actually cared about being Jews -- as you are. The Sephardim, the Yemenites, the Jews from Arab countries... they all took it for granted that they were Jews, first and foremost.
So the Histadrut stole their children. They cut off their peyot. They refused to give people jobs unless they agreed to send their children to Histadrut controlled socialist/secular schools.
And they treated them like second class citizens. That's why yefei nefesh like yourself are so incensed. Now there are believing Jews who you can't separate off on the basis of skin color or accent. So you have to spread the net a little more widely.
I lived in Talpiot. I lived in Kiryat Yovel. I know what these places are like. I also know that your pretense of caring about the people who were so mistreated by those with whom you identify is irrelevant to the facts that I stated. Did new immigrants in the 1950s receive the kind of zechuyot/rights that immigrants in the 1980s and 1990s did? I don't know. I wasn't born yet. But I know for a fact the way it worked in those later decades. For a fact, nihilist Jonny. I'm the one who sat in the bank and actually dealt with it. Not you.
quote:Originally posted by Jonathan Howard: And as for your POV of the Israeli papers, HaAretz is NOT extreme-left. It's is rather moderate left, except that this whole nation of Israel has its "centre" way too far towards the fascist right.
Oh, yawn. And I think Arutz 7 is rather moderate right, except that the whole state of Israel has its center way too far towards the socialist/secularist/anti-religious/anti-national left.
The difference, nihilist Jonny, is that I'm aware that there are other views. So rather than present Arutz 7 as slightly right of center and the Jerusalem Post as pretty left of center, and HaAretz as virtually Stalinist, I thought I'd present things in a slightly more conciliatory fashion. But you're a high school kid. One who hates everything about his own culture and society. One who wishes he wasn't Jewish or Israeli. So of course you're not going to do that. You probably would have thought of Davar as only slightly left of center.
quote:Originally posted by Jonathan Howard: The Jerusalem Post is a pathetic newspaper that my English teacher goes over every weekend and marks all the spelling and grammar mistakes (and if they can't even write, why expect them to know journalism?!)
<blink> Wow. That's... cogent. Typos in English mean that the journalism is bad. Can I quote you on that, nihilist Jonny?
quote:Originally posted by Jonathan Howard: and my father won't even read. At the best you've got someone like Golinkin paid good money to blurt in a word.
I'd love to spend some time dwelling on the irony of this paragraph, with its ungrammatical sentences and weird constructs like "blurt in", but it'd be like shooting fish in a barrel.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jonathan Howard: I think Lisa should spend 10 years living with the Satmer Hassidic cult.
Nothing personal, just political.
Jonny, we get it. You hate Judaism. Wait a couple of years until the adolescent angst and nihilism passes. One day, you'll come across your posts here, and you are going to be so embarrassed.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
If the Palestinians would give up all claims to any land west of the Jordan in exchange for a massive aid package, technical assistance, and homesteading in Jordan, it really would solve a lot.
The only problems I see with this are that there are so many of them who have lived West of the Jordan for so many years...generations even...that the benefits of moving to Jordan would have to be incredibly huge.
There's also the problem of some holy sites that do exist West of the Jordan -- various wells, tombs and, of course, the holy structures. I think there'd be resistance to Jewish control of those even though some of the sites are equally (if not colosally more) important to faithful Jews. Take the temple mount, for example. It's importance goes all the way back to Abraham, there's a historic mosque on it, but it is THE SITE of the temple built by Solomon. It's importance to faithful Jews is beyond that of any of the other people who worship there or honor that site. Despite the value it now has to Muslims, and the value to all who trace their ancestry to Abraham.
There are other places too. Tombs of the patriarchs. Wells that were dug by the Patriarchs and have been sites of miracles important to Muslims and to all semitic people.
There are going to be attachments to those places and areas that go deeper than just the prospect of having a nice home and a good life inside of Jordan.
Then, there are some historic towns and roots that people have put there. Hebron is not just a place with a single intersection out in the desert. It's a major town that has roots going back millennia. It's not like people are just likely to walk away from that.
Personally, I'd like to see Jordan become a garden spot and productive beyond anyone's imagination. I think the kingdom there is fairly liberal and enlightened (in the best senses of those words) and, I also think there's a reasonable shot at democracy spreading in a place like that.
But, again, something would have to convince the Palestinians living West of the Jordan that it'd be in their best interest to move there and live in peace.
I don't see the carrot.
Just the stick.
And while Palestinians are warm and friendly people, in my experience, I also know them to be quite stubborn. Making life uncomfortable for the general population hasn't really succeeded in encouraging a mass migration out of the area. I suspect it will not be successful in the future if it is tried.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote: The UN Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) administers the only registration system for Palestinian refugees. UNRWA records, however, only include those refugees displaced in 1948 (and their descendents) in need of assistance and located in UNRWA areas of operation - West Bank, Gaza Strip, Jordan, Lebanon, and Syria. Estimates of the refugee and displaced population may also be derived from statistics maintained by the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR); census data from host countries and Israel; and, population growth projections.
It is estimated that there were more than 7 million Palestinian refugees and displaced persons at the beginning of 2003. This includes Palestinian refugees displaced in 1948 and registered for assistance with the UN Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) (3.97 million); Palestinian refugees displaced in 1948 but not registered for assistance (1.54 million); Palestinian refugees displaced for the first time in 1967 (753,000); 1948 internally displaced Palestinians (274,000); and, 1967 internally displaced Palestinians (150,000).
Now you're going to tell me that the UN is wrong, and probably biased right?
Wow. Well done, Lyrhawn. Now if I point out that UNRWA is an extremely biased and anti-Israel organization, you'll have already poo-pooed that idea, without a shred of evidence.
And I'll add, again, that most of the Arabs who did live in that area before 1948 did not own the land they lived on. They were tenants, many of whom got screwed by their landlords when the landlords sold the land to Jews. But that's not a political issue. That's simply the way it works. You don't all of a sudden become the owner of someone else's land because you've been living on it.
[ May 29, 2006, 12:30 PM: Message edited by: starLisa ]
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: If the Palestinians would give up all claims to any land west of the Jordan in exchange for a massive aid package, technical assistance, and homesteading in Jordan, it really would solve a lot.
The only problems I see with this are that there are so many of them who have lived West of the Jordan for so many years...generations even...that the benefits of moving to Jordan would have to be incredibly huge.
Suppose we were to take the budget of all the UN groups that exist exclusively to deal with the Palestinians and give that to them. They could all live in villas. Suppose all of the money that has been given to the Palestinian Authority to use for the betterment of their people actually got to their people? They'd be an incredibly wealthy nation.
Explosives aren't cheap, you know. Suppose they spent their money on butter, rather than on guns?
Bottom line, unfortunately, is that they aren't interested in such things. Their goal isn't do improve things for themselves. It's to destroy Israel. It always has been.
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: There's also the problem of some holy sites that do exist West of the Jordan -- various wells, tombs and, of course, the holy structures. I think there'd be resistance to Jewish control of those even though some of the sites are equally (if not colosally more) important to faithful Jews. Take the temple mount, for example. It's importance goes all the way back to Abraham, there's a historic mosque on it, but it is THE SITE of the temple built by Solomon. It's importance to faithful Jews is beyond that of any of the other people who worship there or honor that site. Despite the value it now has to Muslims, and the value to all who trace their ancestry to Abraham.
It could be moved. Like London Bridge. Piece by piece, it could be moved to Jordan or Arabia. Put it in Mecca.
There's never going to be a solution here that makes everyone happy. Our Temple Mount is our Temple Mount. We can't help it that they built a shrine atop it.
But other than that, and other than the fact that they turned the burial cave of our ancestors (not theirs) into a mosque, we have a track record of taking good care of other people's holy places. They have a track record of using our tombstones to line urinals.
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: There are other places too. Tombs of the patriarchs. Wells that were dug by the Patriarchs and have been sites of miracles important to Muslims and to all semitic people.
They don't claim descent from Isaac and Rebecca, or Jacob and Rachel and Leah. Or Sarah.
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: But, again, something would have to convince the Palestinians living West of the Jordan that it'd be in their best interest to move there and live in peace.
I don't see the carrot.
Just the stick.
There is no carrot that they would see as a carrot. All we have is a stick.
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: And while Palestinians are warm and friendly people, in my experience, I also know them to be quite stubborn. Making life uncomfortable for the general population hasn't really succeeded in encouraging a mass migration out of the area. I suspect it will not be successful in the future if it is tried.
It hasn't been tried.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Originally posted by starLisa:
quote:Originally posted by Jonathan Howard: I think Lisa should spend 10 years living with the Satmer Hassidic cult.
Nothing personal, just political.
Jonny, we get it. You hate Judaism. Wait a couple of years until the adolescent angst and nihilism passes. One day, you'll come across your posts here, and you are going to be so embarrassed.
I expect most of us will come across posts we've made here that embarrass us, Jonathan included.
When that happens, he'll have the very good and common excuse that his were posted during adolescence. What will be your excuse for bullying a teenager with sentences such as these:
quote:What is it, Jonathan? More trouble with your teachers? Your parents didn't buy you a pony?
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Lisa,
We're never going to agree on this for one very basic reason. I have known Palestinian Arabs as friends and I cannot connect them with the people you describe. As near as I can tell, the people you describe are a minority, if they exist at all, among the general population of Palestinian people.
I've met some people who are very angry with Israel, but their gripes aren't things like "Israel shouldn't exist" their gripes are things about land grabs, forced evictions, demolition of houses, closing borders, bankrupting businesses by virtue of closing borders, answering rock throwing with bullets (albeit rubber ones) and the like. And yes, before you say it, I know that the actions of some Palestinians have been atrocious and that there are specific things that Israelis should be VERY angry with Palestinians about. Yes, I know it. (not that this will forestall you providing a litany) -- I'm just hoping that you'll see the larger point here -- that Palestinians aren't generally anything but typical human beings.
You say Israel hasn't tried making life uncomfortable for Palestinians. I think Israel has, and it hasn't worked. It just makes more people hate Israel. Sure, things could be made worse. Israel could choose to salt the fields, poison the grazing lands, firebomb the towns and sell infected blankets to the natives.
I believe that the essentially humanity of Jews would stop that sort of thing. I met a great number of Israeli Jews when I visited there. You know what? They're warm and generous people too. They are also very stubborn.
The question isn't who will win this, but whether a solution will be found before one side, the other, or both are wiped out.
I personally think that any such solution would be bad for all parties involved, even the winner (if that term could be used here without the universe just choking on it).
Imagine a modern Jewish state that exists in peace merely because it had accomplished genocide. Do you believe the world would accept or tolerate that state? Would trade with the outside world be feasible? Would support for the State of Israel continue?
Forced deportation of Palestinians and militarization of Israel's borders is nearly as bad a scenario.
Seems pretty short sighted to me, really.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:I can't believe I'm going to argue this with a high school student, but fine.
Wow, I don't know if I've ever read so many ad hominems in a single post.
Perhaps in the glory days of Baldar.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: Imagine a modern Jewish state that exists in peace merely because it had accomplished genocide. Do you believe the world would accept or tolerate that state? Would trade with the outside world be feasible? Would support for the State of Israel continue?
Forced deportation of Palestinians and militarization of Israel's borders is nearly as bad a scenario.
That statement shows a complete lack of perspective.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Really?
I guess I'm just wondering what the solution is that you envision.
Posted by Papa Janitor (Member # 7795) on :
Time out. I'll decide later whether or not to re-open or delete.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
.