quote:Originally posted by Aris Katsaris: "Dismissing "the housing needs of settlers" when we're talking about essentially making yet another area Judenrein (like Gaza)."
Either Israel ought annex the territories and give the Palestinians there full Israeli citizenship and voting rights, or it should stop these settlements.
No. Israel should annex the territories and give the Arabs a couple hundred thousand dollars per family and a ticket to the country of their choice.
Not only the Arabs in the territories, but the Arabs who currently have Israeli citizenship should be required to take an oath of loyalty to Israel as a Jewish state, or leave.
quote:Originally posted by Aris Katsaris: The settlers have no business there. Occupation is one thing, and even occupation can be justified in the case of danger. But settlements are an attempt to displace the native population and they can't be seen as anything but a form of ethnic cleansing, same as China sending Han Chinese to change the demographics of Tibet.
They aren't "the native population". Nor is it occupation. For the takeover of territory to be considered occupation, it must be taken over from a polity. Who did Israel take Judea and Samaria from? Jordan. Whose annexation of those lands went unrecognized by the entire world (other than Britain and Pakistan). What polity preceded Jordan as overlords? That'd be Britain, who requested an end to the British Mandate in 1948. Once the Mandate ended, the UN's offer of two states went into effect.
The thing is, Aris, the Jews accepted the offer. The Arabs declined. Violently. So no Arab polity came into being in those lands, and when Israel took them in 1967, they were politically ownerless.
Now, if you're talking about private ownership, that's another story. What about all the land that Jews bought prior to 1948? One of the settlements that was destroyed in Gaza was built originally on land bought by Jews, and then conquered by Egypt in 1948. Is there any sane way you can call it occupation when Israel took it back in 1967? The same is true of the Etzion Bloc of settlements south of Jerusalem. In 1948, the Arabs massacred the inhabitants who didn't manage to escape, and in 1967, the area was rebuilt. That's occupation?
quote:Originally posted by Aris Katsaris: The "two-state nonsense" as you call it, is the only solution that doesn't include a either the ethnic cleansing of all Jews from Israel or all the ethnic cleansing of all Arabs from Palestine.
Well, I can guarantee you that so long as there is a Jewish state in the middle east, the Arabs will continue their war against it. So I'm fine with expelling them and dealing with an external enemy instead of an internal one.
quote:Originally posted by Aris Katsaris: You say, Lisa, "they consider all of Israel to be occupied Palestine". The problem is that you (and the current Israeli governnment) seems to consider all of Palestine to be not-yet-cleansed Israel.
Yes, I do consider all of it to be Israel. Of course it is. And your continued use of "cleansed" for removing a genocidal populace is noted and disregarded.
quote:Originally posted by Aris Katsaris: And you may want to consider "Arabs" as one single group, but truth is that you got peace with Egypt, you got peace with Jordan, and Hamas often seems to be fighting Fatah more than it's fighting Israelis.
I wish people would stop calling it Fatah and go back to calling it the PLO. That's what Fatah means, you know. It's an abbreviation (reversed, because the actual abbreviation was embarrassing) of PLO in Arabic. It's a terrorist organization, and Hamas is just PLO+.
quote:Originally posted by Aris Katsaris: And guess what? Hamas doesn't want a Palestinian state either. Fatah does. Which one is a worse enemy, the ones wanting a two-state solution, or the ones believing that a two-state solution will never work?
The ones wanting a two-state solution. Thanks for asking.
Posted by natural_mystic (Member # 11760) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by natural_mystic:
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by natural_mystic: Do you agree that the continued growth of the settlements is highly provocative to Palestinians?
Israel's existence is highly provocative. They consider all of Israel to be occupied Palestine. Tel Aviv is a "settlement" to them.
Their insistence on wiping us out is provocative to us. When will they stop that?
Nice non-answer.
Big issues that need to be resolved include: -rockets, suicide attacks etc. -recognition of Israel. -settlements.
Everyone knows this. What should the Palestinians read into the continued expansion of the settlements?
You're looking at this through the lens of a perspective that didn't exist until the early 90s, and the Oslo accords.
Settlements are not an issue. Nor are rocket attacks and recognition anything but symptoms of the larger issue, which is the Arab/Muslim refusal to countenance a Jewish state in the region they consider their own.
You're fooling yourself if you think that there's anything that will satisfy them short of all the Jews packing up and leaving.
You take as axiomatic that Arabs/Muslims will never countenance a Jewish state. As such (it appears to me) you think any action that Israel takes to be futile with regard to a lasting peace, and you see no reason to halt the activities of Jews who aggravate the situation.
I find this axiom questionable. For one thing Arab/Muslim states such as Egypt have accepted Israel. Furthermore, Palestine's population is young. Soon a majority will have the Oslo accords as a reference point.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:I find this axiom questionable.
Yeah, because history will prove it dead wrong.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I have a hard time believing Arab/Muslim states won't accept Israel as a Jewish state, for a number of reasons.
First off, we have Egypt and Jordan. That ain't nothing. There are also serious talks that Syria of all countries has been in and out of top level negotiations with Israel over a discussion of normalizing relations, but much of the talk is stalled over the return of the Golan Heights, just like Saudi Arabia is holding normalization as a carrot in return for a viable Palestinian state.
In other words, you, Lisa, seem to be arguing that as a point of principle, Arab states will never accept a Jewish state in their midst. But we've already seen two states that are as Arab and/or Muslim as they come accept Israel as a Jewish state, and we have evidence of several others who hold normalizing relations as a political bargaining chip rather than a point of ideology. They're waiting to normalize until they can get the best deal, not because they really expect Israel to be gone at some point. If that's not your argument, then I apologize if I've misrepresented you, but that's what I took from what you've said, and I think there's plenty of evidence to prove the opposite.
Besides, even if they do hold that as a long term goal, time is on their side. Wait a century and Israeli Arab Muslims will outnumber Jews in Israel. It's a demographics game that Israel is plainly aware of, and I'm sure everyone else is as well.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I have a hard time believing Arab/Muslim states won't accept Israel as a Jewish state, for a number of reasons.
You are deluded. And ignoring centuries of history and the fact that the only Arab countries which have accepted Israel have done so while saying other things out the other side of their mouth.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by natural_mystic: You take as axiomatic that Arabs/Muslims will never countenance a Jewish state.
That's right. Well, I don't think they're against a Jewish state in principle. So long as it isn't in the Middle East.
quote:Originally posted by natural_mystic: As such (it appears to me) you think any action that Israel takes to be futile with regard to a lasting peace,
Not at all. I can think of several things right off the bat that would contribute to a lasting peace.
quote:Originally posted by natural_mystic: and you see no reason to halt the activities of Jews who aggravate the situation.
I don't think they're aggravating the situation. I think they're improving it. I think that if Israel were to ramp up settlement activity and make it clear that we won't be forced our of our own land, it would be a good start to getting things calmed down in the region.
quote:Originally posted by natural_mystic: I find this axiom questionable. For one thing Arab/Muslim states such as Egypt have accepted Israel.
Wrong. They've chosen to stop military attacks on us so long as the payments from the US keep coming.
quote:Originally posted by natural_mystic: Furthermore, Palestine's population is young. Soon a majority will have the Oslo accords as a reference point.
That's ludicrous. Have you seen how they're being raised? Sesame Street and Disney knockoffs preaching jihad and genocide. And you think they're being raised on Oslo? You have a serious disconnect with the reality of the situation.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: First off, we have Egypt and Jordan. That ain't nothing.
It's a barely civil truce. Egypt still refuses to normalize relations with us. And like I said, both of them were promised loads of money by the US in exchange for this cold peace. The moment that money stops, so does the peace.
Meanwhile, there's both governmental and academic and social incitement, not just against Israel, but against Jews, in both countries. Far worse in Egypt, where their state run TV ran a program touting the Protocols of the Elders of Zion as history.
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: There are also serious talks that Syria of all countries has been in and out of top level negotiations with Israel over a discussion of normalizing relations, but much of the talk is stalled over the return of the Golan Heights,
Right. Because it makes total sense to return the high ground to a country that's attacked us from it three times. You should go to the Golan sometime, Lyrhawn. See how much of Israel you can see from it. I can't even imagine something stupider than giving that to a totalitarian dictatorship like Syria.
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: just like Saudi Arabia is holding normalization as a carrot in return for a viable Palestinian state.
Garbage. They could have declared a state in Gaza the moment Israel pulled out. They don't want a state. They want the idea of a state, and they want it as a tool. An actual state would be a huge problem for them.
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Besides, even if they do hold that as a long term goal, time is on their side. Wait a century and Israeli Arab Muslims will outnumber Jews in Israel. It's a demographics game that Israel is plainly aware of, and I'm sure everyone else is as well.
It's not so clear. But you could be right about the demographic problem. Which makes it more important than ever to transfer them out of the country.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
Hmm... you're probably right. They're raising a generation of peace lovers.
[ June 05, 2009, 10:23 AM: Message edited by: Lisa ]
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Without stepping into the other fascinating facets of this conversation I must confess I had no idea Farfour had so many replacements down the line.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
Yeah. Farfour, if I recall correctly, was killed by the Israelis outright. Nahoul was denied access to Israeli hospitals and died. Assud went to the Gaza TV station before Israel bombed it and got mortally wounded. I'm waiting to see how they'll have the evil Jews kill Nassur. Maybe we'll give him AIDS or poison the wells.
But you can laugh all you want at the ridiculousness of it. Those of you who have children, you know how much kids believe what they hear and see on TV. Those of you who don't, maybe you remember it yourselves.
Watch those videos and think about it.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
That's pretty awful stuff.
It makes me wonder - who is having/letting their kids watch this stuff? - what are the audience sizes for these things?
I Googled Egyptian children's TV to see if I could find some counter examples of what is shown there:
here are three that seemed like they were sending positive messages:
Now, granted, I don't know squat about how Egyptian TV works, and how much of the content would appear "normal" and "upbeat" to westerners. I also have no clue what percentage of kids watch the more wholesome stuff and what percentage are getting fed a steady diet of hate.
By the way, I realize that some of the links (most) on your list were to Hamas TV shows, and the smaller number were about Egyptian TV. It's just very difficult to find anything specific about TV offerings in Palestinian controlled areas.
We all realize Hamas is a radical Islamist organization using propaganda. The same questions about who is really watching this stuff and/or having their kids watch it would still apply. I just suspect that there is no information on that.
Also, when I was in that area, most of the TV reception was satellite-based. I don't know if taht's still true, but people were receiving signals from all over the world, not just Arab sources. I suspect Hamas has tried to change that level of access, but I wonder how successful they've been.
[ June 05, 2009, 12:04 PM: Message edited by: Bob_Scopatz ]
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: By the way, I realize that some of the links (most) on your list were to Hamas TV shows, and the smaller number were about Egyptian TV. It's just very difficult to find anything specific about TV offerings in Palestinian controlled areas.
We all realize Hamas is a radical Islamist organization using propaganda.
A radical Islamist organization that was elected democratically by the majority of the Palestinian Arabs there.
As far as the selection, I didn't include Saudi ones, because I didn't think it was relevant. If I were to widen the scope to more than just the Palestinian Arabs and Egypt, it'd be a long, long, post.
Posted by Humean316 (Member # 8175) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: By the way, I realize that some of the links (most) on your list were to Hamas TV shows, and the smaller number were about Egyptian TV. It's just very difficult to find anything specific about TV offerings in Palestinian controlled areas.
We all realize Hamas is a radical Islamist organization using propaganda.
A radical Islamist organization that was elected democratically by the majority of the Palestinian Arabs there.
I have a feeling that I know how you will answer this, but have you ever wondered why they voted Hamas into power?
It's not because they share the views of Hamas, it's because desperate people will do desperate things when faced with impossible situations, but more than that, we have to accept the fact that in a democracy, sometimes we choose incorrectly. That doesn't just mean that we elect the wrong politicians, it means that we can choose to be Communist or embrace terrorism if we so choose. Of course, that is not what the Palestinians are doing, they are caught in a 60 year old conflict, they face desperate conditions, and the people handing out food and clothing and helping those who need it in Gaza are the members of Hamas.
If I were in that situation, I would vote for Hamas too. Just saying...
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Humean316:
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: By the way, I realize that some of the links (most) on your list were to Hamas TV shows, and the smaller number were about Egyptian TV. It's just very difficult to find anything specific about TV offerings in Palestinian controlled areas.
We all realize Hamas is a radical Islamist organization using propaganda.
A radical Islamist organization that was elected democratically by the majority of the Palestinian Arabs there.
I have a feeling that I know how you will answer this, but have you ever wondered why they voted Hamas into power?
It's not because they share the views of Hamas, it's because desperate people will do desperate things when faced with impossible situations, but more than that, we have to accept the fact that in a democracy, sometimes we choose incorrectly. That doesn't just mean that we elect the wrong politicians, it means that we can choose to be Communist or embrace terrorism if we so choose. Of course, that is not what the Palestinians are doing, they are caught in a 60 year old conflict, they face desperate conditions, and the people handing out food and clothing and helping those who need it in Gaza are the members of Hamas.
If I were in that situation, I would vote for Hamas too. Just saying...
And then you'd have to accept the consequences of doing so. Just saying...
I mean, hell, don't you think the Germans had reasons for voting Hitler in that had absolutely nothing to do with antisemitism? Of course they did. There were even Jews who voted for him. What I don't get is how that exempts them for responsibility.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
Also, I'm not willing to accept this silly notion that Hamas is bad and Fatah is good. Fatah is the PLO. Murdering scum one and all. But they and their acts of terror are also accepted by the Palestinian Arabs.
Posted by Humean316 (Member # 8175) on :
quote:I mean, hell, don't you think the Germans had reasons for voting Hitler in that had absolutely nothing to do with antisemitism? Of course they did. There were even Jews who voted for him. What I don't get is how that exempts them for responsibility.
Sure, but then again, I'm not interested in placing responsibility. If I were, I would partly blame the allies and how they handled the aftermath of WWI for WWII, I would blame the past 4 administrations here in America for doing a horrible job with the humanitarian crisis in Palestinian territories, and I would partly blame the Israelis for embracing policies toward the arabs in the region that clearly do not work.
I'm only interested in why they did it because if we know that we might be able to fix it, we might be able to create a viable Palestinian state (which if you don't allow btw, the Palestinians in the country will outnumber the Jews in 10 years, and in a democracy that is going to go REALLY well--plus, it would cost into the trillions to pay them off and many wouldn't take the money anyway, for which you would have to forcibly remove them--I just don't see the viability of your alternate plan) where innocent Jews aren't killed and where they can live in peace. If they want to be ruled by Hamas, that is their choice, but we can't sit back and claim that now we have to punish the ones responsible without looking in the mirror. Besides, I think that is pointless anyway, solve the problems first, then we can beat ourselves up later.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Humean316: and I would partly blame the Israelis for embracing policies toward the arabs in the region that clearly do not work.
Amen. I'm totally with you, there. We just differ on what they're doing wrong, and what they should be doing.
quote:Originally posted by Humean316: we might be able to create a viable Palestinian state (which if you don't allow btw, the Palestinians in the country will outnumber the Jews in 10 years, and in a democracy that is going to go REALLY well--plus, it would cost into the trillions to pay them off and many wouldn't take the money anyway, for which you would have to forcibly remove them--I just don't see the viability of your alternate plan)
Hey, I'm okay with just kicking them out. But the fact is, the amount of money in our internal defense budget for the next ten years is enough to give every Arab family in Israel (and the terrorities) a quarter of a million dollars.
But go, they will.
Posted by Humean316 (Member # 8175) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by Humean316: and I would partly blame the Israelis for embracing policies toward the arabs in the region that clearly do not work.
Amen. I'm totally with you, there. We just differ on what they're doing wrong, and what they should be doing.
quote:Originally posted by Humean316: we might be able to create a viable Palestinian state (which if you don't allow btw, the Palestinians in the country will outnumber the Jews in 10 years, and in a democracy that is going to go REALLY well--plus, it would cost into the trillions to pay them off and many wouldn't take the money anyway, for which you would have to forcibly remove them--I just don't see the viability of your alternate plan)
Hey, I'm okay with just kicking them out. But the fact is, the amount of money in our internal defense budget for the next ten years is enough to give every Arab family in Israel (and the terrorities) a quarter of a million dollars.
But go, they will.
Well, if you just kick them out, you are going to need that defense budget. And this isn't just about money, they have religion and belief, they believe, on their side. They won't give that up for every dollar you have in your defense budget, and if you kick them out, they will fight until either you die or they do. And as much as I think you would embrace that, that is clearly not an option.
The problem here isn't that we disagree about what should be done, it is about how we look upon the situation and whether we can truly be objective about the situation. There is no question in my mind that some of them hate you, that they would revel in your death just as you have reveled in theirs, and yet, there are sizable portions of people, both in the Palestinian territories and Israel itself, that view their religion and their sense of humanity and compassion as greater than the hatred that burns in the region. It would seem almost illogical to say that hatred and violence aren't almost rational responses to the horrors of Israeli and Palestinian life, and yet, all I can think is that the Israeli's and Palestinians are brothers and sisters, born of Isaac and Ishmael, who were born of Abraham.
In that sense, we do disagree about the nature of what should be happening, but as I always do, I don't care about the how, I care about the why. What do you believe Israel should be doing, and more importantly, why do you believe that?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:They won't give that up for every dollar you have in your defense budget, and if you kick them out, they will fight until either you die or they do.
I don't think that's true. Humans rarely fight to the last man, and never to the last woman and child. At some point people give up.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
[ June 05, 2009, 09:14 PM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Not only is Fatah the official successor to the PLO, but they are hopelessly corrupt. They are a big part of the reason that Hamas exists and was elected. If there had been a viable peace-seeking party, it's at least possible that they would've been given a shot at power -- anyone but Fatah is as a reasonable an interpretation of that election as any I've heard.
I don't think Palestine became suddenly more radicalized over night. I think Hamas is feared by most Palestinians and loathed by a fair proportion of the population, but they have also done a few things that Fatah never managed to pull off: 1) Actually build things for their people. 2) Stem the tide of corruption. Of course, they did that in a context of vastly reduced access to international aid. They haven't really be tested by the vast sums of money that Fatah was receiving.
I don't believe that "go they will." I also don't think the "deportation with compensation" solution is viable. For it to work long term, both sides would have to agree to it peaceably -- not at the point of a gun, or through coercion based on an untenable existence.
The point about that is it doesn't matter if Israelis think the Palestinians inside Israel share culpability for their current poor situation (e.g., voting in Hamas). They will not see it that way, and thus will not perceive punishments based on that as just or valid. Use of force could eventually get them to agree that, yes, it might be best if they were to depart, but that is not a recipe for security. If they leave in fear and resentment, Israel will never be free of that issue.
It's also worth considering that an Israel completely devoid of Arabs would be a much more tempting target for extremists than one that has an integrated population of Arabs and Jews.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
By the way, I like Obama's optimism, but I think he's fooling himself. The two-state solution and the road-map are not a new start and bright horizon.
They are the bone that's been gnawed over for decades (at least in the case of the two-state-solution) and the two sides are going to continue gnawing over for a good long while yet.
Also...Some in Israel are claiming that they had "an understanding" with the Bush Administration about expansion of settlements in disputed territories. Apparently (if Hilary Clinton is to be believed) nobody wrote these agreements down as part of the official diplomatic record.
So...we're faced with a puzzle: - are the Israeli sources lying? or, - did our previous Administration try to secretly wink at something that they officially (publicly) argued against?, or, - is our new Secretary of State lying?
Although I see the large possibility that this is a self-serving fabrication by some in Israel who really think settlement expansion is the right course to take, it is unfortunate that I can't actually rule out the possibility that the Bush Administration was playing both sides of the fence on this issue. I don't see it as very likely in this case that Hillary Clinton is lying -- it would be too easy to fact check...
Whatever the true situation, if this becomes the official Israeli stance, it bodes ill for the road map, and for any sharing of Obama's optimism.
[ June 05, 2009, 11:29 PM: Message edited by: Bob_Scopatz ]
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Yes, yes. And the Alamo, and the Long Serpent, and Little Big Horn. One could multiply examples; but the forces involved are always small. It doesn't scale. "Such feats are possible for battalions; not for nations."
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Aris Katsaris: But settlements are an attempt to displace the native population and they can't be seen as anything but a form of ethnic cleansing, same as China sending Han Chinese to change the demographics of Tibet.
For the record, "China" doesn't "send" Han Chinese to change the demographics of Tibet. It doesn't really even need to even if that was what "China" wanted to do. They make their own decisions and move themselves.
With the resources in the area and the fact that the population densities are like 1/10th, 1/100th, or even less than the densities elsewhere in China you'd have to expect at least *some* immigration by people seeking a better life. Its like the people leaving over-crowded Europe to settle in North America or for a modern example, leaving an economically impoverished city like Detroit for Alberta.
Combine that with some infrastructure spending, some tax and salary benefits for government employees, and a big tourism boom, and you pretty much have to expect immigration.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
for the last little while as well the number of Hans in Tibet has been static as the number that arrive are offset by the ones that leave. Besides, Hans only make up a small percentage of the population anyhow and concentrated mostly in Lhasa, Hans arent naturally inclined to the altitude of tibet, its the highest plateau in the world.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I have a hard time believing Arab/Muslim states won't accept Israel as a Jewish state, for a number of reasons.
You are deluded. And ignoring centuries of history and the fact that the only Arab countries which have accepted Israel have done so while saying other things out the other side of their mouth.
Those centuries of history only matter to a certain point. I'm not ignoring them, but I am taking a certain amount of their value away. MidEast national rulers only play up the Israel/Palestine problem because they know it inflames the populations of their countries and helps to keep them in power, so they can rail about Jews instead of solving a great number of social and economic problems that are either present or looming on the horizon. If that problem was actually solved in some meaningful way, they wouldn't have much substance to their finger pointing, and while it wouldn't all go away, they'd be hard pressed to keep up the good fight when unemployment, access to food, education, etc etc are also issues, and ones at home rather than far away.
A lot of Middle Eastern countries have a demographics problem just like Israel potentially (and I think realistically) does. Only instead of worrying about people they don't like outproducing them, their own overproduction over the last two decades is going to seriously catch up with them when millions of MidEast youths come of age in a world that isn't prepared to feed and employ them. And especially with the volatile price of oil lately and in the years to come, and with the rest of the world finding more and more sources of oil to pump out, and some of the super oil fields in places like Saudi Arabia either drying up or pumping out dramatically more water than oil, they're revenue is going to tank in the next couple decades.
In other words, they have bigger fish to fry, and a lot of them know it, but are choosing this side issue to distract attention. It's nothing new, but like all looming problems, it can't go unaddressed forever.
There's also a new generation of more educated, more pro-Western youths being developed over there too, and that's going to change the social and political climate over there in a way we really haven't seen before. It might be a decade or two off still, but it's going to play a role, especially if Western countries continue their charm offensive for that length of time.
I never said that they were necessarily all going to have a giant MidEast potluck party together, but if by acceptance we mean "begrudgingly recognizes their right to exist without constantly plotting to blow them off the face of the earth," then yeah, I think we're either there or on our way towards it. Israel isn't going anywhere and they know it. Recognizing it out loud is something different than recognizing it in private, which is why they're using it as political leverage in international bargaining agreements. If they know they can extract guarantees and/or money from the US and/or Europe just for recognizing another country's existence, well, one wonders why they wouldn't. North Korea has been pandered to for years because they're making shitty nukes that barely work and haven't even achieved the destructive power that we were capable of 60 years ago. You take what you can.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Humean316: Well, if you just kick them out, you are going to need that defense budget.
It is vastly more expensive to deal with internal threats than to deal with external ones.
quote:Originally posted by Humean316: And this isn't just about money, they have religion and belief, they believe, on their side.
Really. And have you noticed that some of us on our side do as well? Yes, you're absolutely right that it's going to come down to who is more committed. Read this. There's a more detailed description in Barnea's book Mine Enemy. Note, btw, that Barnea is far on the left, and would happily give the Arabs whatever they want.
But while it's true that people like that jailer will ultimately fail in a contest against the Tamaris of this world, the Feiglins and the Liels of this world will not.
quote:Originally posted by Humean316: They won't give that up for every dollar you have in your defense budget, and if you kick them out, they will fight until either you die or they do. And as much as I think you would embrace that, that is clearly not an option.
Oh, I don't know. The Arabs are funny that way. I heard a talk from an Israeli soldier who was on the Temple Mount at the end of the Six Day War. He was left to guard 200 Arab soldiers. They'd arranged them in two squares, each 10 men by 10 men. And they stationed this one guy with an assault rifle to guard them while the others went to get police vans. When they sense weakness (not necessarily military weakness, but weakness of will) on the other side, they bare their teeth. When they face massive defeat, they tend to back down a bit.
Anyway, that's our problem.
quote:Originally posted by Humean316: In that sense, we do disagree about the nature of what should be happening, but as I always do, I don't care about the how, I care about the why. What do you believe Israel should be doing, and more importantly, why do you believe that?
I think that Israel should do a few things.
First thing I'd do is announce that Judea and Samaria are an integral part of Israel, and will never be given to anyone. Ever. For any reason whatsoever.
Next, I'd offer $100K to any family that chooses to leave (citizens or not, and with the understanding that if they're Israeli citizens, they won't be any more). And I'd make it $150K per family if everyone in a town decides to leave (a little neighborly peer pressure isn't a bad thing).
At the same time, I'd make it clear that any acts of violence will result in the entire town the perpetrator is from being shut down. That means no electricity, no gas, and no water. Permanently. They'd be free to go live elsewhere, another town or out of the country, but that town would be over. If there's no way to know what town the perpetrator is from, we'd simply choose the Arab town nearest to the attack. The perps themselves... if they only caused property damage, they will be escorted to the border and put out. If they killed anyone, they'll be put down.
All non-Jewish citizens of Israel will have to sign an oath of loyalty to the State of Israel as a Jewish state. Signed oaths will be made public. Anyone refusing to sign the oath will be given the opportunity to leave, and if they choose not to, their assets will be seized.
Israel will never again ask for recognition from any country, but will offer diplomatic relations to whomever wants them.
Neighboring countries will be warned that what happens in their territories is their responsibility. If they allow terrorists to operate from inside their borders, we will push those borders back and after expelling everyone from the area between the old and new borders, we will annex that area.
Israel's peace policy will be extremely simple. Leave us alone or pay a steep price.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: Not only is Fatah the official successor to the PLO
Well, actually, the acronym for Palestine Liberation Organization in Arabic, is Hataf. That wasn't a name they wanted, so they just reversed it and made it Fatah. The PLO has always been called Fatah in Arabic, and Fatah has always been, and continues to be the PLO. They aren't a successor, they are the same group.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:At the same time, I'd make it clear that any acts of violence will result in the entire town the perpetrator is from being shut down. That means no electricity, no gas, and no water. Permanently. They'd be free to go live elsewhere, another town or out of the country, but that town would be over. If there's no way to know what town the perpetrator is from, we'd simply choose the Arab town nearest to the attack. The perps themselves... if they only caused property damage, they will be escorted to the border and put out. If they killed anyone, they'll be put down.
I suspect this would have the added effect of killing a great deal of US support for Israel, but I doubt you'd have a problem with that. Actually I think you'd welcome that, not because you don't want the help, but because you don't want to be beholden to anyone else for Israel's security, which is something I can respect. I sort of feel the same way, only in the reverse direction, sometimes, but only sometimes.
Seriously though, setting aside the political backlash, I don't think it'd be as effective as you seem to think it would be. Homes bulldozed, power cut off to Gaza, etc etc and they never stopped. Hamas just turns it into another PR coup. I suspect it'd rile up more people that it cows.
quote:Neighboring countries will be warned that what happens in their territories is their responsibility. If they allow terrorists to operate from inside their borders, we will push those borders back and after expelling everyone from the area between the old and new borders, we will annex that area.
That sucks for the countries that are just plain unable to stop terrorists operating in their borders, but I can't really say I give much of a damn about that. If they can't secure their own borders, you're more than within your rights to do it for them. Annexation is tricky. What do you do if the area you annex has towns in it? Raze them? Integrate them?
My biggest concern here for Israel is that you might not be able to do it. And the best example of that is the most recent large scale military operation Israel has undertaken. You'll have to refresh my memory on the date, but I think it was 2006 when they rolled into southern Lebanon, and it was anything but a cakewalk, and from what most stories I've read, did nothing to solve the problem anything more than temporarily. If you move in and stay, you might be setting yourself up for a series of quagmires if the area isn't easily securable, as southern Lebanon apparently wasn't. And it certainly wasn't for lack of trying. If you can do it successfully though, more power to you.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I never said that they were necessarily all going to have a giant MidEast potluck party together, but if by acceptance we mean "begrudgingly recognizes their right to exist without constantly plotting to blow them off the face of the earth," then yeah, I think we're either there or on our way towards it. Israel isn't going anywhere and they know it.
That was what I assumed you meant. You're still wrong.
And please, Mideast not MidEast.
Posted by Humean316 (Member # 8175) on :
Lisa:
quote:Really. And have you noticed that some of us on our side do as well? Yes, you're absolutely right that it's going to come down to who is more committed. Read this. There's a more detailed description in Barnea's book Mine Enemy. Note, btw, that Barnea is far on the left, and would happily give the Arabs whatever they want.
Well, my point was never that it has to come down to is more committed, my point was that if it does, the price is going to be extremely high. And believe it or not, I'm not interested in giving the Palestinians everything they want, they must pay the price anyone pays when they embrace terrorism, but if I hold them to that standard, then I must hold Israel to that standard as well.
In some sense, the entire Arab world is waiting for that very thing to happen, and if it did, you would have peace much, much sooner.
quote:All non-Jewish citizens of Israel will have to sign an oath of loyalty to the State of Israel as a Jewish state. Signed oaths will be made public. Anyone refusing to sign the oath will be given the opportunity to leave, and if they choose not to, their assets will be seized.
Most of the things you suggest simply wont work and I have addressed most already (too much money, they will choose not to leave, whatever), but there are two that are simply troubling. This is most troubling, but any words that I say cannot encompass how I feel about a Jewish person suggesting this. It seems cliche to say that those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it, but that is clearly most appropriate here.
quote:Neighboring countries will be warned that what happens in their territories is their responsibility. If they allow terrorists to operate from inside their borders, we will push those borders back and after expelling everyone from the area between the old and new borders, we will annex that area.
If you think there is an enormous amount of anti-zionist sentiment and ant-semitism in the rest of the world now, try enacting that plan and see what happens. In general, the Muslim world is not in a fight with the rest of the world, they are fighting for their very soul, for the very definition of what Islam and Democracy means together, but more than that, they are fighting for the future of the Middle East and how Islam is integrated (or not) into the new world of today. Why is that important? In some sense, Israel is doing the same thing, the fights that exist within Israel are not about internal strife or moral imperatives, they encompass Israel's role in the world and how best to see for the survival of the Jewish race, religion, and culture. And that's the thing, Israel cannot thumb it's nose at the world, just as the Arabs or the Palestinians or Americans can't either, and that's something important that must be considered. This cannot be a simple matter of xenophobia and military might winning out, it must be an example of how a good and kind people rose from something desperate and made something great, otherwise the Jewish people, it's brilliant culture, and it's beautiful religion will continue to suffer needlessly.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I never said that they were necessarily all going to have a giant MidEast potluck party together, but if by acceptance we mean "begrudgingly recognizes their right to exist without constantly plotting to blow them off the face of the earth," then yeah, I think we're either there or on our way towards it. Israel isn't going anywhere and they know it.
That was what I assumed you meant. You're still wrong.
And please, Mideast not MidEast.
Fair enough on the Mideast thing.
As for the wrongness thing, let's meet back in say, 20 years. $20 to the winner. Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
Speaking of the "peace" with Egypt, Egypt Bans Marriage to Israelis. Aw, that is so sweet! Now that's what I call peace.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Surely you can do better than that.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
]quote]For the record, "China" doesn't "send" Han Chinese to change the demographics of Tibet. It doesn't really even need to even if that was what "China" wanted to do. They make their own decisions and move themselves.
With the resources in the area and the fact that the population densities are like 1/10th, 1/100th, or even less than the densities elsewhere in China you'd have to expect at least *some* immigration by people seeking a better life. Its like the people leaving over-crowded Europe to settle in North America or for a modern example, leaving an economically impoverished city like Detroit for Alberta.[/quote]
Hmm...doesn't that effectively amount to the same thing though, Mucus?
What's the functional difference between sending by governmental fiat or something immigrants to permanently change Tibet's demographics and simply taking control of Tibet and then permitting - once control is taken and the ability to make that sort of decision is there - letting the, as you say, natural flows of immigration take their course?
Functionally there is pretty much no difference at all. Morally I think there is a difference...but not much. It's still a conquest, or at least it will be in a few more generations.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Detroit for Alberta
That was the best example you could think of? I've talked to my fair share of people leaving Detroit for greener pastures, but near as I can tell, no one has suggested Canada, let alone Alberta, as that place.
Albeta, heh. It's funny just thinking about it.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Rakeesh: Not for the Chinese immigrants.
The usage of the word "send" seems to be intentionally provocative, conjuring the image the Chinese government is mandating Han Chinese to immigrate to the area, voluntarily or not. In fact, there doesn't seem to be any real evidence that this is the case.
Rather, it seems to me that most of the Chinese people that are working in the area are making a pretty rational choice to find better opportunities. I use the word, working, rather than immigrating, because in fact, some government policies such as the hukou system prohibit immigration to the area.
This is a pretty systemic problem in all of China and as a tangent I have to wonder that if "non-democratic" government controls such as the hukou system or the one-child policy for Han Chinese were relaxed, whether you would actually see a greater proportion of Han Chinese in Tibet or not. I suspect that the results would be counter-intuitive for some Westerners.
Whether it makes a difference to the native Tibetans as you seem to be addressing is entirely a different question but it seems to me that it makes a big difference for the Chinese immigrants involved.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Rakeesh: Not for the Chinese immigrants.
Well, no, obviously there's a moral difference for the Chinese immigrants. You gotta go where your family can thrive.
quote:Whether it makes a difference to the native Tibetans as you seem to be addressing is entirely a different question but it seems to me that it makes a big difference for the Chinese immigrants involved.
*shrug* I guess to me, from a moral standpoint, whether it makes a difference to the native Tibetans is among the paramount questions overall.
That'll change in time once the conquest is complete, which'll happen slow but sure.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Do you have evidence that the rate of change of the immigration of Hans and Yue Chinese has been increasing over the last 20 years in any significant statistical amount? Official census records put Tibetans as the ethnic majority in the TAR by an overwhelming about.
Posted by adenam (Member # 11902) on :
quote:And believe it or not, I'm not interested in giving the Palestinians everything they want, they must pay the price anyone pays when they embrace terrorism, but if I hold them to that standard, then I must hold Israel to that standard as well.
I'm not exactly sure what you meant, but Israel does not embrace terrorism.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Its like you people have missed the fact that what is being proposed is a different standard for citizenship for people of different races and religions.
If the US were to become officially a "Christian Nation" and were to demand that all people who were not baptized members of a recognized Christian church either declare an oath of loyalty to the Christian United States or be deported, would we even be discussing it?
Some people seem of the opinion that religious bigotry is only bad if your are anti-Jewish. They are horribly wrong.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:I'm not exactly sure what you meant, but Israel does not embrace terrorism.
Perhaps then you can explain why Israel has elected leaders that had in fact been members of terrorist organizations and conducted bombing that killed civilians? Does terrorism simply not count if you agree with the terrorists agenda?
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:I'm not exactly sure what you meant, but Israel does not embrace terrorism.
Perhaps then you can explain why Israel has elected leaders that had in fact been members of terrorist organizations and conducted bombing that killed civilians? Does terrorism simply not count if you agree with the terrorists agenda?
I'm not familiar enough with the subject. Can you cite some examples I could read up on?
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Menachem Begin was leader of the Irgun, a terrorist group that planned and executed the bombing of the King David Hotel in Jerusalem in 1946. Ariel Sharon was leader of "Unit 101" in the 1950's, a group whose tactics a very well described as terrorism.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Woe to the vanquished.
The victors, write the history books.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Well, no, obviously there's a moral difference for the Chinese immigrants. You gotta go where your family can thrive.
I'm not sure you quite understand what I'm saying. What I mean is that there were periods in time in Chinese history, most recently during the Cultural Revolution when people were literally "sent" to places such as the countryside or Tibet.
The fact that on the whole, this is not what is actually happening in Tibet is pretty significant.
quote:I guess to me, from a moral standpoint, whether it makes a difference to the native Tibetans is among the paramount questions overall.
For me, I have to consider all the people caught up in the situation, not just the Tibetans.
quote: That'll change in time once the conquest is complete, which'll happen slow but sure.
As BB points out, the rate of actual immigration has been pretty slow. Official statistics are that only 6% of the population in Tibet is Han Chinese due to aforementioned policies such as the hukou. Given that China has occupied Tibet for over 50 years now, a simple projection seems to imply that it will take 400 years to even reach parity (even if we assume that the Han Chinese population in Tibet was 0 at time of occupation which is doubtful) which is much much longer than it took for Europeans and Americans to reach that point in the Americas.
*shrug* I think there would be more pressing issues in play such as well, the OP.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Menachem Begin was leader of the Irgun, a terrorist group that planned and executed the bombing of the King David Hotel in Jerusalem in 1946. Ariel Sharon was leader of "Unit 101" in the 1950's, a group whose tactics a very well described as terrorism.
Great, make it sound like we bombed a hotel where people were staying. The British had taken over the hotel and were using it as their military headquarters. And even so, we called them and warned them that the building was going to be blown up, with ample time for them to evacuate. That they chose not to isn't our fault.
And Ariel Sharon is an evil SOB. Don't talk to me about him.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"Menachem Begin was leader of the Irgun, a terrorist group that planned and executed the bombing of the King David Hotel in Jerusalem in 1946."
The king david hotel, in 1946, was a military headquarters. Is bombing a military headquarters terrorism? That would seem to broaden the definition into meaninglessness.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:I'm not exactly sure what you meant, but Israel does not embrace terrorism.
Perhaps then you can explain why Israel has elected leaders that had in fact been members of terrorist organizations and conducted bombing that killed civilians? Does terrorism simply not count if you agree with the terrorists agenda?
There was never, ever, ever a Jewish group that targeted civilians. Military targets, yes. Government targets, yes. Civilian? Never. Go look it up again, Rabbit.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Why was ariel sharon evil. Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
The last person responsible for rending an area Judenrein before Sharon did it in 2005 was Adolf Hitler.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
I'm pretty sure Lisa doesn't like him because he ordered the disengagement of Gush Katiff - a settlement in Gaza. It took a huge emotional toll on Israelis and Jews abroad.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: The last person responsible for rending an area Judenrein before Sharon did it in 2005 was Adolf Hitler.
So Ariel Sharon is pretty much like Hitler in your eyes, yes?
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Show some perspective Rabbit, Peoples War != Terrorism.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:I'm not exactly sure what you meant, but Israel does not embrace terrorism.
Perhaps then you can explain why Israel has elected leaders that had in fact been members of terrorist organizations and conducted bombing that killed civilians? Does terrorism simply not count if you agree with the terrorists agenda?
There was never, ever, ever a Jewish group that targeted civilians. Military targets, yes. Government targets, yes. Civilian? Never. Go look it up again, Rabbit.
I read an article a couple days ago about a group of Israeli settlers in the West Bank who set up road blocks to stop buses with Palestinian workers bound for Israel. When the buses stopped, the settlers beat the workers inside. Elsewhere, they set fire to Palestinian farms, and when the Palestinians came out to try and fight them off by throwing rocks, the settlers responded with weapons fire.
Now, granted, they were pissed, I think over the forced evacuation of a local settlement that they blamed the Palestinians for, ultimately. But they didn't take out their frustrations on government buildings, they cut olive trees, burned farms, shot at people, and ambushed others.
I guess settlers don't count though since they aren't an official paramilitary group, no? I'm not trying to make a larger point or establish moral equivalency, I'm really just saying "never say never."
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: I'm pretty sure Lisa doesn't like him because he ordered the disengagement of Gush Katiff - a settlement in Gaza. It took a huge emotional toll on Israelis and Jews abroad.
A settlement? Try several towns. Try 9000 Jews rendered homeless, and most of them rendered jobless. Some of whom had lived there all their lives. Some of whom had lived there for a good 25 years. Built homes, families, communities. All of whom were thrown out at the command of Ariel Sharon the pig.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
*shakes head sadly* One only needs look at the Wikipedia entry on Gush Katif to see why America should just back away slowly from Israel and let the entire stinking country fall into the sea.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Thats horrible Tom.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
The people who live there are absolutely determined to turn the country into a cesspool of hate. And all foreign interference is doing is shoring up both sides of the conflict, making it more and more essential from their POV that they justify their behavior to themselves. Walking away is the only sane option.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
If only America would.
Posted by kamp101 (Member # 684) on :
I definitely don't want to get involved in another argument here so I only have two minor things to say:
1) Democracy is meaningless if it isn't preceded by universal access to education. 2) I don't endorse ever intervening in any situation in both the parties involved think of their existing or proposed nation-states as singular ethnic or racial units.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: *shakes head sadly* One only needs look at the Wikipedia entry on Gush Katif to see why America should just back away slowly from Israel and let the entire stinking country fall into the sea.
We back off and someone gets nuked. It's as simple as that.
Without American support, Israel won't have the economic power to keep their military at a level necessary to fend off large scale attacks. They couldn't even take southern Lebanon a couple years ago fighting insurgents.
If they get invaded and they lose, they'll nuke something, something like Mecca, or Cairo or Damascus, in an effort to survive or as a parting shot. I can't guarantee that they'd even be invaded in that given circumstance, but a vocal segment of the Jewish population on Hatrack seems to think so, to say nothing of people in Israel itself.
And if you think for a second that we won't get tagged with a heavy dose of the blame for it, you're nuts. We shot ourselves in the foot decades ago by tying ourselves so deeply to Israel's long term safety, and the umbrella of protection that we created that gave them the chance to build their own country would be as much to blame as what they ended up building. In the 50s and 60s I think creating a home for Jews was the right thing to do, and protecting them was the right thing to do, but maybe we went about it in the wrong way, and maybe we got carried away with it out of principle without ever looking back, but it is what it is, and much as I would like to have that particular monkey off our national back, I think we have a better chance at seeing it through to the end than we would just dumping the whole mess.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: ... Walking away is the only sane option.
Indeed.
Posted by adenam (Member # 11902) on :
quote:I read an article a couple days ago about a group of Israeli settlers in the West Bank who set up road blocks to stop buses with Palestinian workers bound for Israel. When the buses stopped, the settlers beat the workers inside. Elsewhere, they set fire to Palestinian farms, and when the Palestinians came out to try and fight them off by throwing rocks, the settlers responded with weapons fire.
Now, granted, they were pissed, I think over the forced evacuation of a local settlement that they blamed the Palestinians for, ultimately. But they didn't take out their frustrations on government buildings, they cut olive trees, burned farms, shot at people, and ambushed others.
And when settlers do things like that they get arrested and the Palestinians get compensated for property damage.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus:
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: ... Walking away is the only sane option.
Indeed.
Unless of course he thinks Nuking Mecca is more sane.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I think we have a better chance at seeing it through to the end than we would just dumping the whole mess.
What is the "end?" Honestly, I think it's ridiculous to worry about sunk costs, here. Cut bait and move on.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
Nuking Mecca? Oh come now. This isn't some OSC novel.
And honestly? I wish I could back away slowly. There is too much I don't know about the PA situation, about the Israeli situation, it's just too big of a mess and I can't see any good way of extricating myself from it.
But I still think it kind of strange that the British and French parceled up the Middle East and decided to give the Jews a portion of the land and thought it would all turn out okay.
I also think that if you don't expect a nation that had just been close to eradicated to do everything they can to hold on to that land and equate it with their very survival, then you're a fool.
There is too much perspective to hold in my brain at once, so I'm at a bit of a loss.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by adenam:
quote:I read an article a couple days ago about a group of Israeli settlers in the West Bank who set up road blocks to stop buses with Palestinian workers bound for Israel. When the buses stopped, the settlers beat the workers inside. Elsewhere, they set fire to Palestinian farms, and when the Palestinians came out to try and fight them off by throwing rocks, the settlers responded with weapons fire.
Now, granted, they were pissed, I think over the forced evacuation of a local settlement that they blamed the Palestinians for, ultimately. But they didn't take out their frustrations on government buildings, they cut olive trees, burned farms, shot at people, and ambushed others.
And when settlers do things like that they get arrested and the Palestinians get compensated for property damage.
You're changing the subject. The question was never "what's the punishment?" the original claim was that it never happened to begin with. Ever. You're trying to justify it, and once you're there, you've already conceded the original claim I was arguing against.
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:I think we have a better chance at seeing it through to the end than we would just dumping the whole mess.
What is the "end?" Honestly, I think it's ridiculous to worry about sunk costs, here. Cut bait and move on.
By sunk costs do you mean the money we've spent so far? I'm not concerned about that. I'm concerned about the blame we'd get tagged for when we pull our support and Israel's enemies see the "open season" lamp lit. Half the reason people over there are pissed at us is for decades of supporting Israel. Cutting bait tomorrow won't erase all that, and it's probably the biggest net negative we're getting out of the deal.
If leaving now isn't going to solve that, then why do it?
I'd be okay with leaving if we did it slowly. Rather than just cutting the cord and pretending it never happened in an effort to wash our hands of the whole thing, we could try really putting the screws to both sides, with everything we have at our disposal, which is something we've never really done before, and if that doesn't work, which I guess it's likely not to, then we start cutting financial aid to Israel, and instead move that money around in the foreign aid budget to help impoverished Mideast areas other than Israel.
I seriously think that leaving Israel to their own devices really would lead to a cataclysmic confrontation between Israel and her enemies, and I think that, no matter we say and do afterwards, we're going to get painted with a lot of the fallout, and it will have negative effects on our national security for decades. Thus, I think PR and preemptive damage control would be absolutely essential in any pullout.
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: Nuking Mecca? Oh come now. This isn't some OSC novel.
I don't think it's that far fetched. Israel has nukes. They're there as a last gasp defense and implied threat. Some of the more fanatical elements of the Mideast don't give a damn who gets nuked so long as they stay in power. The US is the biggest wedge that stands between Israel and large scale hostilities from unfriendly neighbors.
Remove that wedge, and dominoes start to fall.
Posted by adenam (Member # 11902) on :
quote:You're changing the subject. The question was never "what's the punishment?" the original claim was that it never happened to begin with. Ever. You're trying to justify it, and once you're there, you've already conceded the original claim I was arguing against.
Actually, my claim was that "Israel does not embrace terrorism". I was speaking of government policy. I know there are crazies in Israel who commit terrorist acts, but they are not endorsed or encouraged by the state. They are condemned, hunted down, and arrested.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Oh okay. Next time just throw a little non-sequitor disclaimer somewhere in your post.
I'm not being sarcastic. Seriously, it'll save us both the effort of me having to defend a point you weren't even addressing and you having to correct my rebuttal.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:I don't think it's that far fetched. Israel has nukes. They're there as a last gasp defense and implied threat. Some of the more fanatical elements of the Mideast don't give a damn who gets nuked so long as they stay in power. The US is the biggest wedge that stands between Israel and large scale hostilities from unfriendly neighbors.
Remove that wedge, and dominoes start to fall.
A hypothetically cut-free israel would know no better way to hasten their demise than to launch a nuke.
Nuking Mecca ain't even on the table. It exists only as a Tom Tancredo fantasy.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:A hypothetically cut-free israel would know no better way to hasten their demise than to launch a nuke.
Well, maybe not Mecca. The target doesn't really matter though.
You really don't think that if there was a serious threat of being overrun they'd use at least one nuke? Why bother having them? So long as nuclear weapons exist, they're always on the table.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Indeed, "invade us in such a way we might lose kiss every one of your major cities good buy"
Posted by Corwin (Member # 5705) on :
You might want to edit that to make sense.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Probably the ideal solution would be for a way to be found to enter an alternate or parallel earth, where everything is much the same, but no human inhabitants. Then the Jews could have their Promised Land, and the Palestinians could have their Palestine--in the same place. The only question would be who would be willing to move to the alternate earth. It might be the Jews who would be willing to go, seeing how insular some of them seem to be today.
I think I would hate to see that happen though, because the Jews are important to the rest of the human race, even if they and most of the rest of us do not know it. But they could still communicate and trade through the interworld gate. And they would have the advantage of knowing where all the natural resources are on their empty planet.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
You go ahead and get right on that, ron.
quote:You really don't think that if there was a serious threat of being overrun they'd use at least one nuke?
I could see them using a nuke if they were threatened by a certain kind of oblique foreign incursion but the state of Israel today is one that makes it so that the use of a nuke would not at all improve their situation in the vast vast majority of circumstances that see the state's future threatened.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Without American support, Israel won't have the economic power to keep their military at a level necessary to fend off large scale attacks. They couldn't even take southern Lebanon a couple years ago fighting insurgents.
In the Lebanon fighting they were worried about civilian casualties. Remove American support and the gloves would come off; we would then see total war, where sniper fire from a window means cities get leveled.
As for the economy, it's true that Israel can't maintain both a high standard of living and its current military without outside aid. Against this, firstly, presumably aid to the Arab nations would also be cut off, and it's not as though they have economies other than oil; and secondly, you can do a lot of cutting back on standards of living when your existence is at stake. Consider Europe in WWII: For five years or so no new housing was built, no clothing except for the very barest essentials was made, no new cars hit the streets. Israel's economy has a lot more slack in it than the French and Germans and British had.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
also American aid to Israel only makes up what? 1% of their GDP?
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
More like 1.5% to 2%. And even 1% wouldn't be "only"; that's a huge amount. Current aid to Israel is like someone giving the US government two hundred to three hundred billion dollars.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: also American aid to Israel only makes up what? 1% of their GDP?
Yes, but most of GDP is kindergartens and iPods. This is stuff that can go directly to tanks and guns. Plus, tax revenue is a lot smaller than GDP, and some of it has to go to plain infrastructure. The GDP comparison is misleading.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: You go ahead and get right on that, ron.
You beat me to it.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: More like 1.5% to 2%. And even 1% wouldn't be "only"; that's a huge amount. Current aid to Israel is like someone giving the US government two hundred to three hundred billion dollars.
And yet the benefits to doing without US pressure would be worth more than that. Israel doesn't charge the US for use of its ports. Every other country in the world that has ports that get used by the US does. The US stores some of its major middle eastern armories in Israel, again for free.
The ridiculous amounts of money we have to spend in order not to make the US government frown could be used for other things. Plus, since Israel is obligated to spend a huge amount of that aid by buying from American companies (another string attached), we could make things ourselves, or buy for lower prices elsewhere.
Please, pretty, pretty please with sugar on top, cut the cord.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote: Plus, since Israel is obligated to spend a huge amount of that aid by buying from American companies (another string attached), we could make things ourselves, or buy for lower prices elsewhere.
Well, I think your first point is better than this one. If you weren't using American money to buy American weapons, you'd have to use Israeli money to buy from whoever, probably the Chinese, and it might be cheaper, and maybe of somewhat lower quality depending on what you're buying, but it's still pricey. And you'd have the added training cost, where right now the US military foots part of the bill for joint training exercises. Part of that is negated by the fact that the IDF is so damned good, they don't need a great deal of US help in that department anymore.
I think you probably have a good decade or so before you'll have a current generation domestically produced fighter, but Israel already makes an excellent tank (the Merkava? I know it starts with an M) and most if not all of their own small arms. Near as I can tell, the only big ticket items you get from the US are fighters, which you're probably due to replace sometime (I'm guessing with the F-35, at least that's the tentative plan), and munitions.
As for non-military spending, this is something I honestly don't know and I'm curious about; what sort of spending do you have to use American aid for from American companies? Is it just random stuff, like buying from Caterpillar instead of Komatsu or something like that? Or does Congress actually spend the money for you and just ship stuff over?
Either way you'd still have to buy things, even cheaper things, with your own money rather than more expensive things with US money. So it's still a net negative. Unless you're just naturally tied to frugality as a point of principle.
I won't touch the issue of whether or not it'd be worth it to cut American aid in return for political freedom. But I will say that I think we're probably more alike in mind on that subject than any other with regards to this issue.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Israeli's with Infrared Missiles. See TVTropes.
Posted by adenam (Member # 11902) on :
Yep, Israel makes the Merkava (which means chariot in Hebrew).
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
the tank that goes the extra mile to protect its crew.
Though I think specificationwise its not that much better then either the Leopard II or the T-99 MBT, its just better at protecting its crew.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Very sensible if trained manpower is your limiting factor while limited access to expensive antitank stuff is the main problem of your expected enemies.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I think you probably have a good decade or so before you'll have a current generation domestically produced fighter, but Israel already makes an excellent tank (the Merkava? I know it starts with an M) and most if not all of their own small arms. Near as I can tell, the only big ticket items you get from the US are fighters, which you're probably due to replace sometime (I'm guessing with the F-35, at least that's the tentative plan), and munitions.
Yeah, we had a fighter plane ready to go. It was called the Lavi. Regardless of what that article says, I was living in Israel at the time that the US torpedoed the project, and that was definitely the primary reason it was scrapped.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Dont you have a plane based off of the Avro Arrow?
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
That's funny. A bit obscure for most people here, I'm guessing.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Cutting the "direct" financial cord would not necessarily result in the US washing its hands of Israel. We would almost certainly still support Israel from inside the UN Security Council. We would also still be an ally -- a threat to those who would threaten Israel.
We're also unlikely to pass laws making it illegal to send money to Israel, so Israel will still benefit financially from the large affluent (by world standards anyway) Jewish population in the US.
I can conceive of things that Israel could do to challenge the US' continued good will, but I think they're unlikely -- just as it is unlikely that Israel will stop taking direct aid from the US.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: We're also unlikely to pass laws making it illegal to send money to Israel, so Israel will still benefit financially from the large affluent (by world standards anyway) Jewish population in the US.
Like such laws would even work.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I think you probably have a good decade or so before you'll have a current generation domestically produced fighter, but Israel already makes an excellent tank (the Merkava? I know it starts with an M) and most if not all of their own small arms. Near as I can tell, the only big ticket items you get from the US are fighters, which you're probably due to replace sometime (I'm guessing with the F-35, at least that's the tentative plan), and munitions.
Yeah, we had a fighter plane ready to go. It was called the Lavi. Regardless of what that article says, I was living in Israel at the time that the US torpedoed the project, and that was definitely the primary reason it was scrapped.
I know the history quite well Lisa. While its clear we define terrorism differently, many of the attacks executed by zionists fit even your narrow definition. For example the bombings of Arab buses in 1939 and the bombing of the SS Patria in 1940.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
but they were freedom fighters, there's a difference.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
Stop, Blayne. Rabbit, you have a lot invested emotionally in creating some sort of moral equivalency here. I find that disgusting. It speaks volumes about the kind of person you are.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
I have far less emotional investment in this issue than you. I have friends on both sides of the conflict. I have deep sympathies for both. I have studied the conflict in depth enough to know that neither side of this conflict is innocent.
The fact that you can not see the moral equivalency of the two or recognize the legitimate grievances of your enemies or even their basic humanity speaks volumes about the kind of person you are. If anyone here had posted the kind of bigotry about Jews on this sight that you routinely post about Palestinians and Arabs, they would have been banned ages ago. You have never been able to discuss Israel/Palestine relations here without eventually calling everyone who disagrees with you morally depraved.
But I think we've been over this plenty of times before. I have no interest in your judgements of me as I am sure you have no interest in my judgements of you.
My posts have not been for your benefit but for the benefit of others who might have enough of an open mind to consider both sides.
I have only one thing left to say to you. Hershey's chocolate is gritty, sour and nasty (and that isn't an opinion, I have the scientific data to back it up (at least the first too any way)).
Posted by Clive Candy (Member # 11977) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: Stop, Blayne. Rabbit, you have a lot invested emotionally in creating some sort of moral equivalency here. I find that disgusting. It speaks volumes about the kind of person you are.
There is a moral equivalency. Israelis took land from Arabs. Arabs have every right to be pissed about it. The problem of Israel/Palestine can be solved if the Jews leave Israel. Arabs should use their oil wealth to pay every Israeli Jew vast sums of money to encourage Jews to leave.
Posted by Clive Candy (Member # 11977) on :
It's unfortunate that Lisa sometimes posts with an attitude that irks many hatrackers. It makes it difficult for her points, when they are good, to be received.
In this very thread I have expressed that the situation is exasperating, to say the least, and I am a Jew. But I will say that I found your comparison of Israelis and Palestinians in the last few posts to be disheartening, and Blayne's to be a bit offensive.
I will not deny that Israelis are not saints. But, overall, it needs to be said that Israelis, in this conflict, are more sensitive to human life than Palestinians. You may squint and squeeze to find examples of murder and terrorism among Israelis. But surely, you can see the difference, can't you?
I will not deny that the Palestinians are desperate, that their situation is dire, and that when people are pushed, their backs against the wall, a lot of ugliness comes out. But remember that this situation started out with TWO peoples, one's situation a whole lot more desperate than the other - and the decisions these two peoples made were very different.
You can say what you will about either people from an ivory tower - but Lisa and I have strong connections to our people. Even in trying to show us that there is another side, and that things are not as black and white as they seem, you cannot fudge the truth in order to create a more convenient sense of moral equivalency.
Furthermore, Blayne, I find your sarcasm to be vile. But that's okay - I'm sure that in person you'd never argue that way. We're online so you don't have to look us in the face.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
quote:Originally posted by Clive Candy:
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: Stop, Blayne. Rabbit, you have a lot invested emotionally in creating some sort of moral equivalency here. I find that disgusting. It speaks volumes about the kind of person you are.
There is a moral equivalency. Israelis took land from Arabs. Arabs have every right to be pissed about it. The problem of Israel/Palestine can be solved if the Jews leave Israel. Arabs should use their oil wealth to pay every Israeli Jew vast sums of money to encourage Jews to leave.
Actually, the British/French took land from the Arabs. Then, the West decided to give it to the Jews. Would you really expect a bunch of Jews who had just survived genocide NOT to take it?
Posted by Clive Candy (Member # 11977) on :
quote:Originally posted by Armoth:
quote:Originally posted by Clive Candy:
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: Stop, Blayne. Rabbit, you have a lot invested emotionally in creating some sort of moral equivalency here. I find that disgusting. It speaks volumes about the kind of person you are.
There is a moral equivalency. Israelis took land from Arabs. Arabs have every right to be pissed about it. The problem of Israel/Palestine can be solved if the Jews leave Israel. Arabs should use their oil wealth to pay every Israeli Jew vast sums of money to encourage Jews to leave.
Actually, the British/French took land from the Arabs. Then, the West decided to give it to the Jews. Would you really expect a bunch of Jews who had just survived genocide NOT to take it?
The Holocaust wasn't an Arab problem.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: I have only one thing left to say to you. Hershey's chocolate is gritty, sour and nasty (and that isn't an opinion, I have the scientific data to back it up (at least the first too any way)).
Clearly, you can't be reasoned with. And if it weren't for my diet, that last would have resulted in me going out and grabbing the biggest Hershey bar I could find. Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
quote:Originally posted by Clive Candy:
quote:Originally posted by Armoth:
quote:Originally posted by Clive Candy:
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: Stop, Blayne. Rabbit, you have a lot invested emotionally in creating some sort of moral equivalency here. I find that disgusting. It speaks volumes about the kind of person you are.
There is a moral equivalency. Israelis took land from Arabs. Arabs have every right to be pissed about it. The problem of Israel/Palestine can be solved if the Jews leave Israel. Arabs should use their oil wealth to pay every Israeli Jew vast sums of money to encourage Jews to leave.
Actually, the British/French took land from the Arabs. Then, the West decided to give it to the Jews. Would you really expect a bunch of Jews who had just survived genocide NOT to take it?
The Holocaust wasn't an Arab problem.
You're right. Now what?
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Clive, why can't the Jews have their homeland--one which was theirs in the historical past? Why begrudge the Jews for having one tiny little country they can call their own, while Arabs have several large countries with dozens of times more land area, and 40 times as many people? The Jewish people are semitic brethren of the Arabs. Why do the Arabs have to treat their Jewish brethren more like the way Cain treated Abel--with murderous hatred?
And Clive, it is not correct to say that the Israelis "took land from the Arabs." Let's get the facts of history right. When the Jews were organizing a national government for themselves in what had been called the territory of Palestine (administered by the British, not by any Arab government), they offered to allow native Palestinian Arabs to be a part of the new nation. But extremists in other Arab nations urged them not to go along, because the other Arab nations were going to go to war and try to topple the fledgling Jewish state. It is against these foreigners that the Israelis fought their war of independence. When those foreigners failed to defeat Israel, the native Palestinians were then just left hanging by their supposed Arab compatriots in other countries, who still urged them to refuse to join the new.
Israel could not have become a nation, had it not been for the approval and active sponsorship of the USA, Britain, and other members of the UN Security Council. With this in view, Israel would seem to be the most legitimate nation on earth, at least in modern history, because it had official international sanction. It did not shoot its way into power; its war of independence came after the nation of Israel was recognized internationally, and foreign governments then invaded Israel.
Another thing--when Palestine was just a territory administered by the British, it was mostly a desert waste, where few crops could grow. When the Jews took over, they virtually terraformed the land, literally making the desert bloom. The land so many Arabs covet now, was made to be land worth coveting because of the way the Jews transformed it. So to a large extent, the Jews built the land of Israel by their own science and effort. They deserve it. They earned it.
Posted by Clive Candy (Member # 11977) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Clive, why can't the Jews have their homeland--one which was theirs in the historical past? Why begrudge the Jews for having one tiny little country they can call their own, while Arabs have several large countries with dozens of times more land area, and 40 times as many people? The Jewish people are semitic brethren of the Arabs. Why do the Arabs have to treat their Jewish brethren more like the way Cain treated Abel--with murderous hatred?
When the Jews were establishing a country for themselves in what had been called the territory of Palestine (administered by the British, not by any Arab government), they offered to allow native Palestinian Arabs to be a part of the new nation. But extremists in other Arab nations urged them not to go along, because the other Arab nations were going to go to war and try to topple the fledgling Jewish state. When they failed to defeat Israel, the native Palestinians were then just left hanging by their supposed Arab compatriots in other countries.
Israel could not have become a nation, had it not been for the approval and active sponsorship of the USA, Britain, and other members of the UN Security Council. With this in view, Israel would seem to be the most legitimate nation on earth, at least in modern history, because it had official international sanction. It did not shoot its way into power; its war of independence came after the national of Israel was recognized internationally, and foreign governments invaded Israel.
Another thing--when Palestine was just a territory administered by the British, it was mostly a desert waste, where few crops could grow. When the Jews took over, they virtually terraformed the land, literally making the desert bloom. The land so many Arabs covet now, was made to be land worth coveting because of the way the Jews transformed it. So to a large extent, the Jews built the land of Israel by their own science and effort. They deserve it. They earned it.
It just never worked for me when people recite the history in detail, in defense of Israel, because it amounts to this: some people steal other people's land. The people whose land was stolen try to retrieve their land, only to lose more land in the process. The victims are then blamed for causing their current situation. Yawn. Jewish colonizers should leave the middle east, period, or Israel/West Bank/Gaza should become one country, just like South Africa.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
And the Arabs stole the lands from Jews, Christians and Zoroastrians. But this isn't helping solve any problems, is it.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Clive, you say so blithely that the Jews should "leave the middle east, period." Where do you think they should go? Would you just shove them all into the Mediterranean to drown?
And I say again, it is not correct to say that the Jews stole Arab land. That is not the way that it happened. Quit believing slogans and learn real history! Why doesn't real history work for you?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Ron: Well to be fair the Jews won it initially through conquest. They lost it the same way ala the Romans.
Posted by Clive Candy (Member # 11977) on :
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: And the Arabs stole the lands from Jews, Christians and Zoroastrians. But this isn't helping solve any problems, is it.
Fair enough, and perhaps 700 hundred years from now no one will care that Jews stole land from Arabs. As it stands, the fact is too damn recent.
“If I were an Arab leader, I would never sign an agreement with Israel. It is normal; we have taken their country. It is true God promised it to us, but how could that interest them? Our God is not theirs. There has been Anti - Semitism, the Nazis, Hitler, Auschwitz, but was that their fault ? They see but one thing: we have come and we have stolen their country. Why would they accept that?” -David Ben-Gurion
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Armoth: True, the Mohommedan armies did acquire most of the territory they now hold by military conquest, taking the land from Jews and Christians. Uh--are you sure about the Zoroastrians?
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
As I said. Now what?
Right now, Israel is synonymous with our survival as a people. The Holocaust was all to recent for us.
What is your plan? How do we move forward?
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Armoth: True, the Mohommedan armies did acquire most of the territory they now hold by military conquest, taking the land from Jews and Christians. Uh--are you sure about the Zoroastrians?
Who do you think was living in Iraq?
Posted by Clive Candy (Member # 11977) on :
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: As I said. Now what?
Right now, Israel is synonymous with our survival as a people. The Holocaust was all to recent for us.
What is your plan? How do we move forward?
Jews leave Israel and atone for their crimes against the Palestinian people.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
::blink::
Way to look at the situation from both sides.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Why are y'all feeding the troll?
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
Took me a while to identify that it was a troll.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
I thought Zoroastrianism was based more in Iran (where some still practice it today). Iran was Persia. Iraq was Babylon. Their religion involved Babylonian mysticism, the worship of Marduk, etc. Maybe there were some holdover Zoroastrians, too.
Posted by Clive Candy (Member # 11977) on :
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: ::blink::
Way to look at the situation from both sides.
Just because Jews have a need for Arab land does not mean they have a right to it. Were we asked to look at apartheid South Africa from "two sides"?
Posted by Clive Candy (Member # 11977) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: Why are y'all feeding the troll?
If you stand up for Palestinians the same way many Jewish posters here stand up for Israelis, you are a troll.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Would any Palestian Arabs have lost their land if they had not taken up arms against the newly formed Israeli government? That government had originally offered them citizenship in the new nation of Israel.
If anyone is to blame for the loss of any Arab lands, it is those foreign Arab leaders in surrounding countries who urged the Pastenian Arabs to take up arms and rebel against the Israeli goverment.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Clive Candy:
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: Stop, Blayne. Rabbit, you have a lot invested emotionally in creating some sort of moral equivalency here. I find that disgusting. It speaks volumes about the kind of person you are.
There is a moral equivalency. Israelis took land from Arabs. Arabs have every right to be pissed about it. The problem of Israel/Palestine can be solved if the Jews leave Israel. Arabs should use their oil wealth to pay every Israeli Jew vast sums of money to encourage Jews to leave.
Israelis didn't take land from Arabs. Jews bought land (that belonged to us in the first place) for exorbinant prices. The Arabs got torqued about the influx of Jews, so they started attacking us. So we started defending ourselves.
At one point, the Brits, who'd been given control of the area by the League of Nations after it'd been taken away from the Ottoman Turks, carved off 79% of what was then called Palestine, and created an Arab country out of it. That'd be Jordan, which still has a large majority of Palestinian Arabs making up its populace.
Oh, and lest I forget, the Jews who'd bought property on the east side of the Jordan were SOL. They were forced to vacate without any compensation.
Meanwhile, the Arabs kept up their attacks, just like they did against the Christians when Lebanon was partitioned off of Syria to allow the Christians to have a place of their own, and just like they did in India when Pakistan was partitioned off in order to allow the Hindus to have a place of their own.
(Funny how it's always the Arabs/Muslims who can't get along with others, and whenever there's a partition, they kick the others out of their side and continue their efforts to take over the other side.)
So the Brits tried to placate the Arabs by banning Jewish immigration (to bought land, mind you), which forced us to immigrate illegally. So the Brits got their backs up and and started killing Jews for the mere possession of a firearm (while allowing the Arabs free rein). When we made it clear that was not going to work, they went to the UN and asked for the place to be taken off their hands. Wise move.
The UN decided to partition the 21% that was left of Palestine into 7 pieces. Three pieces each for the Jews and the Arabs, and Jerusalem to be internationalized. The three pieces for each side were not continuous. But the Jews were given the Negev, which was all desert, while the Arabs were given the more fertile central area.
Had the Arabs continued with their usual pattern, they would have simply accepted the partition and then kicked all the Jews out of their side and continued to work to take over ourside from within. But the rhetoric was high, and so was the sense they had that this time, it might not work. So they refused the partition deal. The local Arabs, along with the national armies of 6 Arab countries, invaded the three little pieces of Jewish Palestine, which was made up of 11% of the original area called Palestine, and more than half of it was complete desert, with next to no habitation whatsoever.
The 600,000 Jews fought them off, losing 10% of their population in the process. Imagine that. It'd be like the US losing 350,000,000 people. In the process, we took some of the land that'd been offered to the Arabs for an Arab Palestine (and refused by them) so that the three areas would be continuous.
Jewish Palestine decided to call itself Israel, so the Palestinian Jews stopped being called Palestinians and started being called Israelis, which, in retrospect, gave the Arab Palestinians a great PR weapon.
Meanwhile, the new State of Israel looked like it had a huge bite taken out of it on the east (what you all call the West Bank). Did the Arabs set up an Arab state there the way the Jews were doing on their side? No, because that wasn't what they wanted. They were held by Jordan (the other 79% of Palestine) which annexed them. The annexation was never recognized by anyone but Britain and Pakistan (see if you can figure out why that might be given the pattern I mentioned above), but it was one big Arab Palestinian family.
While Jews were, of course, kicked out of that land on pain of death for so much as entering, the Arabs on our side were given citizenship, voting rights, national insurance membership, etc.
In 1964, Ahmed Shukeiry created a group called the Palestine Liberation Organization. The PLO. Fatah, in Arabic. And you have to wonder, what exactly did they want to liberate? The "West Bank"? Jordan had that, and the PLO didn't seem to mind. The Gaza Strip? Egypt had that, and the PLO had no complaints. What they wanted to "liberate" was everything. And they were well funded by the Arab countries in the region, who just wanted the Jews to get the hell out.
Then in 1967, Egypt and Syria (united as the United Arab Republic) tried to squash Israel, and Jordan stupidly joined in. Syria lost their high ground overlooking northern Israel (the Golan Heights), Jordan lost Judea and Samaria (the West Bank), giving us a much shorter and natural border to defend at the Jordan River, and Egypt lost the whole bloody Sinai.
Israel, rather than just annex the land, offered to return it if the Arabs would simply agree to have peace. But that was apparently too high a price for them. Imagine, attacked, again, in a genocidal war of annihilation, and we turned around and offered to give everything back (including Hebron, where the Patriarchs of Israel are buried and which was David's first capitol, Shechem/Nablus, where Joseph is buried, Bethlehem, home town of David, and Eastern Jerusalem, including the Jewish Quarter). The day after we took Jerusalem, Moshe Dayan handed the keys to the Temple Mount -- the single holiest place in Judaism -- over to the Muslim Waqf. Representatives of a religion whose scriptures don't even mention Jerusalem.
Well, we gave Egypt the Sinai. They just made it illegal for an Egyptian to marry an Israeli (even if both are Arab Muslims, mind you). They broadcast hateful propaganda against Jews and Israel on their government run TV stations. We destroyed our own towns in the Sinai when we did that.
We gave them autonomy as a reward for their continued violence against us. We armed their security forces, and found those weapons used against us. We gave them Hebron. They have razed Joseph's Tomb to the ground twice now since then.
We gave them Gaza, and they started firing rockets at us from Gaza.
Don't kid yourself. They don't want a Palestinian Arab state. They could have declared one of those a while back. You know as well as I do that if we pull out of Judea and Samaria, the same thing that happened with Gaza will happen. Except that this time, it'll happen along a vastly longer border, far closer to Jewish population centers, and we'll have to render hundreds of thousands of innocent Jews homeless and jobless, instead of the "mere" 9000 we did that to when we abandoned Gaza.
It isn't going to happen. They consider Tel Aviv to be an illegal settlement. They consider every Jewish city to be an illegal settlement.
So they'll dream their dreams of genocide, and fools will continue to believe that one more concession will turn them into peace loving sweethearts.
Posted by Clive Candy (Member # 11977) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Would any Palestian Arabs have lost their land if they had not taken up arms against the newly formed Israeli government?
"Would you have lost more land if you didn't try to get your stolen land back in the first place?"
quote: If anyone is to blame for the loss of any Arab lands, it is those foreign Arab leaders in surrounding countries who urged the Pastenian Arabs to take up arms and rebel against the Israeli goverment.
I blame the thieves who stole the land -- Jewish Zionists.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Why is it that those who "stand up for Palestinians" always duck certain questions, when they bring up the actual facts of history?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
"Between justice and genocide there is, in the long run, no middle ground." I suspect this one will end in genocide. I do not predict which side will be left with any people; since there are nukes, it could conceivably be neither one. Israel is not a large chunk of land, it wouldn't take very many city-busters to render it uninhabitable for quite some time. Although I suppose the more fanatical sorts would be willing to put up with tripled incidences of cancer and birth defects.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Armoth:
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Armoth: True, the Mohommedan armies did acquire most of the territory they now hold by military conquest, taking the land from Jews and Christians. Uh--are you sure about the Zoroastrians?
Who do you think was living in Iraq?
Um... Iran.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Clive Candy:
quote:Originally posted by rivka: Why are y'all feeding the troll?
If you stand up for Palestinians the same way many Jewish posters here stand up for Israelis, you are a troll.
If you are talking about Lisa, heaven knows I disagree with quite a bit of what she says, and she can be quite trollish.
You are an alt, and are here for one purpose: to sow discord. Have fun with that.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
I'm confused, Ron is actually making sense, I think.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Clive Candy:
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: ::blink::
Way to look at the situation from both sides.
Just because Jews have a need for Arab land does not mean they have a right to it. Were we asked to look at apartheid South Africa from "two sides"?
Dumb comparison. Jews are the ones who were kicked out of Arab lands. Their property was confiscated and they were forced to flee with nothing but the clothes on their backs and whatever they could carry. Why aren't you as concerned about them? There were more Jews who lost their land and property in 1948 than Arabs who lost their land and property in 1948 and 1967 combined. How about let's call it a wash.
In any case, when Jews aren't allowed to live in Jordan and there are Arabs in the Israeli parliament, accusing us of apartheid just makes you look stupid.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
A bunch of idiot drunk kids. Get back to me when they actually commit acts of violence. What kind of lunatic compares this with Arab kids throwing molotov cocktails and blowing up school buses?
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Clive Candy: I blame the thieves who stole the land -- Jewish Zionists.
We didn't steal anything.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by Armoth:
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Armoth: True, the Mohommedan armies did acquire most of the territory they now hold by military conquest, taking the land from Jews and Christians. Uh--are you sure about the Zoroastrians?
Who do you think was living in Iraq?
Um... Iran.
The Sassanids were in power in Iraq at this time. They were Zoroastrians, no?
Posted by Clive Candy (Member # 11977) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by Clive Candy:
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: ::blink::
Way to look at the situation from both sides.
Just because Jews have a need for Arab land does not mean they have a right to it. Were we asked to look at apartheid South Africa from "two sides"?
Dumb comparison. Jews are the ones who were kicked out of Arab lands.
An overreaction to Zionism. They weren't kicked out randomly.
quote: In any case, when Jews aren't allowed to live in Jordan and there are Arabs in the Israeli parliament, accusing us of apartheid just makes you look stupid.
They were allowed to live there before most Jews decided that stealing land from Arabs was okay.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Armoth:
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by Armoth:
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Armoth: True, the Mohommedan armies did acquire most of the territory they now hold by military conquest, taking the land from Jews and Christians. Uh--are you sure about the Zoroastrians?
Who do you think was living in Iraq?
Um... Iran.
The Sassanids were in power in Iraq at this time. They were Zoroastrians, no?
Fair enough. Posted by Clive Candy (Member # 11977) on :
A bunch of idiot drunk kids. Get back to me when they actually commit acts of violence. What kind of lunatic compares this with Arab kids throwing molotov cocktails and blowing up school buses?
Jewish Zionists saw perfectly fit to resort to terrorism when it was convenient for them. Those kids will influence American Middle East policy and continue to oppress Arabs, much like their parents.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Clive Candy:
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: Dumb comparison. Jews are the ones who were kicked out of Arab lands.
An overreaction to Zionism. They weren't kicked out randomly.
quote: In any case, when Jews aren't allowed to live in Jordan and there are Arabs in the Israeli parliament, accusing us of apartheid just makes you look stupid.
They were allowed to live there before most Jews decided that stealing land from Arabs was okay.
You're an idiot. I wish I knew whose alt you were.
Posted by Clive Candy (Member # 11977) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by Clive Candy:
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: Stop, Blayne. Rabbit, you have a lot invested emotionally in creating some sort of moral equivalency here. I find that disgusting. It speaks volumes about the kind of person you are.
There is a moral equivalency. Israelis took land from Arabs. Arabs have every right to be pissed about it. The problem of Israel/Palestine can be solved if the Jews leave Israel. Arabs should use their oil wealth to pay every Israeli Jew vast sums of money to encourage Jews to leave.
Israelis didn't take land from Arabs. Jews bought land (that belonged to us in the first place) for exorbinant prices. The Arabs got torqued about the influx of Jews, so they started attacking us. So we started defending ourselves.
A rich Arab man can buy land in America. That doesn't entitle him the right to carve out a country out of that land.
Moreover, why shouldn't Arabs have been gotten pissed at a Jewish influx hell bent on displacing them?
Posted by Clive Candy (Member # 11977) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by Clive Candy:
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: Dumb comparison. Jews are the ones who were kicked out of Arab lands.
An overreaction to Zionism. They weren't kicked out randomly.
quote: In any case, when Jews aren't allowed to live in Jordan and there are Arabs in the Israeli parliament, accusing us of apartheid just makes you look stupid.
They were allowed to live there before most Jews decided that stealing land from Arabs was okay.
You're an idiot.
And you're a big poopie face.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
A bunch of idiot drunk kids. Get back to me when they actually commit acts of violence. What kind of lunatic compares this with Arab kids throwing molotov cocktails and blowing up school buses?
Jewish Zionists saw perfectly fit to resort to terrorism when it was convenient for them. Those kids will influence American Middle East policy and continue to oppress Arabs, much like their parents.
Garbage. Even when we attacked military centers, we gave them advance warning. Compare that to your Arabs, who walk into crowded restaurants or parties or markets and blow themselves up to kill as many Jews as possible.
Death worshippers, and you side with them. Sick.
Posted by Clive Candy (Member # 11977) on :
A bunch of idiot drunk kids. Get back to me when they actually commit acts of violence. What kind of lunatic compares this with Arab kids throwing molotov cocktails and blowing up school buses?
Jewish Zionists saw perfectly fit to resort to terrorism when it was convenient for them. Those kids will influence American Middle East policy and continue to oppress Arabs, much like their parents.
Garbage. Even when we attacked military centers, we gave them advance warning. Compare that to your Arabs, who walk into crowded restaurants or parties or markets and blow themselves up to kill as many Jews as possible.
Death worshippers, and you side with them. Sick.
And you side with Jewish Colonizers. And I don't condemn Palestinians for what they resort to just as I don't blame Native Americans for having slaughtered European settlers.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Clive Candy: A rich Arab man can buy land in America. That doesn't entitle him the right to carve out a country out of that land.
That's because there's already a country there. There wasn't one when Jews started buying land. Or rather, there was, but it was an outlying area of the Ottoman Empire, and after WWI, there was no Ottoman Empire any more. The first country that came into being in Palestine after the Ottoman Turks lost it was Jordan. The second was Israel. There hasn't been a third yet, and there's no reason there ever should be. There's already a Palestinian Arab state. Let them go there.
quote:Originally posted by Clive Candy: Moreover, why shouldn't Arabs have been gotten pissed at a Jewish influx hell bent on displacing them?
"Why shouldn't we burn crosses on those negras lawns? It's their own fault for moving into our neighborhood." You're vile.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I thought it was common knowledge that Lisa was a troll on this topic.
Posted by Clive Candy (Member # 11977) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by Clive Candy: [qb]A rich Arab man can buy land in America. That doesn't entitle him the right to carve out a country out of that land.
That's because there's already a country there. There wasn't one when Jews started buying land. Or rather, there was, but it was an outlying area of the Ottoman Empire, and after WWI, there was no Ottoman Empire any more. The first country that came into being in Palestine after the Ottoman Turks lost it was Jordan. The second was Israel. There hasn't been a third yet, and there's no reason there ever should be. There's already a Palestinian Arab state. Let them go there.
But there would eventually have been a country there--just as all those countries came to be formed when European left the Middle East/Africa. Except in the case of Palestine these interlopers came from nowhere to take advantage of the transition, to the detriment of the native Arab population. No no--the solution is for the Jews to leave. They can go to all those European countries and America.
quote:"Why shouldn't we burn crosses on those negras lawns? It's their own fault for moving into our neighborhood." You're vile.
Except if black people were moving to white areas with the intention of creating a separate country, I would say that white people would have every right to keep them out.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
Oh, you're the Somalian. Figures. And kat, I'm no troll. Or are you abusing that term to mean anyone who posts in a way you don't like?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
You are a fine example of a troll on this topic.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Clive Candy: But there would eventually have been a country there--just as all those countries came to be formed when European left the Middle East/Africa. Except in the case of Palestine these interlopers came from nowhere to take advantage of the transition, to the detriment of the native Arab population. No no--the solution is for the Jews to leave. They can go to all those European countries and America.
It'll never happen. And when we started coming back, the Ottomans still ran the place. We would have petitioned them for autonomy, for sure. But once the area became countryless, it was obvious that it was time for us to come home.
And home it is, Somalian. It'll never be anything else. And the solution is for the poor little Palestinian Arabs to join their brethren on the east side of the Jordan River.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
And you think Clive is a stunning example of forum virtue in this case?
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: You are a fine example of a troll on this topic.
Go look it up, kat. I'm posting genuinely, and I don't raise this in every friggin' topic. In fact, I pulled this out of another thread specifically so that it wouldn't interfere with that thread. That's the opposite of what a troll does.
You're just using "troll" as a generic insult. The way children who don't know better call people fascist for any political view they don't like. Grow up.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Lisa's manners, choice of words, response patterns, attitude toward other posters, and actual content when it comes to this topic are all indicative of a troll. It's about on the same level as the "Hating Autism" blog guy.
I don't know or care about the motivations for it. It is so predictable, so nasty, and so destructive, however, that I would think it's common knowledge by now.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Shes passionate, if anything I think Clive is the problem here bordering on anti semetism.
Posted by Clive Candy (Member # 11977) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by Clive Candy: But there would eventually have been a country there--just as all those countries came to be formed when European left the Middle East/Africa. Except in the case of Palestine these interlopers came from nowhere to take advantage of the transition, to the detriment of the native Arab population. No no--the solution is for the Jews to leave. They can go to all those European countries and America.
It'll never happen. And when we started coming back, the Ottomans still ran the place. We would have petitioned them for autonomy, for sure. But once the area became countryless, it was obvious that it was time for us to come home.
And home it is, Somalian. It'll never be anything else. And the solution is for the poor little Palestinian Arabs to join their brethren on the east side of the Jordan River.
This is like white South Africans saying blacks in that country should join the Zulus in the nearby countries. Racism is at the heart of the Zionist venture, undoubtedly, and Lisa exemplifies this mindset perfectly. Defiance is all that's left to you at the end. Just remember that tyrants always fall, sooner or later.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
As opposed to anti-Palestinian?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I disagree with your assessment about the source of the problem, and I do not care about the Clive guy. He'll fade. Lisa's hateful vomit is, sadly, apparently forever.
Posted by Clive Candy (Member # 11977) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: Shes passionate, if anything I think Clive is the problem here bordering on anti semetism.
Excuse me? I have spoken of Zionist Jews in the same manner that Lisa frequently speaks of Arabs. If I'm an anti-semite, then Lisa is a racist.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts controversial, inflammatory, irrelevant or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum or chat room, with the primary intent of provoking other users into an emotional response or to generally disrupt normal on-topic discussion.
Hmm... let's see. Controversial, yes. Inflammatory, yes. Irrelevant or off-topic? In a thread about the subject? I think not.
But wait. "...with the primary intent of provoking other users into an emotional response or to generally disrupt normal on-topic discussion." Who comes into a thread, posts absolutely nothing of content, but starts throwing around insults and calling other people trolls? Sound like me? Or maybe kat needs to look in a mirror.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
trolls post links to 2 girls 1 cup under the heading of it going to a puppy dog show, trolls do not passionately argue one particular subject.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Lisa's hateful vomit is, sadly, apparently forever.
Yes, with you here now, I definitely see this thread having a long and prosperous un-locked future.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
A post of mine from days of yore: WHAT IS A TROLL?
quote:The word 'troll' is getting overused to the point of uselessness. Not that I ever particularly liked the term, but I use it in a usefully constrained definition describing people who actually troll, as in: engage in the act of trying to upset or anger others, disrupt the community, sow discord or combativeness, or any combination of the above and engage in these acts purposefully and with intent to cause emotional harm in others and/or to entertain themselves.
Today the term gets so overused that its just spat out at pretty much anyone who bruises egos, talks too frank for the delicate sensibilities of some, has positions that drive others to (ironically troll-ish) anger and hateful counterposting, or even just fails to fit in with the community at large due to the way they post or the positions they take. Yes, people get called trolls just for not being serious or polite enough for the forum's social base in given circumstances.
The term was already sort of silly right from its inception since the term originated from an advisory soundbite that has proved about the single most useless strategy in internet history: "Don't feed the trolls"
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
Well, actually, it originated as trolling for reactions, and had nothing to do with trolls. But other than that, you're completely right.
And kat, when Sam and I agree on something, it's unusual enough that you might want to consider what you're doing.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
Also - I don't remember reading Lisa's "hateful" comments.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: Well, actually, it originated as trolling for reactions
"trolling for suckers" originated based on a fishing maneuver. The etymology for the internet term and its subsequent subgroups ('concern trolls,' etc) goes back to early Usenet times where DNFTT appeared as a piece of advice, which led to the appearance of the phrase "trolling for newbies" on an urban folklore group.
Or so it has been told to me by obsessive e-tymologists.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: Also - I don't remember reading Lisa's "hateful" comments.
She has several times advocated making Israel and Gaza 'Arab-free', although she does not use that term.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
But surely I must have said something hateful this time, or kat wouldn't have come around spewing her vitriol.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: Also - I don't remember reading Lisa's "hateful" comments.
She has several times advocated making Israel and Gaza 'Arab-free', although she does not use that term.
Nah. I'm willing to allow any non-Jews who want to swear an oath of loyalty to Israel as a Jewish state to remain. Up to a certain number, of course. And with the understanding that their children will also have to take the oath, let's say at 13 and again at 20, or leave.
They wouldn't be allowed to be segregated, mind you. No Arab towns and villages. They could live amongst us with civil rights and no political rights.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
What civil right can you have if you don't have political rights?
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
No one can hit you, harm you, steal from you, kill you, violate contracts with you, poke you with a pointed stick. If the country in question taxes and gives goodies to the population (and I think you know how I feel about that), they have to tax you the same and give you the same goodies.
What part of that is hard to understand?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
So you have to be jewish in order to be allowed to vote, or what
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
There's nothing inherently wrong with that if they're upfront with it being a Jewish State, considering the large number of "Islamic Republics" are out there I see no problem with this.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Yeah, let's see how well something like that would work in practice.
It's worse than an oligarchy.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
"They are alone. They are a dying people. We should let them pass."
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
I beg your pardon. Arab-free except for the good little dhimmis.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: "They are alone. They are a dying people. We should let them pass."
Who, the Israelis or the Palestinians?
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
How well have loyalty oaths worked throughout modern history? How have countries fared that required this kind of thing of their citizens? What kinds of governments are they?
In the US there have been a few instances of loyalty oaths -- during the Civil War and Reconstruction, during WWII on up into the early 1960s (when the Supreme Court started striking them down), and, oddly enough, as a requirement for admission to certain GOP events during the 2004 campaign.
The public reaction to that last one, in particular, is sort of instructive as to how well this stuff "flies" with Americans. It just becomes self-parody.
What I'm trying to get at here is that loyalty oaths seem pretty laughable and naive from a US perspective, but we're just one country and we don't suffer from that large of a domestic terrorism problem. When we thought we did (during McCarthyism) there were oaths aplenty, and it took until that sad chapter was being closed and ridiculed before the Supreme Court acted to remove those laws.
I know that such oaths were very popular during the WWII -- not just in fascist countries, but pretty much everywhere.
They just seem so passe and laughable now. In the case of Israel, for example, the people calling for such oaths believe two contradictory things:
1) That Arabs in Israel are the worst sort of internal threat, each of them a potential killer of innocents, and,
2) That they will honorably respond to a requirement to take an oath by either fessing up that they don't support Israel (and thus losing their rights) or living up to the words they say if they go ahead and take the oath.
Doesn't that seem positively silly?
Granted, the oath also comes with a requirement to serve in the military. I don't know how this is dealt with now, but it raises some questions in my mind about how Israel could ever trust people in the military that it doesn't trust walking down the street.
I have a jaded view of such things. I think that people will lie to the extent they can stomach, and they will do what they need to to survive under whatever silly conditions the government comes up with. And they will justify it as moral in that it's plainly a case of coercion and racism (remember, that's the perception, and that's pretty much all that matters).
So, what does the oath and military service requirement actually "buy" Israel? A few Arabs leave, the majority give the oath the enthusiasm it deserves and just get on with live, and a few take the oath but secretly vow to kill, maim and destroy whenever they can.
In other words, it changes nothing.
Who is this oath for? Will it make Israel a more peaceful or secure place? Doubtful. Will it give people a sense of security? Not if they're very smart, or not for very long, regardless.
Will it expose ALL ARABS as duplicitous? Only to those already convinced that Arabs (in general) can't be trusted.
You know, Israel has some top flight social psychologists. It would be interesting to hear how well they think this scheme will work -- or what exactly it would accomplish.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Yeah, let's see how well something like that would work in practice.
It's worse than an oligarchy.
Why? That's a hell of a big olig. Israel is the state of the Jewish people. Only Jews should have a say in questions that affect its nature/future.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: "They are alone. They are a dying people. We should let them pass."
Who, the Israelis or the Palestinians?
Yes.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: "They are alone. They are a dying people. We should let them pass."
Who, the Israelis or the Palestinians?
Funny.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: Snipe
It makes any crime they perpetrate punishable by death as treason against the state.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: They just seem so passe and laughable now. In the case of Israel, for example, the people calling for such oaths believe two contradictory things:
1) That Arabs in Israel are the worst sort of internal threat, each of them a potential killer of innocents, and,
2) That they will honorably respond to a requirement to take an oath by either fessing up that they don't support Israel (and thus losing their rights) or living up to the words they say if they go ahead and take the oath.
Doesn't that seem positively silly?
Not when you add the fact that the oaths will be public record. Right now, an Arab taking an oath like that would be painting a target on himself. So we'd have two possible situations. In one, the level of hatred among the Arabs stays at its current level, and no one is willing to sign the oath. So they all leave except for the very few who are willing to risk making a stand. In the other, the Arabs in Israel (or those left in Israel) calm down enough so that it isn't suicide to sign the oath. In that case, I don't really care how they feel about the oath. Whether they mean it or not. Because if Arabs can get away with signing such an oath publically and not be killed by other Arabs, it means that they're relatively safe as a population. Which is not the case right now.
Incidentally, I should clarify that this isn't about Arabs as such. This is about any non-Jews who want to live there.
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: Granted, the oath also comes with a requirement to serve in the military. I don't know how this is dealt with now, but it raises some questions in my mind about how Israel could ever trust people in the military that it doesn't trust walking down the street.
Yeah, no. They won't be in the military under any circumstances. Obviously.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Good, good. Take the soon to be majority and tell them to swear an oath or get torn from their homes, and oh by the waaaay even with the oath you aren't allowed to vote because you worship the wrong god. Sorry!
Let's just sit back and watch how well that works in a real-world scenario. I will bring the popcorn and kevlar.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Actually 75.5% of the population is Jewish, 20% is Arab/Muslem, maybe if you include gaza and the West Bank this changes but in Israel proper.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: It makes any crime they perpetrate punishable by death as treason against the state.
God, no. That's ridiculous. But it makes any attempt to undermine Israel as a Jewish state or act in opposition to the government punishable by expulsion.
[ June 10, 2009, 07:12 AM: Message edited by: Lisa ]
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Good, good. Take the soon to be majority and tell them to swear an oath or get torn from their homes, and oh by the waaaay even with the oath you aren't allowed to vote because you worship the wrong god. Sorry!
Let's just sit back and watch how well that works in a real-world scenario. I will bring the popcorn and kevlar.
Like I said, "up to a certain manageable number".
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
quote:Yeah, no. They won't be in the military under any circumstances. Obviously.
I must've missed something. Are you talking about the loyalty oath proposed by Avigdor Lieberman et al., or is this some other proposal, as yet untested in the government.
another question arises with the denial of voting rights to Arab citizens -- what happens to the dozen-or-so seats held by Arabs in Parliament?
Are you planning to setupa permanent situation of disenfranchisement AND lack of representation?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Ah. So even with the dhimmis, it's still about, say, three-fourths of the way to Arab-free. Perhaps you could introduce the concept of 'valuable Arabs', and put little crescent moons in their passports.
Posted by dabbler (Member # 6443) on :
I actually found Clive to have interesting counterpoints and presented himself as politely as Lisa has.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Blayne & Lisa,
Blayne your replacement of my comments by the word "Snipe" is pretty dishonest. I'd appreciate it if you'd edit that post to show what I really said, and not your personal reaction to it.
Lisa, I know you just copied Blayne, but the way you did it perpetuates a dishonesty.
I would appreciate it if you would edit your post as well.
Be assured, I was not sniping.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: Blayne & Lisa,
Blayne your replacement of my comments by the word "Snipe" is pretty dishonest. I'd appreciate it if you'd edit that post to show what I really said, and not your personal reaction to it.
Lisa, I know you just copied Blayne, but the way you did it perpetuates a dishonesty.
I would appreciate it if you would edit your post as well.
Be assured, I was not sniping.
No. I meant "Snip" as in I didnt feel like quoting your wall of text word for word, if people care about it they can go back and reread it.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
quote:God, no. That's ridiculous. But it makes any attempt to undermine Israel as a Jewish state or act in opposition to the government punishable by expulsion.
I'm interested in the parameters of this. Could peaceful protest count as "acting in opposition" or "undermining Israel as a Jewish state?"
Would operating a non-Jewish religious school count?
Would donating money to cause that peacefully promoted a solution other-than the one supported by the then ruling coalition count as disloyalty?
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
"Snip?"
Okay...thanks.
Posted by adenam (Member # 11902) on :
quote:The 600,000 Jews fought them off, losing 10% of their population in the process.
You should be more careful with your decimals. About 6,000, out of a of 600,000, Jews died during Israel's War of Independence (1% of the population).
I don't mean to nitpick but this just stuck out at me as painting an incorrect picture, which I know wasn't your intention. Plus, I figure you know the real stat anyway.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
And for that matter, if the equivalent is 350,000,000 Americans, as you stated, that'd mean that, in 2009 numbers, something like 117% of the Israeli population was killed.
That IS brutal.
Posted by adenam (Member # 11902) on :
1% is more than enough brutal for me.
(For comparison's sake, during the Civil War about 2% of the states died)
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Only 2%? Huh. Thats lower than I'd have expected.
By comparison, during the Taiping civil war in China, roughly 7% of the population died.
quote:By 1851, the population reached perhaps 431,896,000 before the effects of the disastrous Taiping Rebellion brought about a slowing of past growth patterns (Some 30,000,000 deaths occurred between 1851-1864 during the upheavals associated with the attempt to establish the Taiping Heavenly Kingdom. In some areas of central China, the effects of this were not reversed until the mid-twentieth century).
I always find it interesting when people try to employ numbers to put this debate into clearer focus. People die everyday in this conflict, how can it possibly make it more important? How can we possibly accept even 1 death? But clearly I digress...
BTW, I did want to add this. Clive is not, under any circumstances a troll. He is Lisa's mirror, her opposite, the other end of the spectrum, and I think that's important.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by adenam:
quote:The 600,000 Jews fought them off, losing 10% of their population in the process.
You should be more careful with your decimals. About 6,000, out of a of 600,000, Jews died during Israel's War of Independence (1% of the population).
I don't mean to nitpick but this just stuck out at me as painting an incorrect picture, which I know wasn't your intention. Plus, I figure you know the real stat anyway.
No, you're right. My mistake.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz:
quote:Yeah, no. They won't be in the military under any circumstances. Obviously.
I must've missed something. Are you talking about the loyalty oath proposed by Avigdor Lieberman et al., or is this some other proposal, as yet untested in the government.
Lieberman's an ass. He actually proposed that? Sheesh.
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: another question arises with the denial of voting rights to Arab citizens -- what happens to the dozen-or-so seats held by Arabs in Parliament?
My bad. Not only will they not be able to vote, they certainly will not be able to hold governmental office. Those seats will just be vacated until the next elections.
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: Are you planning to setupa permanent situation of disenfranchisement AND lack of representation?
Yes. Look, no one is going to force them to stay in Israel. If they want to, that's the price. It's our land, our state, and they're there by our sufference.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: Blayne & Lisa,
Blayne your replacement of my comments by the word "Snipe" is pretty dishonest. I'd appreciate it if you'd edit that post to show what I really said, and not your personal reaction to it.
Lisa, I know you just copied Blayne, but the way you did it perpetuates a dishonesty.
I would appreciate it if you would edit your post as well.
Be assured, I was not sniping.
Sorry. I just quoted. In all honesty, I thought Blayne meant "snip" and just misspelled it.
[Edit: I wrote this before seeing Blayne's post. I guess I was right. Anyway, I pulled that out of my post.]
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Ah. So even with the dhimmis, it's still about, say, three-fourths of the way to Arab-free. Perhaps you could introduce the concept of 'valuable Arabs', and put little crescent moons in their passports.
Oh, bite me. I'd rather they leave altogether. And again, this isn't about Arabs; it's about any non-Jews. The entire raison d'etre of Israel is to be a Jewish state. I can't fathom why it's so hard for you to understand that that means Jews run it.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz:
quote:God, no. That's ridiculous. But it makes any attempt to undermine Israel as a Jewish state or act in opposition to the government punishable by expulsion.
I'm interested in the parameters of this. Could peaceful protest count as "acting in opposition" or "undermining Israel as a Jewish state?"
Would operating a non-Jewish religious school count?
Would donating money to cause that peacefully promoted a solution other-than the one supported by the then ruling coalition count as disloyalty?
Maybe. It'd depend on the context, and would be subject to interpretation by the Israeli government. Christian missionary activity would certainly be included.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
Btw, Here is an op-ed by one of the Jewish refugees whose family was expelled from Egypt and whose property was confiscated.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
wait so you'ld disenfranchise the druze? Isn't that going a little far? Some of them serve voluntarily in the military and if TheOtherWiki can be believed there's a "Covenant of Blood" between Druze and Israeli solders.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Non just the Druze, but it would seem all non-Jews across the board. It is unclear to me whether she means Jews classified as an ethnic group or as religious practice, but my guess is that it would be the former although I am unsure as to how cases of intermarriage would be handled.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: Only 2%? Huh. Thats lower than I'd have expected.
By comparison, during the Taiping civil war in China, roughly 7% of the population died.
quote:By 1851, the population reached perhaps 431,896,000 before the effects of the disastrous Taiping Rebellion brought about a slowing of past growth patterns (Some 30,000,000 deaths occurred between 1851-1864 during the upheavals associated with the attempt to establish the Taiping Heavenly Kingdom. In some areas of central China, the effects of this were not reversed until the mid-twentieth century).
Yes yes Mucus, the Chinese have made an art form out of human suffering and misery. Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Since the goal is to achieve a situation in which intermarriage would once again be punishable by death, I imagine Lisa would like the Israeli government to not recognize it.
This, by the way, is why institutionalized racism is always a bad idea.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
BB: Not exactly what I was going for.
However, the Taiping Rebellion is roughly contemporary with the American Civil War which was used as the preceding comparison and approaches the 10% figure that Lisa cited originally for that death toll giving a real life example of the significant difference between a 1% death toll and a nearly 10% death toll.
Plus as a bonus for the spirit of the thread, it is also a religious war.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Since the goal is to achieve a situation in which intermarriage would once again be punishable by death, I imagine Lisa would like the Israeli government to not recognize it.
This, by the way, is why institutionalized racism is always a bad idea.
But but... but... I wanna score with a red headed Jewish girl Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Ah. So even with the dhimmis, it's still about, say, three-fourths of the way to Arab-free. Perhaps you could introduce the concept of 'valuable Arabs', and put little crescent moons in their passports.
Oh, bite me. I'd rather they leave altogether. And again, this isn't about Arabs; it's about any non-Jews. The entire raison d'etre of Israel is to be a Jewish state. I can't fathom why it's so hard for you to understand that that means Jews run it.
It's not hard at all, I understand perfectly. I just don't think this is a valid basis for a modern state.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I don't think she wants a modern state.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I am certainly becoming more and more convinced than anything other than a democratic republic based on equal voting rights for all citizens with a guarantee of religious and ideaological freedom is a nightmare of oppression.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
I agree with Katharina on this. It's not that I don't understand that many Jews want to have a Jewish state in Israel/Palestine and that they want Jewish control. It's that I think having different standards for basic civil and human rights based on race or religion is fundamentally bad. In that respect, having a Jewish state, or an Islamic state, or a Christian state is inherently wrong and will inevitably lead to oppression and atrocities.
I used to believe Israel could be an exception to that rule. Over the last two decades, Israel has, by its actions, persuaded me that they are not.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Since the goal is to achieve a situation in which intermarriage would once again be punishable by death, I imagine Lisa would like the Israeli government to not recognize it.
<sigh> Who said it was punishable by death? It simply isn't marriage.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Maybe you could just give them civil unions.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I am oppposed to theocracies in general. I think only one kind would be fine, and that's one actually run by the Lord. For everyone else, the power is clearly abused beyond all sense of human rights, and a democratic republic is the only form of government that doesn't lead to hideous oppression.
At least then if the government is bad, it will be what the people voted for. But theocracies, with Lisa's state as the prime modern examples, are a disaster.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: I am certainly becoming more and more convinced than anything other than a democratic republic based on equal voting rights for all citizens with a guarantee of religious and ideaological freedom is a nightmare of oppression.
*shrug* Given that Canada is not a republic, period, I can't say I'm particularly convinced that the democratic republic approach is the only way to go to avoid a "nightmare" Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I presume she meant in the practical-conduct-of-government sense, which makes Canada thoroughly a parliamentary republic .
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"But theocracies, with Lisa's state as the prime modern examples, are a disaster. "
Israel is significantly less theocratic than all its surrounding neighbors. Why is Israel the prime example?
The status of non-jews in israel is significantly better than the status of blacks in this country prior to 1960. Israel is a far younger state than the united states, with far greater existential threats.
Given that there are modern states that are "christian states," where this actually means something, and these states don't have human rights or civil rights issues, I don't think a jewish state of israel is necessarily a disaster, or even bad. I think the real problem is the existential threat that israel faces, not that it is a jewish state.
Israel does have work to do in getting religion out of its laws concerning its citizens. I won't deny that. There are problems (And Lisa wants there to be MORE problems).
But, given history, I think its silly to pretend that jews don't need a safe haven, and the only way for jews to have a safe haven is for a jewish state to exist.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
fugu13: I'm not sure what that means, I don't think we normally use that term to describe Canada. On a practical level, at least at the end of the year, the Queen's representative in Canada basically determined whether the government would fall or not. That seems to be pretty relevant to practical conduct
In any case, "nightmare" and "hideous oppression" are pretty high thresholds which a decent number of non-democratic regions haven't really met either currently or historically.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:Israel is significantly less theocratic than all its surrounding neighbors. Why is Israel the prime example?
It's probably patronizing to the Arab countries, but because I'd think Isreal should know better, and most likely at least some people are trying. It's still bad.
Lisa wants to make it much, much worse.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:But, given history, I think its silly to pretend that jews don't need a safe haven, and the only way for jews to have a safe haven is for a jewish state to exist
I'd dispute both these things. I think a safe haven is unnecessary, and a Jewish state is not necessarily the best way to establish and perpetuate such a safe haven.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Mucus: yes, but for almost all practical purposes the Governor General of Canada is appointed by the Prime Minister, and acts on her or his own consideration (not the Queen's).
Further, I suspect that if the Governor General (or, say, the Queen) acted to use some of the more controversial aspects of the Royal Prerogative, particularly against the advice of the Prime Minister, the reaction would be not at all hard to imagine (since there have been numerous court cases reducing the Royal Prerogative in Canada since independence).
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"I think a safe haven is unnecessary"
I think the evidence of history, including the last 10 years, is overwhelmingly against this position. You might have some reason for thinking this way, but I don't know how you can construct an evidence based argument for your position.
"and a Jewish state is not necessarily the best way to establish and perpetuate such a safe haven. "
As long as the dominant political structure is the nation-state, its the only way. If the political structure changes for the better, than I would agree with you.
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
Lots to add, and so little time.
Paul, when they were discussing Israel as a Theocracy they were referring not to Israel as is, but to Israel as Lisa would make it. In it all non-Judaic peoples would be a different class of citizen, with no representative in government, no vote, no voice and under constant threat of banishment if they did anything to disrupt that theological basis, such as Christian Evangelism.
Lisa, you say that any couple of Jewish and "other" would never be considered married in Israel-as-you-would-make-it. What of children of mixed marriages. Would you just keep to the Judaic law of, if Mom is Jewish, then the kids get all the political rights, if Dad is Jewish, the kids are treated as the Other?
You also make a lot of promises that those of non-Jewish faith would not be treated worse just because they had no representation in the government. We just have your word for that, but when we compare it to such situations historically, they will come out much worse.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Darth_Mauve: Lisa, you say that any couple of Jewish and "other" would never be considered married in Israel-as-you-would-make-it. What of children of mixed marriages. Would you just keep to the Judaic law of, if Mom is Jewish, then the kids get all the political rights, if Dad is Jewish, the kids are treated as the Other?
Of course. I didn't realize that would be a question.
quote:Originally posted by Darth_Mauve: You also make a lot of promises that those of non-Jewish faith would not be treated worse just because they had no representation in the government. We just have your word for that, but when we compare it to such situations historically, they will come out much worse.
Not with us. We're the ones whose religion requires it.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Darth Mauve, there are already elements of that in present-day Isreal. Lisa's is just a nightmare version of the present, but there are already restrictions of religious freedom in Isreal now. They should know better.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
You're nuts. We let the Muslims control the single holiest place in all of Judaism -- the Temple Mount. Churches and mosques and religious cemetaries get protected in Israel, unlike the way that the Arabs turned the Jewish cemetary in Jerusalem into latrines during Israel's first 19 years. Unlike the way they immediately razed Joseph's tomb to the ground the moment we gave them autonomy around Shechem (Nablus).
Missionaries operate freely, and the government won't even enforce the few laws that forbid them from targeting kids.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I think the evidence of history, including the last 10 years, is overwhelmingly against this position.
For the Jews to remain a distinct ethnic and cultural minority, sure, they need a place to isolate themselves. But I don't think that's what you mean.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:Missionaries operate freely, and the government won't even enforce the few laws that forbid them from targeting kids.
Totally wrong. You can't tell a lie like that to someone from a Christian church with missionaries and expect it to pass.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: yes, but for almost all practical purposes the Governor General of Canada is appointed by the Prime Minister, and acts on her or his own consideration (not the Queen's).
Technically, the Governor General is appointed by the Queen on advice from the Prime Minister.
quote: Further, I suspect that if the Governor General (or, say, the Queen) acted to use some of the more controversial aspects of the Royal Prerogative, particularly against the advice of the Prime Minister ...
Perhaps in the case of a majority government, but in last year's controversy, if the Governor General had ruled against Harper's advice I believe that would pretty much have been that.
While it is not hard to imagine that there may be a future crisis that may push us fully into a parliamentary republic, the fact is that we haven't reached that step and relevant government documents usually use the term "constitutional monarchy." I don't think you'll find a mention of us as a republic.
On further consideration, I believe we actually have a citizen's advocacy group named "Citizens for a Canadian Republic" that actually advocate what you're describing but we're not there yet.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I know the Governor General is appointed by the Queen; I was drawing a contrast between that technicality and the actual practice.
edit: and going against the Prime Ministers advice in the recent events would only have required not exercising any Royal Prerogative; I'm talking about the positive use of the Royal Prerogative against the Prime Minister's advice. Even if that were not challenged directly, you can be sure efforts by the Government would immediately begin to strip the Royal Prerogative even further than it has been already.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Maybe. It depends.
In any case that would be a hypothetical as opposed to the current state of affairs.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Yes, but the current state of affairs is that the Governor General is, for practical purposes, appointed by an elected member of government, and acts for the most part on the advice of that elected member, at most not acting when the Prime Minister wants her or him to act.
That's not much of a monarchy, from the perspective of impact on the conduct of government.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Technically, the Prime Minister is not in fact elected. He's appointed by the Governor General and tradition is that he's an elected member of government but this has not always been the case.
In any case, what you speak of as "practically" is merely current tradition which does not have to be the case.
The monarchy still has much of the power of which you mention and while as you say, it is very possible that it may only be able to use those powers a few times before losing them (perhaps ... constitutional wrangling in Canada is unpredictable and politically undesirable), until that day actually occurs, Canada is still not actually a republic.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"Totally wrong. You can't tell a lie like that to someone from a Christian church with missionaries and expect it to pass. "
Christian missionaries operate in Israel, and do so within the law. Claiming otherwise is the lie.
Oh. You mean its illegal to force conversion? Good. Every country should make it illegal to coerce religious conversion.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"For the Jews to remain a distinct ethnic and cultural minority, sure, they need a place to isolate themselves. But I don't think that's what you mean. "
I mean that for people who identify as jews either religiously or ethnically, or can be identified religiously or ethnically as such, historical evidence indicates that no non-jewish government can be trusted to protect its Jewish citizens when they are targeted as a group, nor is there much evidence that those governments themselves can refrain from targetting jews.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
No, Paul, that isn't what I meant at all and to pretend that I did is acting in extreme bad faith. Don't lie.
I am actually flabbergasted that you were so incredibly dishonest as to pretend that was what I meant.
You are also wrong - missionaries may be tolerated kind of, but are greatly, institutionally, systematically discouraged and definitely not protected. There is not religious freedom in Israel.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: No, Paul, that isn't what I meant at all and to pretend that I did is acting in extreme bad faith. Don't lie.
You are also wrong - missionaries may be tolerated kind of, but are greatly, institutionally, systematically discouraged and definitely not protected. There is not religious freedom in Israel.
Since when is freedom of religion to automatically mean freedom to spread your yap on the soap box?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: Since when is freedom of religion to automatically mean freedom to spread your yap on the soap box?
Religious freedom is meaningless if it doesn't include promotion.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
I'm pointing out that the only illegal missionary acts are coerced conversions (yeah, I include converting a minor as a coerced conversion).
Missionaries are tolerated by the general populace less well in israel because the majority of people belong to a religion that does not proselytize, unlike here where the vast majority belong to a religion where prosylezation is considered a strongly positive behavior.
But the laws do not reflect that difference, nor does the manner in which offenses are prosecuted reflect that difference.
There is at least as much religious freedom in israel as all but a small handful of countries in the world, and significantly more religious freedom than in the vast majority of places.
Hell, there are ways you could look at that would show Israel having more religious freedom than the United States.
"No, Paul, that isn't what I meant at all and to pretend that I did is acting in extreme bad faith. Don't lie"
Its the only possible interpretation of your statements that is in line with reality. I was actually giving you the benefit of the doubt.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: Isn't that going a little far?
Compared to what? Any of her other 'solutions' for Israel?
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
Freedom of Religion means that those seeking faith can vote with their feet. If one denomination or religion does not seem right to them, they can listen to others and find one that does.
Its the democratization of religion.
It can be the commercialization of religion. (Come to our pew for 50% off salvation, and a free set of John The Baptist carving knives)
Judaism is a clannish faith, who does not gather faithful through preaching, or evangelism, but through the old fashion method of genetics. You don't have to be born Jewish, but it helps. Once born however, you can not be anything but Jewish in the eyes of others of that faith. You can be one who is failing in the eyes of the Lord, but you are still Jewish.
The religion is the race.
This explains how they have been able to remain a people despite centuries of wandering. However, it doesn't help them in any religious vote-off. Freedom to seek converts from the Jews of Israel is a one way street that some would have closed.
Which I find amusing since many Christians aid Israel not because of their heartfelt appreciation of a people who have suffered, but for an almost greedy desire to hurry the second coming of Christ. Since in the Bible it clearly promises the Promised Land shall be returned to the Jewish people before the end of time, what better way to bring about the end of days than by making sure the Jewish people are back in Jerusalem.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:there are ways you could look at that would show Israel having more religious freedom than the United States
What ways would those be?
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
Ability of members of all religions to participate fully in government, for example.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: BB: Not exactly what I was going for.
However, the Taiping Rebellion is roughly contemporary with the American Civil War which was used as the preceding comparison and approaches the 10% figure that Lisa cited originally for that death toll giving a real life example of the significant difference between a 1% death toll and a nearly 10% death toll.
Plus as a bonus for the spirit of the thread, it is also a religious war.
I was just teasing, I thought it was an apt comparison.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Paul,
You are so far from speaking in good faith that you are not worth speaking. Your attempt to put horrible things in my mouth and pretend they were there all along is astonishingly dishonest. Holy crap. What's wrong with you?
Religious freedom IS meaningless if it includes a muzzle - even if the muzzle is of the "winkwink - if you want to stay on our good side" variety.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
You're a bitch katharina. Always have been. Its your hatrack personality, and I've never seen it be anything other than. That's whats wrong with me.
That said, I'm not trying to put anything in your mouth. You're SAYING horrible things that aren't true. OR, you're saying horrible things that are true. I choose to believe the later.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I am actually eating popcorn, it's sorta appropriately well timed.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I am not saying the horrible things (forced conversions) that you claimed I was, and to claim it is so dishonest I don't know how you can live with yourself. Is the only way to retain your worldview is to make up wholesale lies about other people? If you were actually honest, it would all fall down?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
On a completely different note, katharina, why do you hang out here? I have yet to see you have any interaction with anyone on this board that could be described as pleasant. It seems to me that your ratio of reward to effort must be remarkably low.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
*snickers*
I said nothing! Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
Whatever, Katharina. As I said, you're a bitch. Its what you do. Its the ONLY thing you do on hatrack, as far as I can tell ( I don't read the fluff threads, so maybe I'm wrong).
If you want to believe that I'm saying you think forced conversions should be allowed, thats your perogative. Its wrong, but you can believe it.
What I'm saying is that the restriction on missionary activity in israel is against coercive activity. This is indeed a restriction on missionary activity, and aligns with your statement. My intent was not to put words in your mouth, it was to present a statement that was in line with reality, and with what you said.
You should note that your exchange with me started because you claimed Lisa was lying about missionary work in israel. Oddly, you haven't even tried to demonstrate that she's wrong. Not only wrong, but lying. Accusing people of lying is a fairly serious accusation that, in order to not itself be a lie, requires you to know what is going on inside someone's head.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Taunt]](graemlins/taunt.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)