posted
Their descriptions are biased as well as their personal accounts. I'm not disagreeing with numbers. I disagree with the idea that the IDF targets reporters or children. When Palestinian civilians are killed it is 99% of the time a result of a Palestinian action. For example, it claims that a reporter was shot by an Israeli sniper, but how would they know it was an Israeli sniper? Israeli snipers don't have a habit of making their presence known. It is far more likely that it was a Palestinian bullet seeing as how they have worse triaing and therefore skills and then often hit unintended targets. These incidents are then blamed on the IDF and the media never bothers to pick up on it.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
All right, I'm not arguing about the bloody arrow system anymore, it's effectiveness is immaterial in my eyes, completely beside the point.
As for intelligence about the "sea" of former soviet influenced countries, you need to be more specific about whether you mean the Eastern Bloc or the middle East. I don't see any evidence of that intelligence either way. Never have. It's news to me. Though I doubt that what the intelligence is about really matters. I don't see how the intelligence from those countries could possibly be important enough to piss off the entire Arab world. And apparently you can't tell me how important this is.
As for the links, I don't think they ever mention the IDF intentionally targeting reporters or children. They just describe how their colleagues are shot by the armed forces of what is supposed to be a civilized country. Either the IDF is being completely careless or they have a much more sinister motive for trying to keep reporters away from their operations. You can talk about how the reporters shouldn't have been there (which is a load of crap, I want some oversight over what my money is doing ) but they still ended up dead at the hands of the IDF, with the *possible exception* of the sniper attack. If the US ever killed a reporter like that there'd be an enormous uproar over it.
Posts: 183 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wow, the Guardian, there's a relibable source on Israel. I certainly liked their fair reporting on the massacre at Jenin. .
Cavalier, it certainly sounded to me that you were questioning Israel's right to exist. If that isn't the case, then why spend so many posts trying to undermine it's legitimacy as a state?
While Ireland and Israel are certainly not parallels, I recall you using the English occupation of Ireland as some kind of comparison to Israel and the Palestinians. I just wanted to turn the tables a little. You mentioned a 700 year occupation of Ireland. Well, what about Israel's much longer occupation, much of it at the hands of Arabs, some benevolent and tolerant, and others who were dedicated to eradicating or expelling Jews in Palestine.
Yes, Israel certainly can be a bully, but this is out of necessity. If Israel did not dominate the region militarily, it would cease to exist. Palestine had a chance to coexist peacefully. Their children are now paying the price for the decision they made.
Posts: 1769 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
You've got to understand, in my view, that Israel as it is and a Jewish homeland are not necesarily one and the same. I can oppose one idea without opposing the other. The state of Israel as it is is completely illegitimate. It's an entirely artificial state that was just plopped down on the heads of the people living there. They (meaning a bunch of rich, white, European, old guys) drew up this country told the Arabs there to take off or basically be swamped by a voting majority of foreigners of a different religion. By virtue of drawing a line on a map they acted like they made a legitimate country. No consideration for the people having the border drawn around them was ever given. Their consent was never asked. I can't understand why they just didn't keep the country whole and completely avoid having people being caught in a region where they were underrepresented, de facto forcing them to relocate themselves. In short, I disagree with the method used to create Israel, not the goal.
quote: You mentioned a 700 year occupation of Ireland. Well, what about Israel's much longer occupation, much of it at the hands of Arabs, some benevolent and tolerant, and others who were dedicated to eradicating or expelling Jews in Palestine.
How could Palestine have been occupied (in the military sense) by Arabs? The Arabs lived there at the same time and have lived there since . How could they possibly be occupying a country they're native to? And as I remember it, the vast majority of Jews didn't leave because of Arabs, they left because of the Romans, but tell me if I'm wrong on that because I'm not sure.
quote: Yes, Israel certainly can be a bully, but this is out of necessity. If Israel did not dominate the region militarily, it would cease to exist. Palestine had a chance to coexist peacefully. Their children are now paying the price for the decision they made.
That's insane. You could just as easily say: "Yes, certainly Palestine can make somewhat poor decisions in the targets it attacks, but this is done out of necessity. If Palestine did not harass and attack Israel we would be forever dominated by the faux-state next to us. Israel had a chance to reject the unjust method of its creation. Their children are now paying for the decision they made."
No person should have to pay for decisions they didn't even make. It disgusts me that you'd even suggest it. The Israelis just move on in and nobody can question them because Israel is justified in putting a bullet in the head of anyone that opposes them apparently. You can know the fact that the Palestinians had no say in how Israel should be created or where it should be and you can still tell them to just roll over and die? Are you saying that by virtue of their race they shouldn't have been involved in a decision that would partition their country?
Posts: 183 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Cavalier, I don't think you realize how biased your sources are. Virtually none of their accounts are true, and the ones that do hold a shread of truth have been twisted. The sniper attack is just example of their outright lieing. To answer your question as to where the intelligence is gathered about, both. Israel has provided invaluable information about the Soviet bloc as well as the Middle East. If you don't think capturing a MiG-21 from Iraq intact when the US had fought for years in Vietnam without doing so isn't valuable intelligence I don't know what you value. Israel also obtained a copy of Kruschev's secret speech detailing Stalin's atrocities. The Mossad, Israel's intelligence agency, continues to share invaluable information with the CIA, information that of course you wouldn't have heard of because its classified. The only reason we know of the two previously mentioned incidents is because enough time has passed to declassify them.
You have to understand the Arabs never wanted to share a state with the Jews and the only reason why the might consider it now is because the have failed repeatedly at driving the Jews into the sea. The Arabs' consent was asked and they refused. The UN voted, which included not just Europeans but Arabs also. The Arabs did not want for the Jews to have a homeland. You think it is much simpler than it is. Just keep the country whole and everything will be all right. Back when the British still had a mandate the Arabs always opposed Jewish immigration because they didn't want to share land with the Jews. Actually, let me correct that. Some of them were perfectly satisfied to be neighbors within the same country, maybe even most. However, enough did not, enough that terrorist groups like Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and the Al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigade look tiny in comparison.
quote: How could Palestine have been occupied (in the military sense) by Arabs? The Arabs lived there at the same time and have lived there since . How could they possibly be occupying a country they're native to? And as I remember it, the vast majority of Jews didn't leave because of Arabs, they left because of the Romans, but tell me if I'm wrong on that because I'm not sure.
Palestine was occupied in a military sense by Arabs because Arabs were not native to Israel. Arab immigration didn't start until Muhammed died in Jerusalem. Considering that at that point Jews should have had the rightful rule of the land, the Romans ruled illegally. When the Roman empire collapsed the Jews remaining, there were still plenty of Jews remaining just not nearly as many as before, the Jews again should have rightfully ruled Israel again. However, the Arabs had considerably more power so that didn't happen. The reason why the Jewish population continued to shrink was because of the constant murder of Jews. During the Crusades both Christians and Muslims killed each other and Jews. Many Arabs even during the long laspe without Jewish rule still terrorized the Jews. As the third holiest city in the Muslim religion more and more Muslims migrated to Jerusalem. By 1900 Arabs outnumbered Jews 60-1.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ummm, for several centuries of islamic rule they allowed total freedom of worship (provided you paid a small tax if you weren't islamic), including for jews, and didn't go around killing the jews or anybody else. It was pretty much the crusaders who did the big damage to the jews of israel, killing many and forcing many more to move, particularly the group the formed the "kingdom" of jerusalem.
The early islamic empire was remarkably peaceful (after its growth spurt).
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
Also, you might perhaps want to examine just how populated Palestine was during the settlement period. The population of Arabs exploded with the development the Jewish settlers brought, more than doubling in the period between 1900 and 1940. When Jews first started emigrating en masse to Palestine, there was less than 700,000 people living there. While it wasn't empty, there was more than enough room for everyone to coexist.
Posts: 1769 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Fugu, that's not exactly accurate. Islam was certainly more tolerant than Medieval Christianity, but that's like calling Hitler benevolent because Stalin was worse. Islam was spread at the point of a sword, and any historian will tell you so. The Jews and Christians in conquored Palestine were not treated kindly by their Arab rulers, nor by the Egyptians and Ottomans that succeeded the crusader period. Jews and Christians alike were massacred on more than a few occasions by Muslim rulers in Palestine.
Additionally, Cavalier, I'm not saying that modern palestinians deserve to suffer for the choices made by their parent's generation, but I am saying that it is the primary reason they suffer. If it wasn't for that generation's choice of Jihad against the Jews, then perhaps Palestine would still have its 1948 border and the toxic culture of martyrdom would not be destroying scores of innocent lives on both sides of the conflict. It seems likely that if it was not for the rise of Arab nationalism and extremist Islam, then this whole conflict could have been avoided.
Posts: 1769 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: Cavalier, you clearly have little idea as to the history of Palestine and Israel. Do some reading.
I'll happily admit I have a cursory knowledge of Palestinian/Israeli history prior to 1900. I've got a decent grip on the history after that, particularly towards the end. However, I don't think it's terribly relevant. Obviously both groups have been there long enough to have some legitimate claims to the land and that's all that's pertinent to the here and now.
I don't even get why you put that link up, I haven't said anything to contradcit what's in it. I never mentioned any "golden age of Islam" or anything along those lines. What point are you trying to make?
quote: While it wasn't empty, there was more than enough room for everyone to coexist.
JESUS CHRIST MAN!!!! Have you been reading any of my posts!? Has this whole thing about a one state solution just been completely lost on you? I never said there wasn't enough room. I said the exact oppositte! Similarly, I have no clue why you quoted those population figures. I'm well aware of them and have not the faintest idea how they relate to anything I've said.
quote: It seems likely that if it was not for the rise of Arab nationalism and extremist Islam, then this whole conflict could have been avoided.
You want to tell me about history I don't clearly understand? Cause I know reams about Arab nationalism and extremism. Nationalism and extremism, while present, wasn't half as much of a problem as it was after the fact. The real hardcore pan-Arabists and extremists (Nasser, Saddam for a time, Khomieni, etc.) didn't come to power until after 1948...in fact they came to power because of 1948 or one of the later wars! Pan-Arabism was born in 1948, 1948 didn't happen because of it. Wahabbism and extremism among normal people skyrocketed after the 1967 war. The conflict caused the extremism, not the other way around. 1948, with its seizure of territory and occupation of Jerusalem, was like putting a brush fire out with a can of gasoline.
Posts: 183 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Okay NFL, all of that about the mig-21 is fabulous...and the speech...yatta yatta. NOW NFL! NOW! I want to know why I should NOW support Israel! The US supported plenty of countries we wouldn't normally have anything to do with during the Cold War for information and assistance. I want to know why I should NOW have my country continue to be "allied" with an enormous liability!
quote: You have to understand the Arabs never wanted to share a state with the Jews and the only reason why the might consider it now is because the have failed repeatedly at driving the Jews into the sea. The Arabs' consent was asked and they refused. The UN voted, which included not just Europeans but Arabs also.
That disturbs me. "The Arabs' consent was asked and they refused." And that makes it okay? If a cop walks into to your house, asks for consent to search and you say no, can he just search anyway? And don't say, "if he had a warrant", because if he did he wouldn't bother asking in the first place. After all, you did have your chance to consent and you didn't...sucks for you. Asking for consent is pointless if you're just going to ignore it. As for the UN, what gives them jurisdiction over that situation? Who are they to say anything? That's like having a bunch of Russians voting on American missile defense, it's senseless. Tyranny of the majority is still tyranny, it doesn't make it right. You're just describing imperialism with an aura of legitimacy.
quote: You think it is much simpler than it is. Just keep the country whole and everything will be all right.
It might not be perfect, but could it be much worse than the crap that goes on now? At least by keeping one country you avoid displacing Palestinians that otherwise wouldn't have been politicized. It's better to have a few people made at the new neighbor that moved in than the whole neighborhood that's mad at the new neighbor for making them all move out. I highly doubt the military "push into the sea" (assuming you're talking about the 1948 war) would have occurred if the Jews had just quietly immigrated in instead of trying to establish a new state on top of the Holy Land of 3 major religions, as the the other Arab countries in the past never felt the need to invade Palestine during sporadic spurts of immigration (such as prior to the second world war from Germany).
quote: Palestine was occupied in a military sense by Arabs because Arabs were not native to Israel. Arab immigration didn't start until Muhammed died in Jerusalem. Considering that at that point Jews should have had the rightful rule of the land, the Romans ruled illegally.
NFL, how long do you have to live somewhere before you become a native to it? Hell, if you want to go back far enough we're all natives of Africa. Do native Americans have a right to tell everyone in the US to clear out because they were there first? or maybe they should go claim some of their land in Mongolia cause they were there too. I suppose France should own half of England too? or would it be vice-versa? Going back far enough you can justify almost anything. What isn't justified is displacing thousands of Palestinians whose families have been there for generations because your great x30 grandfather once lived there. No matter what they did to you in the past, you can't just expect them to make way for you and be happy about it. Though, similarly they shouldn't just try to wash every Jew into the sea. Also, along that same train of though, the Palestinians shouldn't agitate for right of return to the exact houses and land they left because people have lived there since.
posted
>> You think it is much simpler than it is. Just keep the country whole and everything will be all right. << (nfl) _______________________________________________
>> No it really, is that simple, or at least it should be, but I guess if you insist that it isn't that simple then you make it complicated when it doesn't have to be. << (nfl)
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Very true twinky. Edit to add: That really is some newly found logic, being able to completely contradict yourself in an argument and thinking it's okay.
quote: Okay NFL, all of that about the mig-21 is fabulous...and the speech...yatta yatta. NOW NFL! NOW! I want to know why I should NOW support Israel! The US supported plenty of countries we wouldn't normally have anything to do with during the Cold War for information and assistance. I want to know why I should NOW have my country continue to be "allied" with an enormous liability!
You didn't listen to me at all. We don't don't what they have for us recently intelligence wise because we can't know. Us knowing would mean the enemy knowing and the enemy knowing means they can take actions to prevent Israel from gaining future intelligence. Do I have hard proof that Israel still provides meaningful intelligence? No, that would be impossible for me to provide. However, I do have great reason to believe this is the case seeing as how Israel has had a long pattern of doing so and their capabilities have not diminished.
quote: That disturbs me. "The Arabs' consent was asked and they refused." And that makes it okay?
Not in and of itself. However, Israel was going to become a state anyways and the Arabs had a chance for Israel to exist on their terms. But they refused. Why? Because they were not willing to see a place where Jews could find refuge, where Jews might be a majority, where Jews would have any power at all, where Jews would even be allowed to pray at the Western Wall. During Jordan's rule of Old Jerusalem between 1945 and 1967 no non Muslims were allowed in the city similar to Mecca and Medina. Muslims were never prepared to live side by side with Jews as equals. Israelis are on the other hand as a large minority of Israeli citizens are actually Arab.
quote: Arab countries in the past never felt the need to invade Palestine during sporadic spurts of immigration (such as prior to the second world war from Germany).
Arab countries were not capable of invading Palestine between 1918 and 1939. The only Muslim power, the Turks, had been destroyed at the end of WWII. Many Arab countries did not have their independence at that time either. Besides, the Arabs were treated well during Israel's British occupation. They were given priority over Jews. When they opposed Jewish immigration it was limited. When they wanted Jewish resistance group attacked at the expense of British soldiers it was done.
Cavalier, the reason why I had pointed out that the Arabs were not native to Palestine before the Romans is because you indicated that Arabs were native during Roman rule as if when the Arabs took over Israel from the Romans they had done so as natives taking their land back when that isn't the case.
quote: It might not be perfect, but could it be much worse than the crap that goes on now? At least by keeping one country you avoid displacing Palestinians that otherwise wouldn't have been politicized.
Yes, it could be worse. The Arabs only recently known as Palestinians were not foricbly displaced but chose to leave out of false fear of the Jews. The entire state, Jews and Arabs, would be in complete poverty, maybe less suicide bombers but more incidences of school buses shot at, full scale battle between villages. Anarchy would reign.
quote: I highly doubt the military "push into the sea" (assuming you're talking about the 1948 war) would have occurred if the Jews had just quietly immigrated in instead of trying to establish a new state
Jews were only allowed to migrate 1000 per month. You had stated earlier that the ideal state would include umlimited Jewish immigration, are you now going back on that? So what would happen after the British left in no new state was created. Are you advocating anarchy? At least one new state had to be created. Because of the overwhelming problems that would have occured if one state was created two separate but equal states would have been much more just. The "treacherous" Jews wouldn't even have had control over Jerusalem, but instead the UN would have had jurisdiction. However, the "push to the sea" did occur and we are left with out current situation.
Twinky, I don't appreciate you completely taking my words out of context.
Cavalier, would you like if I started making fun of your name? How about if I stressed that the crusaders were cavaliers? The crusaders who murdered Jews for practice on the way to reclaim the Holy Land. The ones who caused Jerusalem's streets to literally run thick with blood. If you don't get by now what I'm referring to you about then I can't help you anymore. I bet you don't appreciate that so lay off.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Cavalier, you should seriously give this up. Your opponents are demonstrating a woeful lack of knowledge of middle eastern history whilst claiming that that fault is YOUR deficiency. Seriously, look at the way they don't even understand the Arab nationalistic movements and their historical effects on the situation, or how they try to portray the two very SHORT White Paper periods as having dominated the entirety of the Jewish migration to Israel.
[ August 05, 2003, 10:29 PM: Message edited by: Duragon C. Mikado ]
Posts: 622 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
>> Twinky, I don't appreciate you completely taking my words out of context. <<
If you go back and read the context, you'll see that my post is actually relevant.
You accused Cavalier of oversimplfying, whereas on page one you accused those who "overcomplicate" things of being the direct cause of the problem.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
They were two different subject matters though. The why is simple. The what is complicated. We do know why Israelis and Arabs contain much hate for each other. The reasons are all too simple. The solution is not so simple because of the why.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
Oh, I listened. There are just two different trains of thought here. Yous seem to think the Israeli intel is valuable because historically it's been valuable. I think it's not worth its cost because there are no longer any enemies (aside from those we have BECAUSE of Israel) that Israel could possibly provide us with good enough intelligence on. i'm not even sure if the old intelligence qualifies...but that's moot. An impasse I say.
quote: Not in and of itself. However, Israel was going to become a state anyways and the Arabs had a chance for Israel to exist on their terms.
That's a false statement. It wasn't a chance to accept on "their own terms". They had no terms. They were not consulted or asked for their consent. The agreement was forced down their throats. That's like saying Germans shouldn't have been upset about the Treaty of Versailles because it was on their terms! It's preposterous.
quote: Arab countries were not capable of invading Palestine between 1918 and 1939.
And obviously not in 1948 either, what was so different?
quote: Many Arab countries did not have their independence at that time either.
Egypt and Iraq both were independent. The other countries had signifgant guerilla movements and small armies that could have easily aided Palestine. Samll terrorist factions still do today. I remain unconvinced.
quote: reason why I had pointed out that the Arabs were not native to Palestine before the Romans is because you indicated that Arabs were native during Roman rule
Uh, no I didn't. When I said "at the same time" I was referring to an arbitrary amt. of time (basically a long time ago). I mentioned the Romans in the next sentence as a completely different topic. Nowhere do I say or imply that Arabs, Jews, and the Romans all lived together.
quote: The Arabs only recently known as Palestinians were not foricbly displaced but chose to leave out of false fear of the Jews.
Right, false fear. The false fear of being swamped by a group of foreigners that could pass laws over you and your land, knowing that there weren't enough of your own people around to oppose them. Who doesn't like having laws passed over them by people who could care less about their interests? Like I said before, tyranny of the majority is still tyranny no matter how it's sliced. Though, I 'll grant you they weren't marched off at gun point, disregarding the fact that I never said that in the first place.
quote: The entire state, Jews and Arabs, would be in complete poverty, maybe less suicide bombers but more incidences of school buses shot at, full scale battle between villages. Anarchy would reign.
I remember people sying this in America too. Something about uh...uh... Oh yeah! Civil rights! Chaos and anarchy forever and ever...a death spiral for society. Battles between the races in the streets. White and black people can never get along because there's way too much history there
The Civil Rights movement was hardly perfect but I think we can agree there aren't full scale wars between towns and anarchy in the streets. You may argue there's more histor to the Arab/Israeli conflict but the principle is the same. Given enough time (and lack of outside interference) any conflict will mend.
quote: Jews were only allowed to migrate 1000 per month. You had stated earlier that the ideal state would include umlimited Jewish immigration, are you now going back on that?
Uh no...didn't say that either. "Quietly" immigrating as opposed to "loudly" declaring a new state and scaring the bejesus out of the Palestinians. Nowhere do I recind my earlier statement. In fact, I'm just stating my preference for immigration over declaring a new state.
quote: At least one new state had to be created.
No. A state was already there. If you start with one state and end up with one state you haven't made a new state, you've changed some names around.
quote: Because of the overwhelming problems that would have occured if one state was created two separate but equal states would have been much more just.
I'd love to hear some of those problems, in detail. They're (The problems) kinda like the tooth fairy to a little kid. Everyone says it's there but somehow nobody can ever show you it.
quote: The "treacherous" Jews wouldn't even have had control over Jerusalem, but instead the UN would have had jurisdiction. However, the "push to the sea" did occur and we are left with out current situation.
I hope to heaven you're not trying to subtly suggest I ever said "treacherous Jews" or implied it. Never did. If you weren't, I'm sorry for accusing you of it.
The push to the sea did occur, areas were occupied indefinitely that shouldn't have been and the flames grew larger. Like I said to Chaeron, it was like trying to put out a fire with a can of gasoline.
quote: Cavalier, would you like if I started making fun of your name? How about if I stressed that the crusaders were cavaliers? The crusaders who murdered Jews for practice on the way to reclaim the Holy Land. The ones who caused Jerusalem's streets to literally run thick with blood. If you don't get by now what I'm referring to you about then I can't help you anymore. I bet you don't appreciate that so lay off.
Hm. Well, I wouldn't care...then I would continue not to care...and then I probabaly still wouldn't care to be honest with you. I know when I made my name it was in reference to the adjective, meaning chivalrous. That's good enough for me. Your ridiculous baiting isn't going to bug me at all.
Posts: 183 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: That's a false statement. It wasn't a chance to accept on "their own terms". They had no terms. They were not consulted or asked for their consent. The agreement was forced down their throats. That's like saying Germans shouldn't have been upset about the Treaty of Versailles because it was on their terms! It's preposterous.
No the Arabs had a chance to have their own state or negotiate. They chose not to negotiate because of their hate for the Jews. You can check previous posts for why they didn't want to negotiate with the Jews.
quote: quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Arab countries were not capable of invading Palestine between 1918 and 1939. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And obviously not in 1948 either, what was so different?
Between those years they didn't even have countries where they did in 1948. Syria, Jordan, and Lebanon were all known as Transjordan, Egypt was barely autonomous, and Iraq was still under British control. In 1948 the Arabs had relatively large armies, relatively advanced weapons, Panzer quality tanks, and generally Soviet supplied weaponry. Israel had a one plane air force until halfway through the war, only homemade armor, no artillery, and not even a rifle per man. Again, many , not all, Arab countries did not have their independence.
quote: Right, false fear. The false fear of being swamped by a group of foreigners that could pass laws over you and your land, knowing that there weren't enough of your own people around to oppose them. Who doesn't like having laws passed over them by people who could care less about their interests? Like I said before, tyranny of the majority is still tyranny no matter how it's sliced.
It was false fear mostly because they were expecting blood sucking Jews who wanted to use the bloof of Arab children to make matzot on Passover. The Arabs would still barely be a minority so they weren't going to be "swamped" with foreigners. Why would the Jews pass laws restricting Arabs' rights anyways. Israel has only passed restrictive laws when in danger. As long as the Arabs did not threaten the Jews there would be no reason for disagreeable laws. With your reasoning why shouldn't Jews in the US start blowing themselves up in buses? They are a minority. Laws have been passed virtually recognizing the "truth" of Jesus and they certainly aren't a majority.
quote: I remember people sying this in America too. Something about uh...uh... Oh yeah! Civil rights! Chaos and anarchy forever and ever...a death spiral for society. Battles between the races in the streets. White and black people can never get along because there's way too much history there
First, Blacks still so largely live in poverty. Granted much less so than 140 years ago but it has taken them that long to reach where they are today. Yet, there is still a difference in the situations. In general within the US, Blacks and Whites share a common religion while in general Arabs and Jews have different religions. Blacks have just wanted to be equals, Arabs haven't to drive the Jews into the Mediterranean.
quote: Uh no...didn't say that either. "Quietly" immigrating as opposed to "loudly" declaring a new state and scaring the bejesus out of the Palestinians. Nowhere do I recind my earlier statement. In fact, I'm just stating my preference for immigration over declaring a new state.
Still, immigration into what? Again, there was no private immigration. As long as immigration existed the Arabs would be upset. They complained about the 1000 per month policy. They were never prepared to accept unresticted immigration period.
quote: No. A state was already there. If you start with one state and end up with one state you haven't made a new state, you've changed some names around.
What are you talking about? Are you hallucinating? Wow, you have truly proved your ignorance now. Please, please don't comment again until you develop some sort of a clue.
quote: I'd love to hear some of those problems, in detail. They're (The problems) kinda like the tooth fairy to a little kid. Everyone says it's there but somehow nobody can ever show you it.
Again, do some research or something. I also already detailed the problems.
quote: I hope to heaven you're not trying to subtly suggest I ever said "treacherous Jews" or implied it. Never did. If you weren't, I'm sorry for accusing you of it.
The push to the sea did occur, areas were occupied indefinitely that shouldn't have been and the flames grew larger. Like I said to Chaeron, it was like trying to put out a fire with a can of gasoline.
No you didn't say treacharous Jews or directly implied it but you did say you didn't like the Jews having control over Christian sites because of their treatment of Muslims. I was trying to show you that the UN solution would have quelled even your fears.
I don't think you realize what the "push to the sea" was. It was the Arabs instead of accepting what they are trying to bargain for now attacking the Jews in the belief that they could wipe out the Jews from Israel.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: No the Arabs had a chance to have their own state or negotiate. They chose not to negotiate because of their hate for the Jews. You can check previous posts for why they didn't want to negotiate with the Jews.
I'm sorry that's just false. I don't know what else to say. Do research.
quote: In 1948 the Arabs had relatively large armies, relatively advanced weapons, Panzer quality tanks, and generally Soviet supplied weaponry. Israel had a one plane air force until halfway through the war, only homemade armor, no artillery, and not even a rifle per man.
The weapons equation was not as lopsided as you're making it out to be. Neither side was particularly well armed by the standards of the time.
quote: As long as the Arabs did not threaten the Jews there would be no reason for disagreeable laws.
Think back to the 1800's, replace "Arabs" with "Blacks" and replace "Jews" with "Whites". Actaully, even better, think 1930's, replace "Arabs" with "Jews" and replace "Jews" with "Nazis". Do you realize how dumb that sounds? Throughout history countries have passed "disagreeable" laws over people that didn't threaten them at all. That whole train of thought is just whimsical wishing. The Arabs living in Israel had valid concerns about their ability to represent themselves. (Edit to add: Dont start whining about how I'm comparing Jews to Nazis, because I'm not. I'm just substituting names into an analogy, not making a comparison.)
quote: First, Blacks still so largely live in poverty. Granted much less so than 140 years ago but it has taken them that long to reach where they are today. Yet, there is still a difference in the situations. In general within the US, Blacks and Whites share a common religion while in general Arabs and Jews have different religions. Blacks have just wanted to be equals, Arabs haven't to drive the Jews into the Mediterranean.
Okay, almost none of that is relavent. I'm not talking about poverty and how far blacks have come. I'm talking about the fact that living with white people didn't ignite a race war like you hypothesized would happen in a one state Palestine. That's all. I didn't say it would be great living for the next 50 years and everyone would be perfectly happy. Being the same religion is also not relavent. As in the aforementioned Irish situation, it was nominally the same religion (Christian). That didn't stop the problem. Believe this or not, you can't just lump us (Christians) all into the same group We were different religions and we managed to get along ater hundreds of years of fighting.
quote: Still, immigration into what? Again, there was no private immigration. As long as immigration existed the Arabs would be upset. They complained about the 1000 per month policy. They were never prepared to accept unresticted immigration period.
What do you mean into what? Unrestricted immigration into the one state of Palestine. If the Arabs raise a fuss, I can see the justification for using some military solution to end it. In that situation they should just grin and bear it. They have their homes and representation. That justification dissolves once you partition the country and displace half of them. They no longer have their fair share and they gain a legitimate grievance.
quote: What are you talking about? Are you hallucinating? Wow, you have truly proved your ignorance now. Please, please don't comment again until you develop some sort of a clue.
But you manage to not say what is so ignorant about it
I thought you might have got this but let me connect the dots for you
I think we can agree Palestine was always there. It obviously didn't rise up out of the ocean in 1948. I think we can also agree that it was the British Mandate of Palestine prior to 1948. When I say there's no new nation if you repalce one with another one with exactly the same borders in the sense of realpolitik. For instance, if some revolution happened in America and it started calling itself Pepsi Presents: America (Simpsons ) then Americans would probably call itself a new nation, sure. Nobody else cares though. It's just a different name for America to anyone outside of it. It still retains the same geopolitical signifigance it always had because it's one ruling group ruling on the exact same boundaries as the old ruling group. Hence, only the names have changed to the outside observer. A good example is the real, non-pepsi America. We declare independence and make ourselves a new nation in our own eyes, but not much else changes for a while. We still mostly trade with Britain, we still fight Indians, maintain fairly close ties with Britain in other ways, etc. To the observer in Europe, it was just the old English colonies with a new name. America didn't really start showing the effects of being a new nation until it began moving west and opening up its trade more, changing its status in the eyes of foreign oonlookers. That's what I mean by only changing the names. Is that enough of a clue for you?
quote: Again, do some research or something. I also already detailed the problems.
I keep hearing " Jews will never ever get along with Arabs because they're Arabs, we're Jews and we will fight indefinitely until the end of time. " I think I've already addressed this issue with my civil rights analogy. I know my history and I don't see any other insurmountable problems (politically, startegically) to negate the the one state solution. And I've yet to read one, in addition to the general quote above, from you. If you did then just repaste it from above and I'd be happy to address it. I wouldn't advocate the one state otherwise.
quote: No you didn't say treacharous Jews or directly implied it but you did say you didn't like the Jews having control over Christian sites because of their treatment of Muslims. I was trying to show you that the UN solution would have quelled even your fears.
Uh, no, Muslims have nothing to do with my reluctance to having Israel control Christian holy sites. It has more to do with IDF riddling the Church of the Nativity with bullets to try and shoot a few Palestinians seeking refuge. Believe this or not I don't appreciate the IDF shooting the BIRTHPLACE OF MY SAVIOR! It's kind of important to my religion. I'm 99% certain a Catholic priest was injured too. When the IDF gets a little less careless with its aim then maybe I'll put more faith in them. Not likely though. It has nothing to do with anyone being treacherous, it has everything to do with not caring one way or the other on the part of the IDF and sections of the Israeli government. I'm an understanding person and don't hold all Jews responsible (like you're implying) for the actions of the few.
Plus, let's look at it this way. We have a group of Chrisitians occupy Jerusalem. That'd be okay with you right? We're not treacherous. Probabaly a band of Americans flying the good old red white and blue over Jerusalem. But God help us if we were chasing some suicide bomber and accidentally shot the Western Wall. There'd be such a hissy fit it'd be intolerable. You have a huge double standard.
As for the UN, it's incompetent. If they had control I'd be more afraid of them blowing up something by accident than anything else. But I guess we'll never know because Israel occupied it right?
quote: I don't think you realize what the "push to the sea" was. It was the Arabs instead of accepting what they are trying to bargain for now attacking the Jews in the belief that they could wipe out the Jews from Israel.
I don't think YOU realize what the push into the sea was. If you bothered to read any of the Arab contempoary view, it wasn't about religion at all for most of them. The majority of Arabs were supporting the fledgling Arab nationalism and Pan-Arabism movements, not just looking to kill Jews like you're implying. It was seen as fighting against an illegal invasion, not the insidious porgom you're painting it as. Granted, some had religous motivation but so did some Jews, like the settlers of today do, I'm sure.
posted
Cav, I feel bad to see you wasting your time, didn't it occur to you that when he obviously didn't know the general history of the region outside of British actions that it was useless? Give it up, you can use your extensive knowledge on something else.
Posts: 622 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ooh, forgot this, they're my favorites too.
quote: Why would the Jews pass laws restricting Arabs' rights anyways. Israel has only passed restrictive laws when in danger.
They've always been in danger! How can you tell me they wouldn't have passed the laws anyway?
quote: With your reasoning why shouldn't Jews in the US start blowing themselves up in buses? They are a minority. Laws have been passed virtually recognizing the "truth" of Jesus and they certainly aren't a majority.
Buy a clue. You've just described an ENTIRELY different situation. The Jews immigrating to American KNEW they were going to be a minority America and had the CHOICE (even if it was between going and dying) not to go. They have no right to be angry, they chose to come. The Palestinians had their country cut up so that half the country would have a majority of another people IMPORTED on top of them! They had no choice in being the minority, it was thrust upon them one day and there was nothing they could do about it.
Laws recongnizing the truth of Jesus? What the HELL are you talking about?! So there are laws recognizing the truth of Jesus but you can't pray in public schools?! Seriously, I have no idea about what you're referring to.
posted
Duragon, ususally I'd just walk but this issue really gets to me. People argue on behalf of Israel without even bothering to do even a cursory reading of the Arab point of view or try to understand their situation.
Posts: 183 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm almost certain he was ordained a priest, but regardless someone was shot by the IDF in the church. That's unacceptable.
Posts: 183 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm thinking of Samir Salman, the Palestinian caretaker for the church who died while trying to get from his house to the church. There was some kafuffle about whether it was Israeli or Palestinian gunfire that killed him, although hospital officials insisted it was the former.
Are we thinking of different people?
Posts: 3243 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, we definitely are and I can't find any non-biased articles to prove it one way or the other. But the church was shot at, there were definitely bullets in the walls from the Israeli side. That's the overriding point.
Posts: 183 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
"But you manage to not say what is so ignorant about it "
Allow me to fill in for NFL, then.
There was not a nation there. Israel was, in fact, a new nation, because there was not, immediately prior to the creation of Israel, or for several hundred years leading up to the creation of Israel, a nation existing where Israel is now.
You know, I've been avoiding posting on this thread like the plague, up til this point. I've argued over Israel so many times, here and on ornery, that its starting to get frustrating.
You talk about the church of the nativity being shot up. Well, during Jordan's control of Jerusalem, they LEVELED over 50 temples. Israel has, so far, only done any damage to any Mosque's or Church's that are, at the time, occupied by armed militants, or terrorists. Israel has allowed islamic access to all the holy sites under her control, while, under Arab control, Jews can't visit their own holy sites, including relatively modern temples with no significance other then being places of worship.
You say that the land that is now Israel was never offered to the Arabs... well, thats wrong too. The UN mandate of 1947 was going to give 45% of the land that is now Israel to the Arabs... but the Arab leadership rejected that proposal, and instead asked neiboring arab nations for assistance in driving the jews out of Israel.
I don't know why I'm bothing... most of this stuff is fairly easy to find, unless you're reading palestinian propoganda sites.
So I give up again, after a short post.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
It's the blurb at the top about the family attending mass. I remmeber reading the whole article in the Globe back in December and it goes on to say how they were almost shot going to church.
Posts: 183 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: There was not a nation there. Israel was, in fact, a new nation, because there was not, immediately prior to the creation of Israel, or for several hundred years leading up to the creation of Israel, a nation existing where Israel is now.
There was the mandate of Palestine. It had roughly the same borders as the Israel+Palestine of today. Thus it was the same land marked out with a different set of rulers. The same exact thing as I just explained above.
quote: Well, during Jordan's control of Jerusalem, they LEVELED over 50 temples. Israel has, so far, only done any damage to any Mosque's or Church's that are, at the time, occupied by armed militants, or terrorists.
Listen bud, just because they do it doesn't give you the justification to do it too. I don't care if the church is occupied by militants, butt out. It's not your church to be shooting at. That kind of thinking (well we're not so bad, we can do it if it helps us out) is exactly my point.
quote: Israel has allowed islamic access to all the holy sites under her control, while, under Arab control, Jews can't visit their own holy sites, including relatively modern temples with no significance other then being places of worship.
Okay...that's great. A nice fact I already knew. I'm not sure what point you're trying to address here.
quote: You say that the land that is now Israel was never offered to the Arabs... well, thats wrong too.
I didn't say land wasn't offered to them. I even acknowledge that the 48% you're referring to was occupied after the 1948 war. I attack the character of the UN mandate. First, I don't believe it was any of the UN's business to begin with. Second, jus because something is offered doesn't mean you should be forced to take it. The Arabs had every right to reject that provison as being unfair. They did and the UN basically gave them the finger and told them to go to hell. Why shouldn't they be angry?
quote: I don't know why I'm bothing
I don't know why you're bothering either. You obviously didn't bother enough to do more than skim my arguments, if that.
quote: most of this stuff is fairly easy to find, unless you're reading palestinian propoganda sites.
Gee thanks. Cause I get all my information from Palestinian propaganda sites... I'm glad you enlightened me.
Posts: 183 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't have time to go into the whole argument right now but I will address the "new nation" point. A mandate is not a country. A country with a new government had to be created likely with one group as a majority. That one group would likely be the Jews. Then you would still have your tyranny of the majority issue. Unless then you wanted dictatorship. A piece of land doesn't make it a country. Even then its borders would have been arguable. The Golan Heights, West Bank, Gaza Strip, Sinai Peninsula... A new country had to be created no matter what you want to call it or what it is.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
"There was the mandate of Palestine. It had roughly the same borders as the Israel+Palestine of today. Thus it was the same land marked out with a different set of rulers. The same exact thing as I just explained above."
Right. But you seem to think there was an independent palestinian nation. THere was not. From 1517-1917, the territory was ruled by the Ottoman Empire, an Empire that fell during the course of WWI. When an Empire falls, there is no legal claim by ANYONE to the territory that is evacuated by the falling Empire. Of course, the Ottoman Empire fell to the British Empire, who occupied the transjordan, and palestine, in 1917.
At the peace treaty of Versailles, Britain was granted control of that territory. Maybe not perfectly moral, but then again, the Ottoman Empire had been part of the Central Power alliance, and then collapsed. SOMEONE had to rule that territory, and the British had occupied the territory, so this made sense at the time. Obviously, it could have been given to the people there... but, as has been pointed out, the people there were already fighting about who should control the land.
So, the previous legal owner of the territory no longer existed. Britain took over. No nation existed there. No nation had existed there for over 400 years. The territory was disputed by the people LIVING there already. Your statement was "No. A state was already there. If you start with one state and end up with one state you haven't made a new state, you've changed some names around."
THERE WAS NO STATE THERE! And had not been for hundreds of years. The "State" that was there was Britain. I'm sorry that you can't comprehend this.
"Listen bud, just because they do it doesn't give you the justification to do it too. I don't care if the church is occupied by militants, butt out. It's not your church to be shooting at. That kind of thinking (well we're not so bad, we can do it if it helps us out) is exactly my point."
So you're point is that Israel should let terrorists hide out in churches until they come out and blow Israeli citizens to bits. Good point. Well argued. Dumb, too.
Obviously the church isn't "ours" to shoot at. On the other hand, Israel (And jewish philosophy and law) do not recognize the right of sanctuary that christian law does. When terrorists and militants occupy a church, it becomes disputed military territory. If you don't like the fact it got shot up, perhaps you should be yelling at the people who hid in the church in order cause exactly the reaction that you're showing? Because, frankly, the BEST way for Israel to have removed that thread was to blow it up. The fact they didn't just level the place shows Israel places a higher regard for innocent life, and religious sites, then their opponents in this war show.
I place the blame for that incident on the Palestinians who hid in a church, because they knew that Jews don't have the same sanctuary laws Christians do, and knew that they put themselves in a win win situation. Either Israel would leave them alone, in which case they have a strong point to attack out of which their enemies won't assault, OR, Israel assaults the church, and christian opinion gets turned against Israel.
"Okay...that's great. A nice fact I already knew. I'm not sure what point you're trying to address here."
The point I am trying to address is the consistent respect Israel has tried to show to holy sites, despite a war being waged against Israel by a people who do not respect Israel's holy sites, or respect the wishes of Jews to visit those sites... a fact you obviously miss.
" First, I don't believe it was any of the UN's business to begin with"
You're right. It was BRITAIN'S business. They controlled the land, both militarily, and by legal right. They should have just done what they were originally going to do, and give the whole territory to the Jewish people, and not even try to appease the arab people.
They did, however, try to come up with a mutually satisfactory arrangement, as did the UN, who Britain ceded some control to in the interests of a fair arrangement. Since to the arab nations fairness meant "not a single jew anywhere in the middle east," I'm inclined to accept the arrangments offered by both Britain and the UN as "more fair and trying to accomodate the needs of everyone."
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Paul, there was no independent state. But Britain was given the mandate of Palestine. If you want to call it a territory, that's fine. But it was a chunk of land with the name "Palestine" and people called "Palestinians," among others, living on it.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
Cavalier seems to think there WAS a state there. There was not. There was an administrative territory.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Fine, there was no "state" in that sense of the word, there was a bordered off section of land administered by the British as a mandate. Okay? You feel better now? I can comprehend the fact that it was not referred to as a "state".
But really, we're playing semantics with the state/nation issue. Whatever it was, you don't change its geopolitical importance to other ocuntries unless you split it in two or soemthing along those lines. That's all I'm going to say about that.
quote: So you're point is that Israel should let terrorists hide out in churches until they come out and blow Israeli citizens to bits. Good point. Well argued. Dumb, too
So your point is that the 2 billion Christians in the world should let Israelis shoot one of their most holy of churches to flush out about a score of half-assed militiamen terrorists. Good point. Well argued. Dumb, too.
quote: Obviously the church isn't "ours" to shoot at. On the other hand, Israel (And jewish philosophy and law) do not recognize the right of sanctuary that christian law does.
And you people wonder why I don't want Israel having control over Christian holy sites? Listen to what you're saying. I don't care what Jewish philophy and law says. Blow up your own damn temples, the Church of the Nativity is not a place for your target practice. Don't recognize sanctuary eh? So you don't recognize Christians religous beliefs as long as you're chasing someone, eh? Like I said before, if some Christian were chasing a terrorist and did something to the Western Wall you'd probably get completely bent out of shape about it.
quote: Because, frankly, the BEST way for Israel to have removed that thread was to blow it up. The fact they didn't just level the place shows Israel places a higher regard for innocent life, and religious sites, then their opponents in this war show.
Oh, isn't that friggin big of you, you didn't blow our church up. That's idiocy. It's obviously not the best solution because the previously mentioned Christians would be extremely upset (massive understatement). Hello sanctions, possibly war. Goodbye Israeli aid.
The Palestinians were to blame too, but it wasn't their bullets all over the walls and their APCs almost mowing down Catholic families outside. If you don't want to deal with trying to get them out of the church I suggest relinquishing control of Jerusalem to a third party...even if it is the UN I hate so much. Despite the lack of faith I have in them, I have even less in the Israelis and Palestinians.
quote: The point I am trying to address is the consistent respect Israel has tried to show to holy sites, despite a war being waged against Israel by a people who do not respect Israel's holy sites, or respect the wishes of Jews to visit those sites... a fact you obviously miss
No, I know the what you're saying. It justs has nothing to do with what I'm saying. I metion the C.O.N. being attacked and you come back with stuff about how Israelis are so respectful of religous sites. Maybe you're repsectful of Palestinian religous sites but you obviously didn't have enough respect left over to extend to some of my religous sites.
quote: You're right. It was BRITAIN'S business. They controlled the land, both militarily, and by legal right. They should have just done what they were originally going to do, and give the whole territory to the Jewish people, and not even try to appease the arab people.
Britain. The fact that you refer to their occupation of anywhere as being legal lowers my respect for you a notch. Legal by whose standards? The League of Nations? Are you joking? The legal rule of the land belongs to those who live there. Say anything else and you're nothing but an imperialist.
As for not trying to appease the Arab people, I actually agree with that somewhat. Not necesarily ideologically, but this might be a case where the ends justify the means. I could stomach being an imperialist for a few years if it guranteed equal representation in the end. It would have lead to the one state with democracy and freedom of immigration for the Jews, the solution I advocated several posts ago. It wouldn't have displaced anyone legally living there and most likely not have angered too many everyday Palestinians.
quote: They did, however, try to come up with a mutually satisfactory arrangement, as did the UN, who Britain ceded some control to in the interests of a fair arrangement. Since to the arab nations fairness meant "not a single jew anywhere in the middle east," I'm inclined to accept the arrangments offered by both Britain and the UN as "more fair and trying to accomodate the needs of everyone."
Your characterization of the Arabs is just wrong. The vast majority didn't like the partition of the country/mandate/nation/whatever the hell you want to call it. It basically forced a lot of them to move. Only a small minority were opposed to the Jews returning based on religous grounds. BTW, this coming out of a history textbook, not a Palestinian website .
Posts: 183 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
I don't think we disagree on that point, I just want to make it as clear as possible, because I've seen "there's never been a state called Palestine" used to deny the very existence of the Palestinian people, a postition I find truly frightening given my background.
(Edited to show that this post is directed at Paul.)
posted
So you are saying that the people who lived in "Palestine" should rule the land? OK, so the Jews and Palestinians should have control over the land they occupy? OK, guess what both the Arabs and Israelis who live in Israel control Israel. Both groups are citizens if they want to be with equal rights. So its called Israel instead of Palestine why should it be called the other way around. Jews would still view it has Israel, they had even for their thousand years in exile. However, not only do the Jews want an independent nation, a homeland even if it is shared with the Arabs, the Arabs want an independent country of their own. Throughout this entire argument you have made it sound like it was only the Jews who wanted an separate country while the Arabs wanted one country. That's not true. The Arabs wanted one country, but one country in which they would rule independent from the Jews. A country in which they could oppose Jewish immigration. A country with unlimited Jewish immigration, which equal protection for Jews would not have satisfied the Arabs at the time. Some Arabs would be more than happy with that, they are in large part the modern Israeli-Arabs. Most however would still not want that. The declared goal of terrorist groups like Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Hezbollah, and others is a country where they can exclude Jews. In countries ruled by Muslims Jews have restricted rights. They are not allowed to even enter Islamic Holy Cities. Jerusalem wouldn't be any different seeing as how not one Jew touched the Western Wall during the Jordanian occupation.
If not try to flush out the militants what would you have the Israelis do regarding the Church of the Nativity incident? Do you know what a "score of half-assed militiamen terrorists" can do. If each one represents one suicide bomber and each suicide bomber blows up one bus and with each bus 10 Israelis die that is 200 people murdered for the sake of some bullet holes. Or maybe they are the leaders and their continual leadership leads to the death of thousands, Israelis and Arabs. Like what Paul said, be pissed at the Arbas who hid their not the Israelis who were trying to defend themselves.
quote: I don't care what Jewish philophy and law says.
Then why should Jews care about Christian law, especially when that law interfers with the lives of hundreds of people. Despite this the Jews were perfectly willing to give control of holy sites and cities to the UN back in 1948. Instead the Arabs forcibly took these sites in an unprovoked war and when Israel took them back in another unprovoked war started by Arab countries suddenly the Arabs living in the conquered territories want independence. Its like if the Sinai Peninsula wanted independence after the Six Day War because they were the Sinain people.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm going to give up, now, not because you're right, but because doing this is so ****ing frustrating. Not because you have points I don't understand or have counter-argumetns to (I do, and I do). But because doing this is so ****ing frustrating. I really shouldn't have gotten invovled in the first place. I've been trying to stop arguing over israel on hatrack for years. At least on Ornery, its manageable, because the threads are reasonable lengths.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: OK, so the Jews and Palestinians should have control over the land they occupy? OK, guess what both the Arabs and Israelis who live in Israel control Israel.
Finally, something we can agree on. I'm glad you found a good way to express it. What I want is what Israel is now (sans Jewish religous influence) over the whole area. Israel is almost a microcosm of what I'm talking about, but there aren't enough Arabs still living there to see it work. My issue is not necesarily how Israel functions today (except for the religous angle) so much as how it was founded. As for the name issue, well, let me quote:
Turning to ongoing Middle East conflicts, Gadhafi criticized the U.S. approach toward the war in Iraq and the Israeli-Palestinian crisis, saying it caused people to support al-Qaida and "say that bin Laden is right."
Gadhafi laughed when asked to comment on President Bush's "road map" peace plan to solve the Palestinian-Israeli situation, saying: "It will not succeed."
He reiterated his theory that the land on which Israel and the Palestinian territories are located was too small for two states, and that the solution was to create one country — Isratine — for both sides to live in.
You can find that at http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20030803/ap_on_re_mi_ea/libya_gadhafi_5 Now I know what you're thinking...this is Gadhafi, the Libyan lunatic. However he has, for his own reasons, repudidated fundamentalism in recent years and I think his suggestion is not totally without merit. Assuming you could get the countries together without the two obliterating each other...it'd probably make the majority of citizens happy.
quote: If not try to flush out the militants what would you have the Israelis do regarding the Church of the Nativity incident? Do you know what a "score of half-assed militiamen terrorists" can do. If each one represents one suicide bomber and each suicide bomber blows up one bus and with each bus 10 Israelis die that is 200 people murdered for the sake of some bullet holes. Or maybe they are the leaders and their continual leadership leads to the death of thousands, Israelis and Arabs. Like what Paul said, be pissed at the Arbas who hid their not the Israelis who were trying to defend themselves.
Hello? We're talking about a specific situation here. They weren't suicide bombers so what's the point of bringing that up? I also don't believe this take Paul has on the gunmen devising a win win situation by forcing a showdown. They wouldn't have surrendered if that was their aim. I think it's far more likely that they were being pursued and threw themselves into the first sanctuary they knew the Israelis couldn't readily pursue them into.
quote: Then why should Jews care about Christian law
Because it's a Christian church that's supposed to have its right to practice its religion without undue interference. If you take that away you're running a Jewish theocracy over there. I'd be just as mad if the Vatican had a temple (which is unlikely seeing as how it's only a few blocks wide) and the Swiss Guards hacked up the place trying to chase someone down. Neither scenario is right.
quote: Its like if the Sinai Peninsula wanted independence after the Six Day War because they were the Sinain people.
Wouldn't it be more like the Egyptians in the Sinai wanting to be part of Egypt again? I'm not even being sarcastic, you seriously lost me.
Posts: 183 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: this entire argument you have made it sound like it was only the Jews who wanted an separate country while the Arabs wanted one country. That's not true. The Arabs wanted one country, but one country in which they would rule independent from the Jews. A country in which they could oppose Jewish immigration.
Yeah, that's what I've been saying right? Combine one country (Arabs want) and unrestricted immigration with democracy (what Jews want) and mix. Nobody gets all of what they want but, hey, it's a compromise.
Posts: 183 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Alright, let me just ask one question? Are we debating about what realisticly could be or what ideally could be? Realistically what the Arabs want and what the Israelis want will never be combined in my lifetime and I want a solution before then. Ideally, we would all get along, everyone would follow the "correct" religion, there wouldn't be poverty, racism, or any problems. Assuming you would want to limit the idealism then it would be what would ideally happen regarding that tiny stretch and one state that the Jews and the Arabs share with equal rights for both would be ideal. However, realistically that your compromise will never happen. Israel has been established and only the extremely radical Arabs want the land that Israel consists of (which would not include the West Bank and the Gaza Strip). Those radical Arabs want the Jewish race to perish so I hope that Israel would bar negotiation with them. The only real issue is Jerusalem and settlements. If the Arabs think that in any way Israel will give up Jerusalem they are crazy. However, I would expect that most of the settlements will eventually be abandoned similarly to how settlements in the Sinai Peninsula were abandoned.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Uhhhh...well a bit of both. I'm trying to eke out a solution that's realisitic but it's obviously not going to happen in our lifetime. Only a lot of time or a MASSIVE application of outside force is going to bring my compromise into reality. It might take both. So I suppose you could say it's overly idealistic to some extent. I don't think I'm being so idealistic (and concurrently idiotic) as to suggest we will one day all will follow a "correct" religion or eliminate poverty. No offense but the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is way higher on the doable scale than those 2 problems.
Posts: 183 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's why I suggested you were trying to limit your idealisticness within the realm of this conversation.
Personally, I don't want a solution that I won't come to see to fruition in my lifetime. That's why I'm sticking to a realistic debate.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
*shakes head* Wow, well, that explains alot, seeing as how we haven't even been arguing about the same thing really when you get right down to it.
Posts: 183 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
There were other issues as well, but whatever we aren't get anywhere, we are being repetitive, and I don't see much point in continuing.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
.![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
Seriously, I have no idea about what you're referring to.![[Wink]](wink.gif)
.
