posted
OK, so at what point can you say that the Jews don't also deserve a homeland in Israel?
And I did realize how similar the theoretical situation is to the truth, that's why I used it in an attempt to help you understand the Jewish situation. However, when I said removed from their land I meant as if they weren't kicked out of their homes, but as if they were kicked off the island. At least the Irish have had the benefit of finding America as a home while the Jews did not have that option for almost the entire Diaspora, but even if the Jews did it still wouldn't be the same because of the importance of Jerusalem.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not sure what you're refering to as the difference to being kicked off the island and kicked out of our homes. The British starved us into leaving ths island. When they passed a law against starving the Irish to improve their PR, the landowners physically placed us on boats to America. That isn't being kicked out of your home, it's being deported from your own country. They contiuously tried to depopulate the island and/or exterminate the Irish people, we were just too much of pain and there were too many of us to get away with it.
There are lots of place important to us religously in Israel. You don't see us demanding a homeland there.
Also, Ireland has an extreme importance to Irish living abroad. Every member of my extended family except the very youngest has been back to Ireland, whether they were born there or not. It's almost a pilgrimage, just of a nationlist, not religous variety. there's a reaosn so many northeastern colleges have tons of study abroad programs in Ireland. People want to go back.
As for finding a home in America, we only have a home where there is an enormous number of us residing. I live in Boston so I feel generally accepted. There's plenty of us around here. Same for most of the northeast corridor. However, I've been to the deep south and some of the stuff I've heard said about Irish people and Catholics in general is just sheer stupidity. We just stuck around long enough that people had to deal with us. Why this didn't happen for the Jews, I don't know. I do know the Palestinians have nothing to do with it.
This is the point at which I can say the Jews don't deserve their own country . Although you interpret my story as a people suffering like you, there is another side to it. We were invaded by foreign occupiers and hated every minute of it. They tried to gloss it over with all sorts of monarchial jabber about how it was their "divine right" to "civilize" Ireland and all that rot and how thy had "real claim" to it. We knew the truth. We were here and that's where we were staying, despite their legal rationalizations. We had to fight a large, well-equipped nation with foreign support that was sending settlers in droves to try and take our island as their own and wipe us out in the process. The IRA fought by using assassination and bombings against British military and intelligence targets; the only tools available to weak freedom fighters. I thank God for the fact that they never attacked civilians (meaning the old IRA w/ Michael Collins and whatnot, not those idiots blowing up cars in the north). Attacking civillians isn't acceptable at all. However, the "G-men" and their military lackeys I have no such compassion for. Let God sort them out, the damn occupiers.
Now I pointedly italicized "their own country" because Israelis do need a homeland. I just don't approve of the, quite fankly, ridiculous manner they went about it. There was no need for an independent Israel and an independent Palestine. Why not just leave a democratic country of Palestine and tell them that the conditons for the British leaving the country are unrestricted immigration of Jews and a separation of church and state? Why not just leave them in one country together and let everyone have a vote instead of getting into a spat about it by dividing everything up? The British love to do this for some reason, whether it be Palestine, Kashmir, or Ireland; they enjoy leaving a mess behind them wherever they go.
In the interest of frankness, I'll also express another, more personal side to it. I'm not exactly nuts about letting a state so biased in its treatment of one religion control a country that happens to contain holy sites to my religion. That whole debacle with the Chruch of the Nativity was a mess. Especially if they're concurrently fighting a third religion and making the whole Holy Land unvisitable to anyone.
posted
Cavalier, I don't know whether I agree with you(edit: because I don't really know much about the Irish conflict), but those are really interesting posts to read and certainly a first on the topic for Hatrack (I think). Kudos to you.
quote: This is the point at which I can say the Jews don't deserve their own country . Although you interpret my story as a people suffering like you, there is another side to it. We were invaded by foreign occupiers and hated every minute of it. They tried to gloss it over with all sorts of monarchial jabber about how it was their "divine right" to "civilize" Ireland and all that rot and how thy had "real claim" to it. We knew the truth. We were here and that's where we were staying, despite their legal rationalizations. We had to fight a large, well-equipped nation with foreign support that was sending settlers in droves to try and take our island as their own and wipe us out in the process. The IRA fought by using assassination and bombings against British military and intelligence targets; the only tools available to weak freedom fighters.
Israel was invaded multiple times by different empires like the Babylonians, the Philistines, Alexander the Great, the Romans, the Turks, the the Crusades and on and on and on. Most of the time they claimed a divine right, or a necessity to civilize the barbarians, or they just had a realer claim, and sometimes they just felt like killing some Jews. They were always larger and better equiped, and yet Israel always fought on. David defeated Goliath, the Jews won the right to rebuilt their temple from the Babylonians, the Maccabees defeated the remnants of Alexander's empire, and the Jews fought to the death against the Romans. Unfortunately, it was death the Jews mostly found against the Romans and Israel ceased to exist. During all this time Jews remained in Israel until too many revolts made the Romans decide the less Jews the better. They burned Jerusalem for the second time and sent the Jews packing from Israel. During this whole time Romans and Greeks and whoever flocked to dominate over the puny Israelites. Fast forward to 1900 and the first wave of Jewish immigration begins. The Ottoman government tollerates the Jews, but their neighbors don't. The Jews aren't allowed to live peacefully side by side with their Arab neighbors, and instead were attacked constantly. Another 30 years forward and another wave of Jewish immigration. This time the British control "Palestine" and like oil so what do they do? They restricted immigration to almost nil. Ever heard of the St. Louis ? Thousands of refugees from Nazi Germany were rejected from Israel's shores to be sent back to their deaths at the hands of the Nazis. After World War II the survivors of Hitler's death camps saw either oppurtunity to prosper in America or finally create a haven and a homeland in Israel. The British supported the Arabs during this time as well. They ignored Arab atrocities and sought out Israeli freedom fighters. Like the "good" Irish fighters, the Israeli groups did not attack civilians either. Eventually the violence drove the British out. Now to answer your question as to why Israel needs its own homeland in Israel. Palestinians and Israelis will simply not be able to get along. I won't blame this entirely on the Palestinians either. The differences have always been too great and unfortunately neither side would accept it. That means that each side needs its own country, separate from the other.
Despite the similarities you unfortunately still can't comprehend Israel's need for its own country entirely because you don't understand what its like for your homeland to also be the heart of your religion. Only if that place has both qualities can you understand.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well it seems we've reached an impasse. Apparently I can't understand why there needs to be Jewish State. Apparently you can't understand why I view Israel as an encroachment on a people who were already living there, similar to our own situation in our homeland. I don't really care if I comprehend it though. I do know I don't want to be a party to it on either side. That includes the $8 bil. in foreign aid we throw at Israel every year. There's not much more to discuss, though I think this has been decent conversation.
Posts: 183 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Just one note more then. The $8 billion seems like a lot until you compare it with the billions Arab nations receive as well.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Of course not, the most actual aid any Arab nation recieves from the US is Egypt, and that comes to 2 millions dollars a year. The rest is actual oil revenue.
I do not count the money Iraq is getting as aid, that is money we owe them for the havok we wrecked there.
[ August 02, 2003, 05:52 PM: Message edited by: Duragon C. Mikado ]
Posts: 622 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
You should also correct your 2 million figure since it is actually 1000 times as much, in other words 2 billion and not oil revenue. Egypt is just one of many Arab countries that receive aid every year and the reason they receive the most is because they are the most democratic. Of course Israel is an even greater democracy as well as a steadfast ally. They make use of our money and just by helping themselves. Their military research benefits us as well considering they have now managed to vreated an even better version of the Patriot missile, the Arrow. Furthermore, their intelligence is trustworthy and decisive, with even a higher accuracy than the CIA. Israel earns every dollar they get from the U.S. and these are all reasons why they get more.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
You truly are slanderous and vicious. I, in fact, do not support terrorist groups. Your nastiness is not welcome here. How dare you claim I support murderers. If you had bothered to read the first post of this thread you'd realize I can appreciate Israel's presence in the region to help spread democracy. You seriously are just going out of your way to be offensive as possible. Hatrack has found its second Baldar.
[ August 02, 2003, 09:56 PM: Message edited by: Duragon C. Mikado ]
Posts: 622 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think what you have said in this post demonstrates you have similar motives to those terrorist groups. If you don't believe me why don't look you examine what you have said and see what the purpose of groups like the Al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigade is.
Oh, and isn't ironic how you rebel at the idea of being a supporter of murderers while you accuse Israel of following in the footsteps of the Nazis.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
You really don't get it. I can critisize Israel for following in the wake of their former tormentors without claiming they are identical, or even wind up a fraction as bad. You resort things to absolutes to attempt to win arguments, but since you commit logical fallacies all throughout your rhetoric, you come off as a pure sophist. I will no longer respond to any of your posts, and if you try claiming I am a terrorist again or something as slanderous I will have to report you. Not because you hurt my feelings, but because I don't want prospective newcomers to think your ignorant slanders and viciousness are accepted here. Good bye to you sir/madam.
[ August 02, 2003, 10:53 PM: Message edited by: Duragon C. Mikado ]
Posts: 622 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I never said you were identical to terrorists either, I said you supported their motives and you have given me every reason to believe that is the case so far. The fact that you still don't get how offensive your remarks have been is what really should be reported.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
that equal 10 billion dollars over the course of the 90's. Maybe not 8 billion but it's enough to make me wonder why I'm spending my money on helping you fight a war that doesn't involve the US directly. I'd much rather pay my car insurance thanks.
As for the Arab nations, of course Arabs collectively will collect more aid, there are more of them. I think you can also agree that Arab nations need substantially more economic development aid than Israel does. In addition, you can't really count all Arab aid against Israel like that because I can't think of any Arab nations off the top of my head that are actively fighting an organized war against Israel. It's all under the table stuff.
Again, my apologies for the erroneous 8 billion figure.
Posts: 183 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually I've heard the 8 billion number several times although I too do not know where it came from, but I was willing to accept it. However that doesn't change the fact that Israel is far more deserving of money than say Egypt or the other Arab countries, many who don't even pretend to be a democracy, and of course as I have already mentioned, Israel does things with the money that benefit the US as well.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Personally, I'd put Egypt as more deserving of the money than Israel. Egypt has put huge amounts of effort into the peace process (the man closest to bringing peace to the Middle East was Saddat), and has severe problems related to population pressure.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
First, I don't think the fact that one man was the closest to bringing peace makes the country he was from more desrving of aid, especially considering he failed. Second, Saddat was only capable of bringing peace between Egypt and Israel not peace throughout the entire Middle East. Third, the peace Saddat was capable of acheiving was just as dependent on the Israeli side. Fourth, Yitzrak Rabin made far greater strides toward a widespread peace and may have succeeded entirely if not for his untimely death. Fifth, Israel has also put a huge amount of money and effort into the peace process. Israel has always accepted a US negotiated ceasefire even when such a ceasefire has crippled Israeli interests. Israel has also returned conquered land from a war it did not start willingly, something no other country has ever done. Sixth, Israel has also made compromises despite "population pressure". Sharon accepted the US initiated peace plan this year despite outcries from many hardliners.
Again I must note the fact that Israel puts the money it receives into uses that no other country does except maybe Britian.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
fugu13, don't waste your time arguing. It doesn't matter to those already convinced otherwise that Egypt holds by far the largest portion of the Arab population, that Egypt has held a position of leadership amongst the Arab nations since the inception and failure of the United Arab Republic which brought Syria and Egypt together under Col. Nasser's control for 3 years in the late 50s to early 60s. It does not matter that Egypt accounts for over 60% of the commerce of the "Arab" nations. Those convinced otherwise will argue that the tiny country of Jordan is more involved in the Middle East peace issue than Egypt. Reality does not occur to them.
[ August 03, 2003, 03:21 AM: Message edited by: Duragon C. Mikado ]
Posts: 622 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: Israel has also returned conquered land from a war it did not start willingly, something no other country has ever done
NFL I am not enough of an historian to give a counterexample, but I'm sure this has occurred before in history. Treaty negotiations routinely involve land swaps. NFL, Duragon doesn't support terrorists just because he thinks a new Israeli law is wrong (the Israeli-Palestinian marriage law.) I agree and others do as well, including some Israelis. Ironically, the lawmakers who passed the bill could be said to support terrorist goals. It is a basic revolutionary and terrorist goal to incite repressive countermeasures in the governments they oppose. This makes injustices obvious to everyone, gets the government bad press, and sometimes garners sympathy for the "oppressed" population. The terrorists have also succeded in America. TIA and Patriot 1 and 2 seem to be repressive overreactions in the eyes of many Americans. Are we all siding with terrorists as well, because we are critical of ill-concieved control measures dreamed up by our government? Also, American military aid and weapons are being used to murder civilian Palestinians, something I as an American could do without. However, as I said in the Israel/grip thread, I don't know what I would do if I were in charge of Israel. It's not a position I would wish on anyone. Same with the presidency of the PA.
NFL, you keep bringing up this issue of democracy. I'd just like to know, why do you think there is no democracy in the Arab countries? Is it because they hold some kind of loyalty to royal families established by Europeans? Not likely. Perhaps becuase of religous fundamentalism? Nope not that either, seeing as how Osama himself has called for the downfall of some Arab regimes. Could it be because the regimes are waving around some giant distraction?
*cough* Israeli-Palestinian conflict *cough*
Highly probable. The reason so many Arabs don't do anything about the ridiculous things that go on in their own countries is because they're too focused on what Israel and Palestine are doing. I'd cite that as one of the biggest reasons why no Arab democracy can get off the ground, there are too many fundamentalists running about, preying on the poor and vengeful for anything meaningful to be accomplished.
You also talk about who deserves the money most. if we (meaning Americans) gave that money to the people who deserve it most, it wouldn't be Israel, it'd be people working in America. Alas, this isn't how foreign aid works. You give money to who protects your interests most. That's the cut and dry of it, no matter how mean it might seem.
Nobody has ever explained to me how helping Israel is beneficial to the US (post-cold war speaking). It seems to me we're lavishly supporting a few million people that live in one country to earn the unmitigated hatred of the populaces of 5 or 6 other countries, totaling int he tens of milions of people. Those 5 or 6 countries happen to have oil under them, btw. What good in supporting some arguably socialistic democracy if it will cause the US to be attacked in its own homeland?
posted
Cavalier, I believe you could reasonably argue that foreign aid money could be better spent on the homefront, I would still argue that spending money in foreign countries still has great benefits, but I can easily accept you disagreeing with my position on that. What I am complaining about is the fact that you think that Israel specifically, as opposed to say the whole Midlle East, is undeserving of the money.
The reason why democracy matters is because the money is being handed to the individual citizens but to the government itself. The same aid money that we give to Israel for them to built anti-ballistic missiles may go to Al-Queda if given to Saudi Arabia. Osama bin Laden has called on the downfall of certain Arab governments because they weren't extreme enough, however those are also dictatorships who oppress their citizens. As long as the US supports the existence of Israel Arab extremists will always hate us.
Duragon, if fugu13 meant a lot of people when he said population pressure then I was mistaken, I thought he meant that the government was taking political pressure from the "population". If I am wrong then I would contend that the US has never allocated aid based on population size. If it did enormous amounts of money would be poring into Pakistan, India, Indonesia, Brazil, etc.
Just because Egypt has a lot of people and more commerce than other Arab nations does not necessarily make it any more of a military threat. Syria was the closest to eliminating Israel from the map during the Yom Kippur War. Egypt has never attacked Israel alone. One country does not ensure peace. I don't see how just because Egypt and Syria tried to combine themselves into an Arab superpower and failed makes Egypt a leader among the Arab world. If they are such a leader then why are Egypt and Jordan the only Arab countries that actually maintain embassies in Israel, whouldn't others also follow their example?
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
NFL, I think you're missing my point. Let me try to articulate this better.
First, let me reaffirm my position that I, as US citizen want to cease giving foreign aid to Israel .
However, I also do not support dumping money into Arab countries as much as we currently do. I'd like foreign aid to the Arabs to take a more economic based approach, such as encouraging American investment there, than just say, writing the Saud family a check.
Now, let's get down to brass tacks...
quote: The reason why democracy matters is because the money is being handed to the individual citizens but to the government itself. The same aid money that we give to Israel for them to built anti-ballistic missiles may go to Al-Queda if given to Saudi Arabia.
Well, thank goodness I gave my money to the Israelis, who will use it to blow down an entire block of aprtments because one idiot lived there. If I had given it to one of the suicide bombers that might have ruined people's lives...
I don't think either side has much claim to my money. They both certainly don't have a big enough moral reason to merit it. On to American self-interest. You keep talking about this Arrow missile system...who cares? Why do I even need a missile system? The only country America has fought in the last 20 years with missiles to defend against was Iraq. The primary reason we bothered setting up any missile defense was to protect Israel . We didn't need them launching some stupid war and turning wars that lasted a few weeks into regional conflagarations. Also, why bother giving the Israelis money to develop it? Are you trying to say, America, with one of (if not the) the largest military-industrial complexes in the world couldn't come up with something along those lines if the need arose? That's assuming the need arose. Plus, it'd keep jobs at home.
quote: Osama bin Laden has called on the downfall of certain Arab governments because they weren't extreme enough, however those are also dictatorships who oppress their citizens.
Okay...does this make a difference? I was bringing up the point to highlight that Arab regimes don't receive support from the religous groups...for anything. At best they have a state of detente between them.
quote: As long as the US supports the existence of Israel Arab extremists will always hate us.
Yes, so why should I, as an American, support Israel? I personally don't want Arab extremists to hate me, since I don't really care what happens to Israel one way or the other. I'm not a Jew or Moslem and I don't want to get caught in your flippin' crossfire. This isn't my fight or many other Americans. And don't cop out by saying "they're our ally" because that's just a acknowledging it's a long-term mistake.
Posts: 183 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Cavalier, while the topic of this thread has since moved on, I want to comment on your comparison of Ireland and Israel and focus on your challenge to Israel's right to exist.
Imagine if the British had been successful in driving out the Irish, and for centuries, the remaining Irish were a minority in their own homeland. Those who were exiled formed the majority of the Irish population, scattered across the world in small, isolated groups, feared and hated almost wherever they went. Imagine that most of them went not to the United States and Canada, but rather to continental Europe. Now imagine that the US had a mandate over Britian following WWI, and endorsed the efforts of American and European Irish to return to Ireland, where the indigenous population had dropped to only a few tens of thousands. Upon their return, the English, instead of welcoming the Irish back to their homeland, percieve a threat, and attempt to drive them back into the sea. After Nazi Germany begins it's rule in 1933, the persecuted Irish-German population begins to migrate to Ireland en masse. This provokes the British living in Ireland, who have been there for centuries, and now consider it their home, to attack the Irish settlers. After WWII, and a genocide resulting in a halving of the population of Continental Irish, Immigration to Ireland intensifies. The population of Irish explodes, until they compose half the population of the south of Ireland, where virtually all of the Immigration has been to. In 1948, the southern half of Ireland declares independance, two states are created in Ireland, with the north entirely English and the south a mix of English and Irish. The same day as Southern Ireland is declared a state, Northern Ireland, England, Wales and Scotland (all independant states ruled by dictators), attack the South in an attempt to eradicate the Irish, and drive them out of the English "homeland" of Ireland. The Irish defeat the combined forces of their Protestant enemies, and take a large portion of northern Ireland as the war progresses. After ceasefire is declared, Northern Ireland is placed under English rule. Ireland is invaded repeatedly, each time, it prevails, eventually leading to the present situation, with Ireland occupying Northern Ireland.
If this was the case, would Ireland not have a right to exist? Should they just leave Ireland to the English? Why should the Irish be denied statehood?
I am not claiming that Israel is blameless, or that settlements in the West Bank are right, or that the occupation is somehow desirable. I am merely saying that Israel has a right to exist, and a right to defend itself.
Posts: 1769 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Cavalier, you do realise that there are plenty of Arabs living in Israel who enjoy full voting rights, yes? Israel is not some monolithic entity of evil Jewry intent of killing Palestinian children. Israel is a model for the whole middle east. It is far from perfect, yes. And it should be a secular state, but it is still the closest thing to secular in the region, and by far the most democratic. Compared to Arab states, Israel is a paragon of religious tolerance, democracy and freedom.
Posts: 1769 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
First, the missile system is just an example of something Israel does for America. Jobs wouldn't have been created if it were created here because it was only the design and prototype the Israelis created. Why would the Arrow be helpful to the United States? Because as long as America fights wars, regardless of whether or not you think they are justified, there is a good probability that our enemies will have missiles. If were to fight North Korea and they do have nukes, (I don't think they do I'm just saying hypothetically), we would need the most advanced anti-ballistic missile system there is. Why did Israel and not America create the Arrow? Because believ it or not America couldn't. You think this something that we come up with when the "need" arises? It doesn't work that way, these types of systems take years to make.
Also Israel doesn't destroy an "entire block of apartments because one idiot lived there". They destroy the one house where an suicide bomber lived and they do it because it deters suicide bombers from attacking. When entire families are whiped out in a flash of shrapnel I think that's a bit more than some lives being "ruined".
quote: We didn't need them launching some stupid war and turning wars that lasted a few weeks into regional conflagarations.
I don't know who you mean by "them" so I can't respond.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
First, I can't answer your analogy. The situations are far too different to compare. The history, cultures, relations, religions are so vastly dissimilar that to make modifications to them would make the comparison worthless. You've basically gerrymandered the history to the point that you might as well ask "What would you do as a jew?". It wasn't the intention of my little "Intro to Irish History" to make a 1:1 comparison with Israel. It was merely to establish that the Irish have suffered through a somewhat similar ethnic ordeal and that I felt because of that I was qualified to give an opinion on the somewhat similar Israeli situation. Nothing more. It's main intent was to give some credibility.
Second, while I may challenge the current Israel's right to exist, I don't oppose the idea of Israelis living in the Holy Land. I oppose this "two-sate" "me vs. you" approach to it. The only way you can have two groups live together under equal law. To loosely reference Ireland again, you'll notice that the Protestants in the south get along fine with the Catholics...no trouble where previously there was rape and murder betweeen the classes. The only place this still goes on is in the north where Protestants receive preferential treament from an outside power (Britain). The whole concept of 2nd class citizens rankles them all beyond belief. I'd have no problem with a country that encompassed both current Israel and Palestine, guranteed no religous preference, and allowed the immigration of Jewish immigrants. (Edit to add: I realize I wrote a contradicition, the Palestinians/Arabs should be allowed free immigration under the auspices of no religous preference.) At least then if there are still bent out of hspe Arabs you can use the police to stop them rather than using repressive military tactics, some of which I'd say are legally shady (settlements, destruction of civilian homes for no real end, etc.).
Now more:
quote: Cavalier, you do realise that there are plenty of Arabs living in Israel who enjoy full voting rights, yes?
Yep, perfectly aware of that. I don't think I said otherwise. In fact, I don't think I've made any mention of Israeli internal matters at all, just their treatment of Palestine (we can quibble ove whether that's external/internal but im just going to say it's external for the sake of argument).
quote: Israel is not some monolithic entity of evil Jewry intent of killing Palestinian children.
I didn't say anything like that at all. I'm not sure where you even got that idea. I most certainly didn't say they're "a monolithic entity of evil Jewry". I don't think they're out just to kill Palestinian children either. obviously they're not. But, I think you can concede that it happens, intentional or no. Are Israelis bad people? Of course not! I have friends that are Jewish, Israeli, and both. Do I think that Israel is heavy-handed in the way it conducts business? Very much so. Do I think I should give them money to support a war that's not even my own, possibly bringing danger to my country and myself? No. Do I sympathize with the Palestinian who was just living on his farm, got displaced, and can't get home? Sure. Do I sympathize with the Israeli mother who's son got blown up riding to the mall? Yeah. Do I think what both sides do to each other is deplorable? Yes. I'm not trying to favor one side or the other, I'm trying to show the folly of the stand-offish situation that was originally caused by partioning the land. Later in the posts I'm also trying to say why I don't feel the US should really be involved.
quote: Israel is a model for the whole middle east. It is far from perfect, yes. And it should be a secular state, but it is still the closest thing to secular in the region, and by far the most democratic. Compared to Arab states, Israel is a paragon of religious tolerance, democracy and freedom.
I agree with most of that (I would have said Iraq was most secular up until the collapse of the governemnt...but thats a moot point.) My only question is how far Arab democracy movements would have gotten along without Israeli/Palestinain clashes like...oh...say...the 1967 war? Would there be more democracy if a Jewish homeland had been put together differently?
To close, I get the feeling you're trying to paint me as some kind of racist, hate-monger, nasty, Palestinian sympathizer, terrorist condoner. The only "terrorism" I've ever offically condoned was the old IRA fighting back in the early 1920's. And only them because they confined their activities to police and military units to free their country from occupation. I sincerely hope I'm just imagining this and that this wasn't your intention. As far as Israel discussion dialogues go, I think his has been a good one, if a little heated. I don't want it to devolve into some name calling contest like what happened earlier.
quote: I am merely saying that Israel has a right to exist, and a right to defend itself.
Yes, its called the right of conquest, the ultimate foundation of the rights of any nation to its territory.
quote:They destroy the one house where an suicide bomber lived and they do it because it deters suicide bombers from attacking.
NFL, I think Cavalier was talking about civilian casualties when Israeli forces kill terrorist leaders. I think there was a skirmish this year or last where a block of apartments was attacked by Apache (American!) helicopters and many civilians were casualties. The Israeli defense forces seem to have become increasingly blase about collateral damage in recent years. Also, blowing up bombers homes presupposes other family members knew of the attack, and has been condemned by human rights groups as attacking non-participants. I have mixed feelings about it and am reluctant to condemn this particular tactic. How do you fight suicidal bombers? I hope America never faces what Israel faces. 9/11 was bad enough. Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm sorry NFL, with the exception of N. Korea, I can't see the US fighting anything but 3rd rate countries without signifigant missile arsenals any time in the next 20 years. Even if there were a larger war, I'm trusting to Bush's missile defense to work. It's not economical or practical to try to set up one type of missile intercept system and hope it works against a missile it's never been actually used against (I'm going to assume nobody has lobbed up any ICBMs lately.) Obviously we didn't need the arrow back when we first started giving money to Israel fo it, because we haven't used it and have no forseeable situation in which we would use it besides to defend Israel. This is just banter though, it's not really important. Even if I were to palcate you and say that the Arrow system is fantastic and great, I'd give it up in a heartbeat to have the Arab nations and their fundamentalists leave my country alone (or more alone than they currently do). They're a far more tangible threat than some hypothetical war with a well equipped army and rocket force. I think it is unlikely you'll find some justification to support Israel that'll outweigh preserving the security of the US, but I'd like to see it if you do. I'm keeping an open mind on the matter.
Edit to add: Thank you Morbo, that was the incident I was referring to, though I'd heard (but not read) what fugu found.
posted
Wow, the Guardian, thanks for using reliable news sources . Did you even read the article. Nowhere in it did it say that Israel was bulldozing entire refugee camps. It did say that Israel was bulldozing homes. Why? Because they were previously occupied by terrorists. I'm sure you also used that article to show that Israel is a country that intentionally murders peaceful protesters. However
quote: "We are dealing with a group of protesters who are acting very irresponsibly, putting everyone in danger - the Palestinians, themselves and our forces - by intentionally placing themselves in a combat zone," the army said.
. Its unfair to blame Israel for someone being a moron.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
We haven't used the Arrow yet because the first prototype was just tested right before the Iraq War started, not because we don't need it. Back in the first Gulf War the worst casualties we sustained during the war was from Patriot malfunctions, including one incident where a Patriot bumped the SCUD sending it into an Army barracks. You don't have to lob up an ICBM to dtermine whether or not it can knock it down. Again though, its not just the Arrow. Its the intelligence they provide and have provided and its the fact that they are our ally. I don't mean its important because we owe them loyalty because they are our ally but because they are our only ally in a sea countries that used to be funded by the Soviet Union. I can't describe how important this is.
In response to the new articles the crops were destroyed because militants were using them to fire on civilians which has been a common tactic by militants and if the second one isn't biased I don't know what is. It makes it sound like the IDF intentionally goes after reporters and civilians which is blatantly not true. If anything this article should stress how stupid it is to go into the middle of a war zone, which of course it is.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: Since September 2000, some 2,000 Palestinians have been killed by the Israeli Defence Forces, who routinely use F16 fighter jets, helicopter gunships and tanks to bomb and shell densely populated Palestinian residential areas. The victims include some 350 children.
from the Channel 4 link. It's easy to write off anything you disagree with as "biased reporting." It's also more than a little pathetic, NFL. While the article could be biased, many of the events it documents have been widely reported. But all of those reporters are biased too ,right? And yes, Israel was prevoked by the current interfadah and suicide bombings. That doesn't make the tactics the IDF takes any more defensible. They can still be called to task for every civilian killed, just as the US has been when its tactics go beyond the pale.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
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 |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
![[Grumble]](graemlins/grumble.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Cry]](graemlins/cry.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
. Did you even read the article. Nowhere in it did it say that Israel was bulldozing entire refugee camps. It did say that Israel was bulldozing homes. Why? Because they were previously occupied by terrorists. I'm sure you also used that article to show that Israel is a country that intentionally murders peaceful protesters. However ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
