posted
Given their alternative options that guarantee the death of their target but with a similar guarantee of much larger civilian death, I'd call that some pretty good GD restraint.
By 'massively restrained', I mean that although Palestinians make a habit of targeting Israeli unarmed men, women, and children for deliberate murder, Israel has yet to respond in kind.
Now, are you really going to bring up Israeli killing in wartime of its military enemies as an example of how that's not restraint, or shall we dispense with the horse puckey?
We do not know all of the facts about the house bombing in Pakistan.
My point in the stupidity of bringing up the UN in reference to regional problems is that between the Israelis and the Palestinians, it's the Israelis who are always getting hammered by the UN, and not the Palestinians. Maybe if there wasn't such widepsread support for Palestinian suicide bombers within the Palestinian population, I'd feel differently, but I don't like double-standards.
And her village eradication plan is definitely not silly, possibly very unfair, and I believe wrong. But the kind of overwhelming force and willingness to accept long-term wartime conditions would work. Comparisons to US government of Native Americans have been made.
Guys, the thing you're not realizing is: that worked! Real-estate that once belonged to them, belongs to us. To blithely say, "It doesn't work," is pointless because people proposing such things will (rightly) roll their eyes and point out that of course it does!
There are other reasons to oppose such a plan.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Here's the problem with that analogy though Rakeesh. It worked in a bubble.
Killing and dislodging native Americans who were drastically technologically inferior to you is one thing, especially when all their friends are of the same lack of technological advancement.
The native Americans didn't have a billion people surrounding them just waiting for a reason to blow America off the face of the earth. Israel does. And some of them have nukes.
The American government didn't have to answer to anyone, and really, neither does Israel. But if Israel took the stance that Lisa advocates, much of the world would cut off financial support to Israel, and I bet that would include the US, they'd have to. For the US to not do that, they'd have to actually condone the policy, which just isn't viable right now. And without world financial support, Israel is in a bit of a jam.
Her plan works just fine in a bubble, so long as Israelis can deal with the fact that they're the butchers of women and children, but given what they are facing, becoming the enemy might be the only way to beat the enemy, at least in their eyes.
But outside the bubble, it crumbles, rather dismally. The comparison to the US and the Native American nations doesn't hold water.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Consider also that such a tactic would not have worked in China, although European armies were certainly capable of shattering anything the Chinese could put up in pitched battle. The gap between the native Americans and the Europeans was much wider than that between Israel and the Arabs, not to mention the population disparity. I think the situation is much more analogous to China than to America : Win any given battle, yes; force major concessions, yes; occupy coastal strips, sure; exterminate large populations? I think not. The Japanese had a pretty good go at it in China, under quite similar advantages in technology and morale, and they couldn't make it stick either.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by starLisa: It's not evil to stamp out evil. That's like saying there's no difference between the government putting a murderer in prison and me kidnapping someone and locking them in a room for years. It's the same action, but it's not the same thing at all.
Um, not that I would want to completely derail the discussion, or anything of such a nature. Because that would be wrong, and all. But aren't oyu the libertarian who constantly says that when the government demands a certain level of taxes, it is exactly like armed robbery?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The gulf between the technology Israelis routinely employ and the technology neighboring Arabs employ is actually pretty large nowadays. Not nearly so large as in early America, of course.
But then, it was the tiny number of Native Americans compared to the massive numbers of white Europeans that made the difference, that and the willingness to do whatever it took, that made all the difference, really. For a very long time, the Native Americans were actually better suited to live in America than were the European interlopers.
Israel is already surrounded by many millions of people who want to destroy them, Lyrhawn. None of them have nukes-yet. Iran is going for one, but the Arab world is pretty aware of what Israel's response would be, were she ever nuked. She'd nuke right back. Possibly even if it wasn't clear it was an Arab nation that attacked her, as in the case of a terrorist attack.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
And as for foreign aid, that's true, they would lose out on some foreign aid and things would be rough. You're wrong, I think, that Israel requires this aid for its very existence, however.
Israel answers to the USA all the time.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Morbo: Not only is Lisa's village eradication plan a horrible idea, it violates specific UN treaty obligations Israel has to not punish groups for an individual's actions.
It wouldn't work for a variety of reasons.
Lisa, how would you re-write the rules of engagement you quoted? "If you see a suspicious person, you are to empty your clip at them"?
Simple. Recognize that we are at war with a nation called Palestine. A nation which lays claim to our entire country. A nation which currently occupies enormous tracts of land in Judea, Samaria, the Katif Strip, and the Galilee. A nation which is run by Hamas and Fatah, two militant terrorist organizations which are as guilty of war crimes as the Germans during WWII.
Stop regarding the terrorists as individual criminals and recognize that they are agents of an enemy power. Strike at the enemy power until it stops committing acts of violence and terror against us.
Change the terms of reference, in other words. Not the rules of engagement. Declare that every single one of them, citizen or not, born there or not, is an enemy alien, and that every one of them who commits an act of violence is an enemy combatant.
I wouldn't put them into some prison or camp where the Red Cross could visit them. Rather, I'd release them, even without a promise to avoid acts of war in the future. Escort them to some or other border and wave bye-bye.
Is there the possibility of casualties during such a process? Sure. But there's a huge difference between casualties incurred while trying to end a war and casualities deliberately inflicted. They're fine with inflicting death and destruction on innocent civilians. They're the last ones to complain if someone gets hurt in the process of ending this war.
To sum it up in once sentence, stop viewing this as anything but the war that it is, and win the war.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by starLisa: It's not evil to stamp out evil. That's like saying there's no difference between the government putting a murderer in prison and me kidnapping someone and locking them in a room for years. It's the same action, but it's not the same thing at all.
Um, not that I would want to completely derail the discussion, or anything of such a nature. Because that would be wrong, and all. But aren't oyu the libertarian who constantly says that when the government demands a certain level of taxes, it is exactly like armed robbery?
Yep, that'd be me. And your point is? If you're that adept at reading what I've written and remembering it, then you'll also remember that I'm not an anarchist. That I do consider it proper and required for a government to perform the duties of police, army and courts. And I'm also okay with taxation to fund those activities, until such hypothetical time as another way is found to do so. Which could mean indefinitely.
The very reason for this is that while human beings, in theory, are entitled to retaliate when coercive force is intiatated against them, human beings won't always do so objectively. Someone has to decide what constitutes legitimate retaliatory force. The primary function of government is to be an objective mediator. Government has no powers that each of us do not already have ourselves. I have no right to take what's yours just because I think I know better than you how to use it, and neither does anyone else. And neither does any body created by anyone, regardless of whether a majority backs it or not. But I am entitled to require that you not shoot me, as is everyone else, and the government embodies that right, and can act to prevent you from doing so, or to punish you once you've done so.
Or were you just trying to score a rhetorical point?
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: Declare that every single one of them, citizen or not, born there or not, is an enemy alien, and that every one of them who commits an act of violence is an enemy combatant. I wouldn't put them into some prison or camp where the Red Cross could visit them. Rather, I'd release them, even without a promise to avoid acts of war in the future. Escort them to some or other border and wave bye-bye.
Is there the possibility of casualties during such a process? Sure.
*whistles innocently* Like I said.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sure, because that's exactly what genocide means. But... that being the case, what would you call methodically murdering every member of a given population group? Since you've redefined "genocide" to mean something that has nothing to do with killing of any sort.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Stalin used almost exactly the same defense. Those who went willingly to Siberia didn't get shot.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: The gulf between the technology Israelis routinely employ and the technology neighboring Arabs employ is actually pretty large nowadays. Not nearly so large as in early America, of course.
Israel is already surrounded by many millions of people who want to destroy them, Lyrhawn. None of them have nukes-yet. Iran is going for one, but the Arab world is pretty aware of what Israel's response would be, were she ever nuked. She'd nuke right back. Possibly even if it wasn't clear it was an Arab nation that attacked her, as in the case of a terrorist attack.
Really at this point it doesn't matter. Both sides have guns, the Palestinians aren't on horseback using bows and arrows.
And I know they're already surrounded by millions that want them gone, that's exactly what I said in my post, so I'm glad we agree. And Pakistan has nukes. Pakistan is largely Muslim and has an anti-Israel population. You don't think they would get involved if Lisa's forced exodus plan were enforced?
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: And as for foreign aid, that's true, they would lose out on some foreign aid and things would be rough. You're wrong, I think, that Israel requires this aid for its very existence, however.
Israel answers to the USA all the time.
I don't agree there, they routinely ignore what the USA has to say. They answer only to themselves. And really, I'm not sure it shouldn't be that way.
And I never said they require it. I believe my exact words were "they'd be in a bit of a jam." Which I think you just agreed with. They're a lot better off today than they would have been a decade or two ago, but they'd still be in for some very hard times, especially if the US decides to withhold all military aid too.
Having reading issues today?
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Posted by starLisa: It's not evil to stamp out evil.
No, but how you go about doing it might be. Displacing a massive number of people, robbing them of their possessions, and leaving them in the desert (or whereever) sounds pretty evil to me. Especially since you don't seem particularly interested in determining who's actually guilty of aiding enemy terrorists and who isn't.
Posts: 2907 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:As for your Tresopax's comparison to US treatment of Native Americans...well, that's an interesting stance to take. Because I think we know how that ended up. It worked. It was terrible, it was monstrous, but it was also very effective.
quote:Guys, the thing you're not realizing is: that worked! Real-estate that once belonged to them, belongs to us. To blithely say, "It doesn't work," is pointless because people proposing such things will (rightly) roll their eyes and point out that of course it does!
Of course, I forgot. Might makes right. The ends justify the means. Whatever heinous acts and morally repugnant behavior you may engage in is acceptable as long as you accomplish your goal.
Silly me for not wanting to become worse than the opposition in order to find a favorable outcome to the situation.
quote:Is this really so difficult to believe? For most of recorded human history, passive support of carnage and atrocity has been the rule rather than the exception.
Right. Again, silly me, of course the majority of the world is interested in atrocity and carnage. It's a wonder we're all still here.
quote:But then, it was the tiny number of Native Americans compared to the massive numbers of white Europeans that made the difference, that and the willingness to do whatever it took, that made all the difference, really.
Actually, no.
When the settlers first landed, they were outnumbered by several orders of magnitude. If the Native Tribes didn't want them here, they could have killed every boatload as it landed.
The Tribes were not unified, however, and most must have believed that these white men could be traded with and reasoned with, and peaceful coexistence was possible.
Their mistake.
quote:I have a real problem with equating Israeli zealotry with Palestinian zealotry. See, Israelis aren't the ones dancing in the streets throwing ticker-tape parades for targeted murders of unarmed women and children. When Israelis get fanatical about Palestinians, they don't go and double-tap a bunch of kids.
So your comparison doesn't hold much water, really, except to point out that there are diehards on both sides-which isn't exactly news.
If you note, I didn't equate Israeli zealotry with Palestinian zealotry.
I equated the attitudes as expressed by StarLisa to attitudes expressed by two young Palestinian men I studied with in Ireland.
They both wanted some final solution that would abide no compromise. StarLisa wants the Muslims relocated, and they wanted the Israelis out of their homeland. Both StarLisa and these two men harbored clear, open prejudice and anger towards the other side.
The fact that there are hard-liners on both sides that won't listen to reason and are blinded by hatred and prejudice is a huge part of the problem.
posted
Altogether, attitude is the problem. No amount of war or bloodshed will change that. And the only way war and bloodshed can affect the outcome that starLisa desires is if it changes enough attitudes.
Usually that occurs when one side of the conflict loses the will to fight. That's pretty unlikely in a population that generates suicide bombers easily. In this case hopelessness is their greatest ally. So no military conquest is possible.
Israel came into existence largely because the rest of the world sympathized with the Jews. If Israel is seen as having starLisa's attitude, it's just a matter of time before Israel loses any sympathy it had in the rest of the world. That would be the end of Israel.
Isn't it a good thing that other Jews disagree with starLisa?
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't know, it always seemed to me that Israel came into existence because no one else (read USA, England, Russia) wanted to harbor the Jews in their own country - so they carved out a niche of occupied territory and stuck them there.
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Stalin used almost exactly the same defense. Those who went willingly to Siberia didn't get shot.
Last reply, and then you no longer exist to me. The people sent to Siberia weren't part of a massive and concerted effort to murder Stalin and his fellow countrymen and throw them into the sea. And you're a fool for making such an odious comparison.
quote:Posted by starLisa: It's not evil to stamp out evil.
No, but how you go about doing it might be. Displacing a massive number of people, robbing them of their possessions, and leaving them in the desert (or whereever) sounds pretty evil to me. Especially since you don't seem particularly interested in determining who's actually guilty of aiding enemy terrorists and who isn't.
They're very much aware that their decentralization makes it next to impossible for anyone to fight them if they insist on trying to specify who is directly involved in the war and who isn't.
But even aside from that, that's war. You don't have to like it, but if you start it, expect to get your a** handed to you.
When I was a kid, I used to watch fights happen on the playground, and I used to hear talk about "fighting fair". I never understood such talk. Fighting is a bad thing. The only time it's ever legitimate is when it's forced on you by others. And when that happens, the idea is to end it as quickly and decisively as possible, so that the offender decides it's not worth his while to try again.
This is war. This isn't crime. It's a nation out to destroy us. It's a nation that was created for the express purpose of destroying us. And it's a nation that's happy electing modern-day Nazis to run their affairs.
It's a nation that could have had a state whenever it wanted. It's a nation that has land of its own (our land, granted, but our "leaders" were kind enough to vacate it for them), and still chooses not to declare statehood over it, because they want the advantages of being a state and the advantages of not being a state.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by FlyingCow: I don't know, it always seemed to me that Israel came into existence because no one else (read USA, England, Russia) wanted to harbor the Jews in their own country - so they carved out a niche of occupied territory and stuck them there.
That'd be possible, except that the territory in question was ours to begin with. The occupied territories are the huge areas of Judea, Samaria, Katif and the Galilee (and Jordan) that the Arabs are currently occupying. Pay attention, Cow. We're called Jews because our land is Judea. Hebron was the first capitol of our first king, and it's where our patriarchs and matriarchs are buried. The Arabs talk about Abraham being buried there, but Sarah is as well. Hagar is not. Isaac is, and Ishmael is not.
Our homeland. Not theirs. Their squatting doesn't confer ownership of our land when we never for a moment abandoned our claims on our homeland. Three times a day, Cow. For almost 2000 years now, we've been pouring our hearts out and praying to God that we'll be able to return to our home. I don't give a hoot if a bunch of barbarians from Arabia came in during that time and conquered it (and turned it into a wasteland, let me add). It's still ours, and it always will be.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
starLisa has been careful not to justify the 'slaughter' of anyone except in warfare conditions, Tom. While I understand your frustration and the problems you have with her position-I share many of them, actually-this insistence that she's demanding genocide is wearing pretty thin.
She is advocating removing a population that routinely demands her population's annihilation and removal from the area, and insisting that they not simply be shot and buried where they stand, but rather be given the option to leave peacefully and without violence.
Seeing as how these thousands justify and in fact revel in the slaughter of innocents themselves, without giving that option, I can empathize with starLisa's frustration at your continued insistence that she's actually a genocidal barbarian.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
And yet, Dagonee's point earlier has to be addressed. If they refuse to move, how do you move them without killing mass quantities of them?
And since Lisa is of the stance that there is a state of war between all Israelis and all Palestinians, with no divisions therein, there'd be no moral problem with killing them off if necessary if they refuse to be moved.
And I'm wondering, how they will move more than a million people who are already pissed, without pissing them off even more. Were I them, and I was being forced to leave. I'd head to Jordan, join with the almost million people there, carve out my own little country from Jordan or even better, just take Jordan over and launch a protracted guerilla war on Israel, and this time not just with RPG and roadside bombs, but wit the the full military power of a real nation.
But at least Israel will be whole again.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Seeing as how these thousands justify and in fact revel in the slaughter of innocents themselves, without giving that option...
I cannot help but wonder whether Palestinian Arabs would happily permit Israeli Jews to move out of Israel unharmed and unmolested. My gut feeling, frankly, is that they would.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
My gut feeling is that the Israelis would be chased to the ships with a hail of gunfire. There are too many among the Palestinians, and those who have taken up the Palestinian cause, who no longer want removal, but that a blood price be paid.
Posts: 32 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:I cannot help but wonder whether Palestinian Arabs would happily permit Israeli Jews to move out of Israel unharmed and unmolested. My gut feeling, frankly, is that they would.
That's the kind of question that should be asked before they start deliberately targeting civilians for murder.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:That'd be possible, except that the territory in question was ours to begin with. The occupied territories are the huge areas of Judea, Samaria, Katif and the Galilee (and Jordan) that the Arabs are currently occupying. Pay attention, Cow. We're called Jews because our land is Judea. Hebron was the first capitol of our first king, and it's where our patriarchs and matriarchs are buried. The Arabs talk about Abraham being buried there, but Sarah is as well. Hagar is not. Isaac is, and Ishmael is not.
This is hysterical.
First of all, it wasn't yours "to begin with" anyway... it was conquered after the Jews came out of Egypt.
Second, it wasn't yours for a very long period. Just like New Jersey and New York are not now Native American lands, anymore. Just like the area around the Danube River is no longer Celt land. Just like the west coast of Turkey isn't Greek anymore. Just like a thousand other civilizations that migrated or were pushed off of their land, it wasn't yours anymore.
You're saying this is a geopolitical version of the "five minute rule" - that's my seat, so no one else can sit in it until I get back. So, if some foreign power was more powerful than the US and decided to give Tennessee back to the Cherokee, or Arizona back to the Apache, that'd be okay because the tribes were there first, right?
quote:Our homeland. Not theirs. Their squatting doesn't confer ownership of our land when we never for a moment abandoned our claims on our homeland. Three times a day, Cow. For almost 2000 years now, we've been pouring our hearts out and praying to God that we'll be able to return to our home. I don't give a hoot if a bunch of barbarians from Arabia came in during that time and conquered it (and turned it into a wasteland, let me add). It's still ours, and it always will be.
See, operative word there, "conquered it". The Jews were out of Judea for nearly 2000 years. Just how long does someone have to conquer and occupy a territory to claim it as theirs? How long do you have to be away before you can't lay a claim on it?
The statement that "It's still ours, and it always will be" is laughable. No land "always" belongs to anyone. If that were the case, almost any culture in the world that can't trace their lineage back to antiquity in a certain area could be evicted by dint of "we were here first, so get out."
If this is the root of your anger, you're deluded. The Jews were pushed out of Judea. That, quite literally, is ancient history.
In fact, if you want to be absurd about origins, Abraham of Ur was Mesopotamian... and Mesopotamia became Iraq, so should Iraq control Israel? The Jews lived in Egypt as slaves before they *conquered* and settled in Canaan... so, what claim do those people have on the lands Jeruselem was subsequently built on?
Strawmen, all, but no more absurd than claiming that it's Jewish land and always will be.
There were other people there before the Hebrew people conquered Canaan and built their cities, after fleeing Egypt. There were people there after the Hebrew people were conquered and pushed out. In fact, it's only a very small window of history when the land was wholly under Jewish rule. Something in the order of a thousand years or so.
So, let's review: The Jews weren't there first, they conquered the land from someone else. The Jews were subsequently conquered, and control of the land passed through several hands. The land has been *out* of their control far longer than it was *in* their control.
How exactly do you propose to lay claim to it? Other than by making absurd statements like "it's ours and always will be"? Or by saying that because you prayed 3 times a day, it just *has* to be yours?
There have been Arabs living in that region for more than twice as long as there have been Europeans on North America. At some point, ownership passes.
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
And then, outside forces wedge the Jews back into this space and force out the people living on that land for dozens of generations.
So, now, after about sixty years and three generations or so, the Jews once again have claim on the land, because of foreign meddling, and there is untold conflict and strife.
It's your land as a gift from more powerful nations than those that occupied the region in 1948, not because of some right of heritage.
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: That's the kind of question that should be asked before they start deliberately targeting civilians for murder.
Oh, I agree. It's a bit too late to ask now. But do you believe that the Jews would have moved out of Israel had the Palestinians started out by asking nicely?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:That'd be possible, except that the territory in question was ours to begin with. The occupied territories are the huge areas of Judea, Samaria, Katif and the Galilee (and Jordan) that the Arabs are currently occupying. Pay attention, Cow. We're called Jews because our land is Judea. Hebron was the first capitol of our first king, and it's where our patriarchs and matriarchs are buried. The Arabs talk about Abraham being buried there, but Sarah is as well. Hagar is not. Isaac is, and Ishmael is not.
This is hysterical.
First of all, it wasn't yours "to begin with" anyway... it was conquered after the Jews came out of Egypt.
Nope. It was deeded to us by the original owner, in perpetuum.
quote:Originally posted by FlyingCow: Second, it wasn't yours for a very long period.
In the first place, there's never been a time when Israel has been empty of Jews. Second of all, we were absent from our home by force, and we never gave up our claims.
In the second place, how long is long? If I go home today after work and someone is sitting in my house claiming that they've been there all day, and I wasn't anywhere around, does that person have a claim on my house? If I go on a two week vacation, and someone takes over my home, is it theirs?
How about if Avi Arad, who was captured by Arab Muslims back in the early '80s finally gets released. It's been over twenty years now. Has he forfeited his ownership of what's his?
If we'd stopped maintaining our claim to our home, like so many nations have done over the millenia, you might have a point (other than the original owner issue). But we never did. And we never will. The Arab invasion of our home didn't replace our ownership of Israel any more than the Roman expulsion did. And the Arabs/Muslims never laid claim to any nationality in our land until way after we started coming home. Some of them were born there. Fine. It doesn't make it theirs.
quote:Originally posted by FlyingCow: Just like New Jersey and New York are not now Native American lands, anymore. Just like the area around the Danube River is no longer Celt land. Just like the west coast of Turkey isn't Greek anymore. Just like a thousand other civilizations that migrated or were pushed off of their land, it wasn't yours anymore.
No. It's still ours. It will always be ours.
quote:Originally posted by FlyingCow: You're saying this is a geopolitical version of the "five minute rule" - that's my seat, so no one else can sit in it until I get back. So, if some foreign power was more powerful than the US and decided to give Tennessee back to the Cherokee, or Arizona back to the Apache, that'd be okay because the tribes were there first, right?
Understand this: I don't care. You say things like that as though one injustice justifies another. In truth, you're only saying it as a rhetorical device.
quote:Originally posted by FlyingCow:
quote:Our homeland. Not theirs. Their squatting doesn't confer ownership of our land when we never for a moment abandoned our claims on our homeland. Three times a day, Cow. For almost 2000 years now, we've been pouring our hearts out and praying to God that we'll be able to return to our home. I don't give a hoot if a bunch of barbarians from Arabia came in during that time and conquered it (and turned it into a wasteland, let me add). It's still ours, and it always will be.
See, operative word there, "conquered it". The Jews were out of Judea for nearly 2000 years.
Not by our choice. And we were pretty damned vocal about it. We could have assimilated like every other nation that found itself in other lands, but we didn't. We paid a pretty heavy price for it, too. We have never stopped maintaining our ownership of our homeland and our statements that we would eventually return. For a very long time, it simply wasn't permitted. And we weren't strong enough to do anything about it. Well, now we're home. Bummer for the squatters.
quote:Originally posted by FlyingCow: Just how long does someone have to conquer and occupy a territory to claim it as theirs? How long do you have to be away before you can't lay a claim on it?
There is no time limit. Even international law recognizes that. So long as a claim is maintained, ownership is maintained. Granted, that law didn't exist at the time, but then, that's never been an issue with international law. Much of it was used after WWII to deal with crimes committed before the laws were written. Including issues of land-grabs.
quote:Originally posted by FlyingCow: The statement that "It's still ours, and it always will be" is laughable.
Everything is laughable, Cow. It all depends on what you're willing to take seriously. You can laugh all you want, but it won't change anything. It just makes you look like a clown.
quote:Originally posted by FlyingCow: No land "always" belongs to anyone. If that were the case, almost any culture in the world that can't trace their lineage back to antiquity in a certain area could be evicted by dint of "we were here first, so get out."
Nope. Again, we've maintained our claim. If you don't understand why that makes a difference, that's your problem.
Notice that I've had to answer this point 3-4 times already in a single post. That's because you're being repetitively redundant. Say something new.
quote:Originally posted by FlyingCow: If this is the root of your anger, you're deluded. The Jews were pushed out of Judea. That, quite literally, is ancient history.
My a** it is.
quote:Originally posted by FlyingCow: In fact, if you want to be absurd about origins, Abraham of Ur was Mesopotamian... and Mesopotamia became Iraq, so should Iraq control Israel? The Jews lived in Egypt as slaves before they *conquered* and settled in Canaan... so, what claim do those people have on the lands Jeruselem was subsequently built on?
Repetition. Boring.
quote:Originally posted by FlyingCow: There have been Arabs living in that region for more than twice as long as there have been Europeans on North America. At some point, ownership passes.
posted
At some point, starLisa, you're going to have to recognize (which doesn't mean acquiensence) that there are lots of people-myself included, for all that I support Israel-who don't give a damn that the Jews feel the land was, is, and will always be theirs because G-d gave it to them.
Maybe-just maybe-if you want to get something done, something that actually has a snowball's chance in hell of happening-you should try a different approach.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think that was a mistake because it's verbatim something that FlyingCow said. I believe she intended to quote it and respond but missed it.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
When there is another more populous group that ALSO thinks the exact same thing - that they were there first and that the original owner of the land deed it to them - then you have a problem. In refusing to budge on this claim, you should recognize that both sides are ensuring that the conflict continues. It's not "death cults" that are responsible for the conflict - it is these beliefs which are necessarily in direct opposition, and directly imply war (meaning war will never be avoidable in the long run until somebody changes their beliefs).
Truthfully, I believe both are wrong. I see no reason to think God has given up His ownership of any of His land. Just because He allowed one people to make it their home does not mean He has deeded it over to them.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: I think that was a mistake because it's verbatim something that FlyingCow said. I believe she intended to quote it and respond but missed it.
posted
Lisa, do you live in Israel or America? Forgive my confusion, but you use "we" and "us" when referring to America, Jews and Israelis. Or, do you live in one place and have dual citizenship?
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Why was the blow up so much later? Did I just miss it in the news initially? I don't watch news on television, I read it on the internet. Did I miss the initial Bru-ha-ha or did it really just develop in the last few months...even months after the cartoons were published?
Posts: 1735 | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
The original 12 cartoons published in Denmark were published last September, yes. There was a non-violent protest in Denmark shortly thereafter.
Late last year, a group of radical Danish imams assembled a dossier documenting what they described as instances of discrimination against Muslims in Denmark. They included the 12 cartoons, but added three that were much more offensive, saying that they had received them anonymously. One of these is widely suspected of being a forgery. They took this dossier on a tour of the Middle East, meeting with religious and political leaders. Shortly thereafter, the protests began in earnest.
You can find rough timelines with a bit of Googling. The relevant Wikipedia entries are a decent starting point.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
If I may I would like to shift the tracks on this train into a slightly different direction as so many of you a very inteligent and I enjoy reading your insightful comments.
I do find the arguement why are Muslims all bent out of shape about the cartoons and yet many arab newspapers post antisemetic cartoons all the time interesting. I even just now had some thoughts that I wanted to add to the discussion but I would like to go to a differnt topic.
The above article was written in 2002 so over 3 years ago but I think he makes some very valid points. My purpose is not to debate the validity of statistics, or how they should be read, but to suggest that there is to use Toms words "an ugly undercurrent" within Europe. Muslim immigration into Europe isnt anything new, but it doesnt exactly make the news that often either. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4385768.stm
A newspaper is only going to publish material it thinks its readership wants to read. Having papers publish offensive things about a minority group is nothing new as I am sure all of you are aware. But look at what happened. The newspaper publishes comments that make Islam look like a violent, aggresive, religion bent on absorbing the world. Muslim fundamentalists rage in the streets demanding the heads of those who published the cartoons, seemingly vindicating what the newspaper is saying.
How do the people in Europe feel about all these Muslims moving into their country? I would argue that there is a very good chance that there is fear and some anger towards Muslim immigrants, it just happen to flare up in Denmark. Would anybody be suprised if in the coming weeks a bomb went off in Denmark and there was a violent response against Muslims in Denmark? I am not saying that will happen, I am simply saying in I guess too many words that I think the magnifying glass needs to be directed at European feeling towards Muslim immigrants.
There are alot of LDS people on these boards, what did none LDS people think of Mormons moving into counties as a block and talking about making changes to the laws so that they were more conducent to a Mormon environment?
Regardless of whether the article about Muslims taking up 40% of welfare funds is true or not, I think we have a text book case of high traffic immigration and the frequent anti foreign sentiment that often exists among the native population. I think this is the true problem that needs to be addressed. It is THIS that is causing blood to boil and tempers to rage, I dont think we should look at the actual shout of anger, but more what has caused it to build up to that point.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Lisa, do you live in Israel or America? Forgive my confusion, but you use "we" and "us" when referring to America, Jews and Israelis. Or, do you live in one place and have dual citizenship?
I live in Chicago at the moment. My ex and two of my children live in Israel. We came to the US so that I could adopt my daughter that I live with now, and my partner doesn't want to move back. Not an excuse, really, but there it is.
And yes, I have dual citizenship, though that doesn't really matter. The Land of Israel belongs to the Jews; not to the State of Israel. That state is, on its best day, a caretaker.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:There are alot of LDS people on these boards, what did none LDS people think of Mormons moving into counties as a block and talking about making changes to the laws so that they were more conducent to a Mormon environment?
This is part of the reason Mormons were so unpopular in Missouri.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
StarLisa, you're scary. Scary in the way that religious fanatics everywhere are scary.
And just saying "No" to facts a bunch of times doesn't make your claims any more true. Nor does ignoring history, logic, reason, or any point of view but your own make you any more right.
I'm not going to argue with you anymore, because I have finally come to the conclusion that your brand of militant zealotry is beyond rational discussion. I hope, for the world's sake, that your voice is in the most severe minority and that your words are given as much credence as any other brainwashed extremist.
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
And here we run into the situation: both sides are entrenched on the Israeli/Palestinian conflict and giving in to the other side by either is viewed by some as capitulation.
When asked once whether he would be willing to make any concessions to the Israelis about a year before he died, Arafat said calmly, "If I made a pact with Israel in the morning, I would be having tea with Rabin by the afternoon." In short, if he were to give in, someone from his own people would kill him, as had happened to Rabin.
Israel has given more than an inch with the creation of the Palestinian Authority areas. They have pulled their own citizens out of settlements at gunpoint to return the land to the Palestinians. And yet the suicide bombings continue, and yet Hamas handily wins elections, and yet Iran's president decries that the Holocaust was a fiction.
Whether right or wrong in the creation of an Israeli state six decades, three generations ago, the Israelis often find themselves in a dark room surrounded by people with sharp knives. They won't give up the God-given land, they won't give up the nation granted by mankind.
But they have tried, at least, to make some ammends, to offer some olive branches and to offer measured responses to unmeasured attrocities. To take a side against the Israelis is something I couldn't in good conscience do. To blythely accuse them of fomenting genocidal acts sickens me.
And to still think of the Palestinians as just rock-throwing boys in the street is also a grave mistake. Let's face it: a disabled American man in a wheelchair wasn't pushed off the deck of the Achille Largo for any cause other than Palestinian independence. Lockerbie, Scotland was showered with the remains of a packed jetliner for the cause of Palestinian independence. 341 American soldiers were slain by a truck bomb in Beiruit as a sacrifice on the altar of Palestinian independence.
When we take a global look and try to put the black hat of villainy on someone, we need to take a harder look at who is murdering people outside of the conflict for nothing more than shock value and terror.
Posts: 32 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:To blythely accuse them of fomenting genocidal acts sickens me.
I think it should be noted that no one in this thread has accused the Israelis of fomenting genocide in any manner, let alone blythely.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Lisa, do you live in Israel or America? Forgive my confusion, but you use "we" and "us" when referring to America, Jews and Israelis. Or, do you live in one place and have dual citizenship?
I live in Chicago at the moment. My ex and two of my children live in Israel. We came to the US so that I could adopt my daughter that I live with now, and my partner doesn't want to move back. Not an excuse, really, but there it is.
And yes, I have dual citizenship, though that doesn't really matter. The Land of Israel belongs to the Jews; not to the State of Israel. That state is, on its best day, a caretaker.
You don't have to be so defensive, I was asking an honestly curious question, not attacking you.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
