Israel

For the serious discussion of weighty matters and worldly issues. No off-topic posts allowed.

Moderators: Azrael, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
3.14159265...
Irrational (?)
Posts: 2413
Joined: Thu Jan 18, 2007 12:05 am UTC
Location: Ajax, Canada

Postby 3.14159265... » Sun Apr 08, 2007 6:18 pm UTC

Vanivier, Palestinians don't hate Israelies because they are infidels, and jews, or that Israel is America's way of politically controlling the middle east, they don't hate it for any of those reasons.

They hate Israelies because either they know of family members whom they see as freedom fighters, and justly so, who have been slaughtered by what they see as an occupying force, and justly so.

The also hate Israelies because they have been misplaced by what they see as a terrorist group, with religous fanatic reasons of displacing them, and justly so.

If I were a palestinian and had alot weapons, I would either threaten all the jews to leave, or start bombing in intervals, untill they decide to leave.

This IS what the Israelies have been doing! Threatening, sending Kahane memebers over to kill palestinians, see my previously posted news articles, and removing palestinians from their homes with the force of a gun.


Palestinians have a RIGHT to hate Israelies to death. While Isralies don't.
"The best times in life are the ones when you can genuinely add a "Bwa" to your "ha""- Chris Hastings

User avatar
Vaniver
Posts: 9422
Joined: Fri Oct 13, 2006 2:12 am UTC

Postby Vaniver » Sun Apr 08, 2007 6:31 pm UTC

Vanivier, Palestinians don't hate Israelies because they are infidels, and jews, or that Israel is America's way of politically controlling the middle east, they don't hate it for any of those reasons.
I never said that all of them do. I just said that some of them do; and that those people tend to be the ones in power.

Or, even if their dispute is legitimate (whether you decide to befriend an infidel or destroy him rarely depends on his religion), they coat it in words that make it religious, and bind them to following through on that.

Pi, you're saying nothing new, and you've yet to respond to any of our claims and questions. One cannot explain Arab actions in 1948 by Israeli actions from 1949 to 2007. History doesn't work that way. Israel exists; Israel will not cease existing unless it is destroyed by Hamas or whatever enemies it still has left. If those enemies commit themselves to destroy or be destroyed, they must be willing to accept the second half of that ultimatum.

Palestinians have a RIGHT to hate Israelies to death. While Isralies don't.
You know Palestinians killed by Israelis. Do you know Israelis killed by Palestinians?
I mostly post over at LessWrong now.

Avatar from My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic, owned by Hasbro.

User avatar
3.14159265...
Irrational (?)
Posts: 2413
Joined: Thu Jan 18, 2007 12:05 am UTC
Location: Ajax, Canada

Postby 3.14159265... » Sun Apr 08, 2007 6:47 pm UTC

YES! I do vanivier. I attended one such funeral, it was a random suicide bombing in a bar. Though I had no personal connection, I actually attended because an Israeli asked me too.

I mourn the loss of a human body and the waste of a human brain. (in death)

Jews get to hate arabs, legitimately, they don't get to hate palestinians though.

Palestinians get to hate EVERYONE, everyone shit faces them.

I have recently been coming back to this idea in my head alot.

What is the single, complete democracy in the arab world? PALESTINE!

Can you imagine having a democracy, while some other people are actually moving you by the force of the gun from your home alot, and drop bombs every now and then. just IMAGINE!

Also I recently heard of UNIVERSITIES in palestine, those people are fricking refugees for 3 generations.... THEY HAVE A DEMOCRACY AND UNIVERSITIES.

These are the people that you are claiming to be uneducated and religiously fanatic.

If I were a member of that society, and had so much oppression from such an ACTUALLY religiously fanatic cause, I would be supporting hammas too and DEMOCRATICLLY. and then the pro-Israel USA and western countries can stop their human aid, cuz they are just so nice and moral and like democracies
"The best times in life are the ones when you can genuinely add a "Bwa" to your "ha""- Chris Hastings

Hex
Posts: 67
Joined: Sat Apr 07, 2007 10:07 pm UTC

Postby Hex » Sun Apr 08, 2007 6:51 pm UTC

I am inclined to state that it would not be "Arab actions" but "Arab reactions".
And by the by, the only reasons the Zionists outnumbered the Arabs is because they immigrated. Legality has nothing to do with it, the Arab residents did not want them to immigrate, just like the Texans do not want the Mexicans to come over the border.

Are you saying that Texans have no reason to not want the Mexicans from coming over the border?

Also if you and your friends made a club house, and then the local bullies came and outnumbered you 8 to 1, and forced you out.. would you be upset?
This is assuming you're still like five years old.

I need to agree with pi, Palestinians are not fanatics, they're fighting for their freedom against an oppressive religious concept known as Zionism. It is the equivalently of America's slaughter and displacement of the native peoples called 'manifest destiny'.

If your family and friends were being killed by the Israelis, and your home had been taken from you.. and then at the end of the day, when you had nothing left.. wouldn't you feel the urge to fight back?

It is simply not acceptable to allow this to occur in the modern, civilized world.

medfly
Posts: 11
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 1:42 pm UTC

Postby medfly » Sun Apr 08, 2007 7:01 pm UTC

im curious, have you ever asked a palestinian for his oppinion?

i know as a fact that what frustrates the israeli arabs atleast is that theyre treated as second class citizen inside israel.

as for the "palestinians having family members who died in an attack" - you can say that about israelies who were hurt in terrorist attacks.
we lost many precious people in those attacks. shouldnt we be angry too?

Hex
Posts: 67
Joined: Sat Apr 07, 2007 10:07 pm UTC

Postby Hex » Sun Apr 08, 2007 7:07 pm UTC

I talk to Palestinians quite often, and have obviously discussed Israel with them as it is apart of their daily lives. It isn't about who has a right to be angry at who, it's that people are dying.

The majority of Palestinians do not hate Israelis, they hate Israel, the government of Israel. Just as Iran does not hate Americans, Iran hates the government of America.

In fact, I recall talking to an Israeli and a Palestinian at the same time. The Israeli had found inconsistencies in the official history of Israel published in the universities and found evidence that might indicate Palestinian Arabs were there first. Guess what? Israeli had his funding cut off, was kicked out of university, and was stripped of his Masters Degree.

The Government of Israel has their promised land in mind, and nothing is going to change that except a complete rotation of government powers.

But this I assure you, if both Israel and Palestine are completely disarmed, a fair negotiation based on both side's interests will begin, and there will be no conflict. I kid you not.

The native Arabs and Jews got along fine, it is the Zionists who are the problem.

Image

Even the Iran gets along fine with non zionist Jews, just look above and observe Ahmadinejad shaking hands with a jew. The jews that were there before Israel was re-established were not Zionists.

User avatar
Vaniver
Posts: 9422
Joined: Fri Oct 13, 2006 2:12 am UTC

Postby Vaniver » Sun Apr 08, 2007 7:28 pm UTC

What is the single, complete democracy in the arab world? PALESTINE!
Err... what?

I really think you need to reevaluate the facts for a bit. How are you defining "complete democracy"?

And by the by, the only reasons the Zionists outnumbered the Arabs is because they immigrated.
I'm going to assume you mean 'outnumbered in some regions'.

Legality has nothing to do with it, the Arab residents did not want them to immigrate, just like the Texans do not want the Mexicans to come over the border.

Are you saying that Texans have no reason to not want the Mexicans from coming over the border?
Ok. I'll agree with you that the "our land for us" sentiment is shared nearly everywhere.

However, I take serious umbrage with the thought "Legality had nothing to do with it". If a Texan wants to kick out a Mexican who has immigrated legally, I have no sympathy for him. "There goes the neighborhood" is not a reason to pick up arms in the "modern, civilized world", as you put it. If a Texan wants to pick up and deport an illegal alien, then it's fuzzier, because there is an argument that he should be able to do it or that it should happen. If a Texan wants to shoot an illegal alien, then it's pretty much back into the "no sympathy" zone (although if they're trespassing on his property, it might be excusable under some circumstances).

The problem is that the Zionists were migrating legally, and the Arabs had a problem with it. There were immigration quotas, but that still wasn't enough for them. Things turned to violence, because of Arab resentment of foreigners. Missteps happened along the way on both sides, as is to be expected in any conflict.

But I have a serious problem saying that it is the Zionist's fault for wanting to live in a certain location, when they have fairly legitimate reasons to want to do so (as in, it is within their rights for them to want to do so).

Also if you and your friends made a club house, and then the local bullies came and outnumbered you 8 to 1, and forced you out.. would you be upset?
This is assuming you're still like five years old.
Let's pretend there are some woods behind my house. I get together with my neighbors, and we each build a tree house. They're little more than a sheet of plywood and some two-by-fours, but they're ours.
Now, a new family moves in. They're rich, and the only reason why they wanted to live in this neighborhood is because their great-grandfather lived here. One of the new kids, Seth, looks at our tree-houses, and decided that he likes Jimmy's tree, because he could build a really cool tree-house in it. He trade Jimmy an action figure for the tree; Jimmy plays with it in our treehouses.

Then, we see the house that Seth builds. It's a marvel of engineering; it's fancy, it's got ropes and ladders and multiple levels. We're pretty jealous, because Seth never invites us over to play, and we can see he's got lots more action figures.

This is how things are in the middle of the 1940s, with the gross simplifications involved in any allegory. What are the proper actions and reactions of the people involved?

an oppressive religious concept known as Zionism. It is the equivalently of America's slaughter and displacement of the native peoples called 'manifest destiny'.
I'm not sure I would call Zionism that religious. I would say it *is* very similar to Manifest Destiny, in that it's primarily cultural instead of religious.

It is simply not acceptable to allow this to occur in the modern, civilized world.
Here's a very interesting set of premises, followed by a very interesting conclusion and question. (edit- feel free to replace imperialism or empire with nationalism or nation. I'm using them nearly interchangeably)

Premises:
1. All empires, by the nature of imperialism, are based on some form of cruelty.
2. Empires, because of their large scope and resources at hand, allow for specialization and the distribution of specialized 'goods' (counting ideas as goods here).
3. Most, if not nearly all, of the things that make us 'modern' or 'civilized' are due to imperialism.

Conclusion: Modernity and civilization are the result of cruelty (applied well).

Question: Should modern, civilized countries embrace the cruelty that built them, or attempt to end it at home and elsewhere (potentially stopping the increase of modernity and civilization)?


Here's some justification:

The case that prompted this was ancient Greece. Decisions were made democratically by the citizens- the citizens only had time to involve themselves in decision-making because they had slaves to feed them. Thus, democracy is essentially the child of slavery. Today, our slavery is more humane- it's machines that do our labor for us, or simplify it dramatically, but how it works is similar.

To justify 2, think of storytelling. In a tribal situation, every tribe has to make up its own stories, passing them orally, possibly trading a few with other tribes. In a nation, one person writes a story and tells it to thousands or millions by proxy; be it books printed off a printing press, or musical scores played by musicians in hundreds of halls, or an epic that is repeated by hundreds of storytellers. The percentage of the population required for storytelling goes down, and the quality of the stories goes up.

A similar thing can be seen with science. Before widespread book publishing and societies like the Royal Society, each person or group would have to figure things out for themselves. Once you have a nation set up, and the education and infrastructure that entails, you can rapidly disseminate knowledge, so everyone can work on higher, more specific things, and you don't need to waste effort on duplication.

To justify 3, think of the difference between (some of the) Native Americans and the Europeans who largely replaced them. The Native Americans societies that are regarded highly for their culture and scientific achievements are those that oppressed other cultures and sacrificed humans; the hunter-gatherer societies of North America were nowhere near "modern" or "civilized" in the senses of the word that are normally used.

[edit]
But this I assure you, if both Israel and Palestine are completely disarmed, a fair negotiation based on both side's interests will begin, and there will be no conflict. I kid you not.
Complete disarmament is impossible; someone will form a militia with stolen weapons, and it'll be another massacre. I'm happier with a bloody war than with a bloodier peace.

Even the Iran gets along fine with non zionist Jews, just look above and observe Ahmadinejad shaking hands with a jew. The jews that were there before Israel was re-established were not Zionists.
Is that a picture from Iran's summit for Holocaust deniers?
Last edited by Vaniver on Sun Apr 08, 2007 7:33 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
I mostly post over at LessWrong now.

Avatar from My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic, owned by Hasbro.

medfly
Posts: 11
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 1:42 pm UTC

Postby medfly » Sun Apr 08, 2007 7:31 pm UTC

Hex wrote:I talk to Palestinians quite often, and have obviously discussed Israel with them as it is apart of their daily lives. It isn't about who has a right to be angry at who, it's that people are dying.

The majority of Palestinians do not hate Israelis, they hate Israel, the government of Israel. Just as Iran does not hate Americans, Iran hates the government of America.

In fact, I recall talking to an Israeli and a Palestinian at the same time. The Israeli had found inconsistencies in the official history of Israel published in the universities and found evidence that might indicate Palestinian Arabs were there first. Guess what? Israeli had his funding cut off, was kicked out of university, and was stripped of his Masters Degree.

The Government of Israel has their promised land in mind, and nothing is going to change that except a complete rotation of government powers.

But this I assure you, if both Israel and Palestine are completely disarmed, a fair negotiation based on both side's interests will begin, and there will be no conflict. I kid you not.

The native Arabs and Jews got along fine, it is the Zionists who are the problem.

Image

Even the Iran gets along fine with non zionist Jews, just look above and observe Ahmadinejad shaking hands with a jew. The jews that were there before Israel was re-established were not Zionists.


people are dying on both sides.
why are you defending the palestinians first? theyre not getting attacked as often as israelies are.
its not my fault youre not aware that most terrorist attack attempts are blocked.

i know that mahmoud ahmedi nejad doesnt hate jews. he has jews living in iran.

there's one fact i gotta correct about your statement - zionists were living in israel before the creation of israel. most of the people that immigrated after the creation of israel were holocaust survivors and people who were hated in their homes, the muslims/arab countries, or were at risk (like the russian and ethiopian jews)

an even better statement:
the jews living in israel see the palestinians as the ones directly responsible for the killing coming from their side, as the militants are never seen as some kind of opposing army, but a part of the people.
what we see in here are marches calling for revenge. accusations that are so stupid they defy logic. (israel is mutating viruses so they hurt arabs! poisoning food! intentionally infecting people with aids!)
see http://www.pmw.org.il for more, slightly more realistic stuff.

Hex
Posts: 67
Joined: Sat Apr 07, 2007 10:07 pm UTC

Postby Hex » Sun Apr 08, 2007 8:43 pm UTC

I didn't say that there were no Zionists before Israel.. I said there was no conflict before Zionists came.

User avatar
Rorgg
Posts: 78
Joined: Fri Dec 29, 2006 6:06 pm UTC

Postby Rorgg » Mon Apr 09, 2007 12:40 am UTC

There was no conflict between Arabs and Jews before the Zionists came to Israel.

As you've essentially defined Zionist as "Jew who moved to Israel," that statement has the dual advantage of being both absolutely correct and utterly meaningless.

User avatar
3.14159265...
Irrational (?)
Posts: 2413
Joined: Thu Jan 18, 2007 12:05 am UTC
Location: Ajax, Canada

Postby 3.14159265... » Mon Apr 09, 2007 4:36 am UTC

I guess it has significance in that, Arabs and jews were living nicely together, untill new arrivals.

So has kind of a way of putting blame on the people that arrived.

I don't think that is important.

I think THE most important part of this whole conflict is that, both sides need to understand that the other is are humans, and that all humans are equal. Also that their religious leaders are BSers and that their religious beliefs are BS, and they need to start being more scientific.

i.e. I don't think there will be peace there for a WHILE.
"The best times in life are the ones when you can genuinely add a "Bwa" to your "ha""- Chris Hastings

User avatar
blob
Posts: 350
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2007 8:19 pm UTC

Postby blob » Mon Apr 09, 2007 12:37 pm UTC

Hex wrote:Intentions to found Israel predate the holocaust.

True
Hex wrote:It was not created as a safe haven.

False

3.14159265... wrote:This IS what the Israelies have been doing! Threatening, sending Kahane memebers over to kill palestinians, see my previously posted news articles

That's odd. According to Wikipedia the Kahane party is considered a terrorist group in Israel and outlawed.

3.14159265... wrote:I think THE most important part of this whole conflict is that, both sides need to understand that the other is are humans, and that all humans are equal. Also that their religious leaders are BSers and that their religious beliefs are BS, and they need to start being more scientific.

Great as that might sound, people tend to be touchy about beliefs. And even atheists can be murderers, as seen in USSR and China.

It would be nice if a benevolent force could occupy both Israel and Palestine and make them live together with peace and law and order. Like America did to Japan and Germany after WWII. But I doubt any country with a military strong enough to do so would be neutral enough at this point.

medfly
Posts: 11
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 1:42 pm UTC

Postby medfly » Mon Apr 09, 2007 3:54 pm UTC

blob wrote:
Hex wrote:Intentions to found Israel predate the holocaust.

True
Hex wrote:It was not created as a safe haven.

False

3.14159265... wrote:This IS what the Israelies have been doing! Threatening, sending Kahane memebers over to kill palestinians, see my previously posted news articles

That's odd. According to Wikipedia the Kahane party is considered a terrorist group in Israel and outlawed.

3.14159265... wrote:I think THE most important part of this whole conflict is that, both sides need to understand that the other is are humans, and that all humans are equal. Also that their religious leaders are BSers and that their religious beliefs are BS, and they need to start being more scientific.

Great as that might sound, people tend to be touchy about beliefs. And even atheists can be murderers, as seen in USSR and China.

It would be nice if a benevolent force could occupy both Israel and Palestine and make them live together with peace and law and order. Like America did to Japan and Germany after WWII. But I doubt any country with a military strong enough to do so would be neutral enough at this point.


israel was under occupation for a while already.
the british mandate was meant to be temporary, but it took something like the holocaust to make it end.
about 50% of the israelies didnt vote, and the palestinians dont even have a non-militant option to vote to.
the leaders clearly dont represent the people. thats the problem.

israel is truly a safe haven for jews in comparison to other countries.

QUIT CALLING PALESTINIANS REFUGEES! theyve been there for 3 generations, settling, living in homes, having universities, is that what you call a refugee?

User avatar
Vaniver
Posts: 9422
Joined: Fri Oct 13, 2006 2:12 am UTC

Postby Vaniver » Mon Apr 09, 2007 6:25 pm UTC

the british mandate was meant to be temporary, but it took something like the holocaust to make it end.
Umm... what?
The British Mandate ended for very different reasons, if I remember correctly.
I mostly post over at LessWrong now.

Avatar from My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic, owned by Hasbro.

User avatar
fjafjan
THE fjafjan
Posts: 4766
Joined: Fri Oct 06, 2006 12:22 pm UTC
Location: Down south up north in the west of eastern west.
Contact:

Postby fjafjan » Thu Apr 12, 2007 1:18 am UTC

space_raptor wrote:This is just one of several places you have dismissed the Israeli's rights to the land they own.


I think you missunderstand me, I have the whole tried time to maintain that the only reason Israel have a right to exist is becase they exist, just like Germany, or any country. The problem is that alot of Israelis are basing their right to the country on some sort of devine grant, ie the land has been promised to them by god, and if this view is allowed it will make negotiation for them to give some away alot harder.

On a personal note, I have a strong emotional bond to my country. If somebody tried to take it from us, I would sign up to fight them. You don't need to be religious to be patriotic.


Nope, but the Israelis base alot of their Patriotism on religion and I think that is dangerous. Especially when it is such a potentially devisive reliigon as theirs, an example in thi

s would be how most school children aged around 10 find it completely acceptable for the Jews in the old testament commit all the attrocities they do in the bible get the "holy land" (raise whole cities, full of women and children) because "it is their devine right".
But anyhow, I digress, Israleis have no more right to their land than the Palestinians do to theirs. This is why a compromise is the fair thing to do.

Moving either people is only a theoretical matter, and would certainly cause more problems than most things.



NO, that's NOT why they have a problem with Israel existing.

Hamas thinks Israel should be destroyed and the entire region should be formed into a United Islamic Republic.

"There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad." - Hamas' charter.

You need to distinguish between the Palestinian people, and their political leadership(Hamas). That is the problem, here. The elected leaders of the Palestinians have sworn to destroy Israel.

One might conclude that therefore, most Palestinians want to destroy Israel. I don't think that's true, but if I was Israeli, I wouldn't give them the benefit of the doubt.


And yet they have said they are willing to negotiate, I think it is entirely possible to find terrible quote from Hamas, as they used to be a violent based organisation, however it is not longer the case that they are unwilling to negotiate, nor are they violent, while there might be a violent wing of Hamas, it is largely a peaceful organisation, and certainly alot less violent than the Israeli goverment.
Israel might WANT to conclude that "most Palestinians want to destroy Israel" but I have already, it feels a countrless times, mentioned the study that indicates that infact a majority of Palestinians are willing to accept a specific peace agreement.

But, it is actually irrelevant. In any conflict there will ofcourse be a conflict not purely between goverments but between Civilians aswell, in the sence that they dislike one another. That should for anyone OBVIOUSLY not be a case for not negotiating, it should be the CAUSE for negotiating, if there is no dislike between the parties there is no reason for you to negotiate anything, These arguments get so scewed as they expect all Palestinians to be perfectly dosile, while Israel are forgiven for any civilians they kill, from the assumptions that the Israelis are reactive and the Palestinians Proactive. Neither is true, but it is

While true, this is an example of an ethical viewpoint that considers 100% of people to be "moral". My personal one that I apply to everyone has somewhere between 50% and 80% of everyone as "moral", and my personal one that I apply to myself has somewhere between 10% and 20% of everyone as "moral". For me to condemn someone because they do not live up to the standards I set for myself strikes me as an overly confrontational way to live my life.


This is getting a bit off topic, but essentially, no one thinks themself to be immoral, that does not however mean that no one is immoral. I think it is healthy to not be as harsh on others as you are on yourself, but this is pretty irrelevant.

I didn't say what response is appropriate, and most of those are appropriate. I was just pointing out that your problem seemed to be with them responding to provocation, and arguing that you shouldn't have a problem with that.


No my problem is the specific responces that Israel has used, ie, excessive violence that breeds an anti Israel sentment that causes violence against Israel which causes a bloodies responce etc.

But, that said, I can see why Israel would prefer to be feared than to be loved, especially considering the unlikelihood of getting their neighbors to love them.


Well that is a false choice ofcourse, they don't need to have their neighbors braiding bands of roses to drape their around their necks, but they need not to hate them. A good part of that is not killing loads of civilians that your enemy cna say "look at this!".

But, if I institute a policy that "suspicious behavior" is enough to deny entry, I will get a significant number of false positives. Whether or not the number of false positives would decrease significantly is unknown, but I imagine it would.


My point is that you won't actually have to shoot someone because they are showing suspicious behaviour, but rather as most security points a more proper checkout, body search or such.

But, given the relatively low cost of five innocents locked up for decades (five victims and five grieving families) compared to the cost of one guilty person (tens of victims and tens of grieving families), can you fault them for that choice? Innocent until proven guilty breaks down when the proof of guilt is a suicide bomb.


No, it is not an economic principle, that is why it does not break down in the case of a mass murderer, or a serial killer. Suicide bombing is a severe crime, but not ultimately severe.

Peace saves lives for as long as it continues. How long has the average peace settlement in the middle east lasted?


Not very long, largely due to Israel. Does that mean you should not try? It took a long time to establish peace in Northern Ireland, it took a long time in the Baltics, etc etc. Peace needs cooperation from both sides, and Israel so far is being the far less cooperative side.

How about taking the last 50 years as a judge?


well certainly if Israel keep opressing the Palestinian people, severely limiting their abilites to do business (like not allowing them to drive cars) clearly affects the Palestinian goverment, but ofcourse I was implying after a peace treaty.
Perhaps I should also point out that Israel is hardly a very positive economy, if it were not for the huge sums of money givven to Israel by a number of states it's economy would not last very long. Unless they did some serious cuts in their military ofcourse


The money that goes into the physical munitions is wasted; the money that goes into paying the salaries of the engineers building those munitions is not. As well, the military funds a significant number of technologies that benefit society as a whole. Modern communication in America largely has its roots in military projects.


No the Engineers wage is wasted aswell, they could have spent their time building, I don't know, a school? something productive. The only benefit are those few technologies developed, but since that, compared to all the other costs of the military, are diminishnly small (in how much it would have cost to simply give it to scientific instritutions).
I do not know how large a part of Israeli military budget goes it to R&D, it's probably a fairly small percentage, and ofcourse far from all that technology is directly applicable to civilian purposes.



Policy decisions, being statistical in effect, should be statistical in conception.

And again it comes down to who gets to ask the question. You could group people by "palestinian" or "non palestinian", or you could make a more fair assesment, of "potentially harmful palestinian" r "safe palestinian", it afterall a majority of people there who are entirely peaceful. They might support violent groups, but again, as already said countless times, so does every Israeli.



That was an example, not the entirety of that category. Given the percentage of Palestinian suicide bombers compared to the percentage of Israeli suicide bombers, they have a concrete reason to see a Palestinian as a potential threat and not see an Israeli as one.

But since both percentages are infact staggeringly low, I find that hugely unfair. It is like treating all homosexuals as if they had AIDS, only because the percentage that does is higher.


Well I guess I have not been schooled in the thought of the ultimately selfish.

We like to call it realism, because, you know, it is.


It is not the case that humans are entirely selfish, that is one of the points where capitalists have confused themselves, despite heaps of evidence of the contrary. Homo sapiens sapiens is infact a herd animal, and whlie we may care alot about ourselves, it is also the case that we are capable to entirely altruistic actions, aswell as limiting the good of oneself for the greater good of others.
That is, infact, realism.
But ofcourse a large part of it is cultural, if raised in america in some families you probably will become almost entirely selfish, while if raised in a socialist working class family you probbaly will care more about the good of others. Which is preferrable? That's another discussion.

If we don't have a reason to believe this person has magically stopped agreeing with terrorist actions, why would we want to negotiate them?


The fact that they said so should account for something, it means little in practise, but it atleast shows some willingness to cooperate. A thing so often forgotten in recent years is the importance of actually creating diplomatic relations, the terms for start negotiating canoot be that you entirely get along with your partner, but that you are open to changing your mind.

Winston Churchill wrote:To jaw-jaw is always better than to war-war


Are you arguing that the Palestinians, and their assorted allies, care more about human rights, and if they were occupying Israel, the Jews would be better treated than the Palestinians would be?


I never liked most of the Palestinian allies, such as saudi Arabia. I am clearly not going to defend them. Would Palestinians do better? Well it depends on the situation, right now Palestine are better at following the Human rights. If they would have been better is actually irrelevant, I do not think any nation should oppress any other, and I think not Vietnam would have been nicer than america was it they bombing them, but that does not mean I think it was a nice war.
I think what Israel is doing now is alot worse than what the Palestinians are doing, and like any problem you should start with the most pressing issue, and that is infact not the half dozen palestinian suicide bombers, but the Israelis shooting and oppressing Palestinian civilians.

WRONG. The problem is that only one side has guns: be it the criminals having guns and the law-abiding citizens unarmed, or the Hutus having guns and the Tutsi being unarmed, or the Maronite Christians having guns and the Palestinians being unarmed, the inability of one side to defend itself is the first obstacle to peace and quality of life for the unarmed.


Conflicts are not caused by an inbalance of guns, and while they can be staved by it, they are not solved by an excess of guns. There are plenty of conflicts where both Parties are well armed, and the battle is still raging.

And, maybe if their families are starving, they'll actually do work. My point was that just because you are human does not mean you are automatically entitled to survival at the expense of others.


expense of others?
Do you mean your life, or your Flat screen TV?
I think infact that, you as a human being, have a right to life.
I mean it IS a human right, and if you cannot find any food because the market has been drained because ultimately of American farm substidies, well that's just tough luck? I don't think so, you blame the starving for what have been inflicted unto them, and it is hardly ... "nice"?
It is not, as you seem to think, that people who are starving are not "doing any work", that is just such... fucking christ man, you think they are sitting there going "man I am really hungry!"? Have you ever actually starved? Because you might want to get on that train, you could cut your food bills, AND loose weight!


Once again, I point out they were offered their own state when it was split up and Israel was made.


Is this actually an argument? That was sixty years ago (59, okey) How many of those are still actually alive?
Considering the Average life expentancy, only a small minority. I hardly think it's fair to judge a NATION with a "Well we gave you a chance 60 years ago!". Infact, it's fucking rediculous.
i'm not sure I agree; I feel that the majority of the Muslim world today is embroiled in violence, not so much because they were treated unfairly, but because they cause violence. If Israel had adopted such a policy, I do not think it would have prevented the conflict. I mean, they only had a day before Palestine declared war on them, so it's not like they had much time to draft up a "sunshine policy".


I am not saying they should have done so in the 60s or 70s, perhaps even in the 80s, but that today, from the 90s and onward, the Palestinians have hardly been a major threat, and a sunshine policy does not need to mean laxed security, it means dampened retribution and increased aid.

Also, while we're discussing it, I'd like to point out that the "sunshine policy" is pretty much a failure. North Korea has been no more belligerent, the blind eye South Korea is turning to its offensive actions in order to maintain "peace" is alienating its key ally (the US), and the recent nuclear test shows just how cooperative the North Korean government is.


Well it is worth pointing out that in this respect the two situations are extremly different. But you should know that South Korea after all want to rejoin with NK, and a good way of doing that is not waging war, or a "starve them to death" policy, as it is their relatives who are doing the starving. But again, digression, sufice to say they are very different, and I put the blame of NK failure largely on Bush, and a bit on Clinton, and partly on Japan, but only a small bit.


Amnesty International believes that the scope of the attacks makes the justification ring hollow; however, I see no evidence on their side that Hizbullah is *not* that widespread.


the Justification was to prevent Hezbollah, who, while effectively defended their land, proved very ineffective in harming Israel. The Justification that they wanted to return their soldiers, which was the official cause I believe, is ofcourse equally rediculous, as many more Israeli soldiers died, failing to rescue them.

If the principle of distinction is not followed by my enemy, how can I be expected to target military-only targets, because there are no military-only target?


But they mention that!

Military objectives are those that: "by their nature, location, purpose or use make an effective contribution to military action and whose total or partial destruction, capture or neutralization, in the circumstances ruling at the time, offers a definite military advantage." Civilian objects are "all objects which are not military objectives". Objects which are normally considered "civilian objects" may, under certain circumstances, become legitimate military objectives if they are "being used to make an effective contribution to military action". However, in case of doubt about such use, the object must be presumed to be civilian.


Those arguments aside, the general content of the article remain intact, and Israeli commited serious warcrimes in Lebanon.

Why is it impossible to be both? [opressor and opressed]


Both to some extent, but one more than the other, and I find it clear to be the Former. But they still have an extreme Victim mentality, generally any critic of Israel is 'brushed off' as anti semitism, and any critisism of innocent deaths is explained by "self defence", without any considerations of proportion.

as for comparisons between palestinian and Israeli leaders there are certainly many simularities

A Both are very fundamentalist in their religious beliefs. And by the by, Islam is arguable no worse or better than Judaism when they are so fundamentalist

B Both are willing to use questionable means to defend their interests, the Israelis for Israeli interst, the Palestinian for Palestinian interests. Israelis kill more, the palestinians don't bother with a justification.

C Both sides call the other side terrorists and "evil", while refusing to confess the immorality of their own actions, and the simularity between the two.

Then there are differences, but you will find few Western leaders with these characteristics, the closest you get is Bush, maybe Blair.



The military is not a police force. In the first one, you say the obligation is as a military force -- in the second, as a police force.


they need to maintain law, while normal laws cannot fully apply, if they are viewed not as law bringers but as occupiers, then it will not last. This is the Misstake made the US in Iraq.


Or where you thinking that the military occupiers should travel around on bikes, wander into people's homes, and ask them who rebels nearby are?


No need for bikes, BUT, humanising the whole thing probably would not hurt half as much as imagined, I think it is hard to overstate the value of actually being liked as opposed to being hated, this is why policing in the Bronx might be hard, but really easy in Suburbia. Why the US military have fairly few problems up in the North with the Kurds, who atleast for a pretty long while, liked them, unlike in sunni areas. But I digress, I think the responsiblity lies with those in power, that is the occupiers, and if they fail it's their fault, and if they succeed they are to be commended.

Scientifically, if people don't have guns, a knife and a club is enough to create genocide.


Common missconception, it's ALOT harder killing loads of people with swords than it is with Guns, partly because you can effectively run from people with swords.
Commiting genocide today is alot easier than it used to be, and it's because of technology. Good and bad.


Scientifically, experiments with communism have resulted in economic disaster, mass murder, and poor nations.


this is missleading, almost all communist states that have become communist have BEEN poor.
I agree that communism is largely not that great though.
It is worth pointing out, again, that Capitalism is a means, but a goal, money is nice, but creating money is actually not very fullfilling. This is why a socialist capitalist system is advantagous, might not be quite as productive, but since the goal of humanity is not to produce stuff, it is better! But bleh, digression!

How would you divide the state? What guarantees would you grant the subpopulations against anihilation by other subpopulations? Will you shoot, kill and or commit genocide on the Jews and Palistinians who disagree with your plan?


Displomatic agreements are working very well for the Western world at the moment. Why does not germany invade denmark? They most likely COULD! Possibly at a net gain. But they don't because nations would intervene, and it would not be nice.
Same thing could very well work down there. There needs not be a military balance(between their two military or economic power), but just a decent diplomatic one.


Educating and modernizing an entire people is an insanely hard task. Wishing it to happen won't make it so.


Compared to democratising Iraq? It's easy as hell, and the latter usually comes along once the former is completed. Ofcourse you can't just wish for it, but education is really not HARD, it does take money, and some other minor things, but we know how to do that pretty well. It takes some time, but anyhow, digression


That is assuming one actually believes in one's morality. Many people don't.


Really? I personally think almost everyone think they are, while not acting moral at the monent, still a moral being, and certainly more moral than "Those guys", who can be anyone from westerns, to Muslims, to Buddhists or Liberals.
So the man with food who does not feed the starving is evil, while the man with no food who cannot feed the starving isn't
?
Depending on wether that "food" is the food he needs to eat, or a food surplus, yes, if you have food which you do not give to the starving you are pretty immoral in my book. Ofcourse if you have no food, then you cannot do anything. The greater your ability the greater your responsibility, the two have always been correlated to me, this is why I don't expect the poorest of the poor to do as much to fight AIDS as the wealthy. Because they CANT.


Every Arab nation needs to recognize Israel's right to exist. Full stop. Without that, this conflict is literally interminable, and there's absolutely no common ground from which to work.


How is this hugely relevant in the Israel - Palestine conflict?
I think more important would be to Israel to accept the democratically elected goverment of Palestine, agree to talk to them. If we are to discuss Egypts conflicts with israel then reognision of their right to exist would be important, yes.

Possession of land only comes through violence, and will depart as soon as you refuse to continue using violence to uphold it.


Money has also been a means to aquire land.
The second part of that was true untull about ... well estimatedly 1950? It really depends on where you are, Iceland have no army, why is there no one nvading them?


Fact: Israel accepted the 1947 UN partition plan which would have founded a Palestinian state. (cite)


that's so sweet of them, why not try that again?
The conditions now and then are entirely different, and now an Israeli state is unavoidable, which was not the case back then.


The Golan Heights, taken from Syria in 1967, is a strategic location from where most of northern Israel can be bombarded. Pre 1967, the width of Israel between the sea and the West Bank shrunk in places to 17 km. Those 17 km are very vulnerable to a military attacking from the West Bank, and an Arab force could cut Israel in half easily. The fact that Israel is, in fact, a very small country surrounded by several enemies is somehow ignored when it comes to discussions about borders and peace treaties. The land that Israel took in their wars provides them with a much better defensive situation. After a war, that seems like a justifiable reason to take land.


First of all, with modern rocketerey, or even something as cool as railguns, range issues are no longer relevant. I theorise I could build a gun up here in sweden that could target australia without difficulty.
But even if that were the case, it does not hold water as Israel usually is quick to fill up these occupied territories with new settlers. But wait, if you setlte people on the border, does that not mean they can again be targeted by foreign bombardment? Yes it does, so maybe you have to seize further land?
I think they were land grabs for land grabs sake, the opportunity arrose, and "seize!"



Edit: Fascinating observation: If the PLO had never happened, there would be peace in Israel today. Jordan and Egypt have both signed treaties with Israel, while Syria is in a de facto state of peace though formally still at war.


I think this is highly questionable, the PLO, after all, did not just "happen", that is like saying "if Hitler had no seized power WWII had not happened", well maybe not, but maybe some other war had occured instead with different outcome.


Ok now imagine the second child succeeds in taking the ball from the first one. Does it now legitimately belong to him?


Yes, vaniver thinks it does, because in the stone ages, that is how it would have worked. Or in the past, when justice was rarely enforced. and Since what is juste is what IS, it is juste.
And no I don't follow his logic either.

So... there aren't any people of British de?scent in India


there are, but they are not in charge, or have their own state, which violently oppresses them. There were Jews living in what is now Israel, but nobody minded too much. It's the whole "we want a state here, and you can't live there, and it should be formed after our religion" that was the big problem.

edit-I should add: The Israelis are the first child, here. The UN decided to give them the land; they didn't decide to walk up to someone else and beat it out of them. They did decide to walk up to someone else and pay them for it, but when fair transactions become a crime in your eyes, you have your own problems to work through


And the problem was that it was a wrong decision by the UN, the 'second' kid had been playing wiht that ball for ages.

"Upon this, one has to remark that men ought either to be well treated or crushed, because they can avenge themselves of lighter injuries, of more serious ones they cannot; therefore the injury that is to be done to a man ought to be of such a kind that one does not stand in fear of revenge." -Machiavelli


Oh you want to bring i fucking machiavelli? Are you INSANE?!
For him there was no such thing as genocide, anything is acceptable in order to maintain the lordship.
I am simply not going to quite stupid machiavelli quotes, but suffice to say he is a medieval man, and he should remain in the middle ages.
Instead I shall quote someone, I don't actually remember who said it but

Inflict unto your enemy not any injury you can, for he may later be your friend

That is equally true, and much more humanistic. You know, no killing of loads of people.


If Hamas gets a bomb, do you think they will follow mutually assured destruction, or do you think they were destroy the infidels that they have sworn to destroy?


Maybe they will go the Israeli ruote and deny that they have them, imprison Israeli citizens on foreign soil who claimed or something?
I think they talk alot more than they actually act, I do not think they are half as insane as Israel wants to portray them. But then, i'd rather have them both Nuke less.



there are millions of muslims living OUTSIDE israel. i dont see why the palestinians HAVE to live in israel.


"Have to"? No
They do have a right to though, and they obviously want to. Also catogarising them only as Muslims is pretty insulting.

if israel had stronger left wing parties, and more resources (alot of them are wasted for military needs), i dont see a reason why the palestinians wouldnt be able to just live in israel together with the jews.


Well it depends on what you mean by "left wing", but certainly some more Left, secular parties would do ALOT of good, and I agree that there is such a possibility, yet just as the Palestinians would not want to be a minority nor would the Jews want to be so. They would need to device a good devided yet united goverment. Still, that is somewhat distant from the current problems. I like the way you are thinking though

I see no reason to believe that arming Hamas, an organization dedicated to destroying Israel, with nukes would lead to fair negotiations. Unless you mean "nuclear bombs destroying every Israeli city" by fair negotiations.


The Hamas goverment have proved to be no mor violent than the previous, and less violent than the Israeli goverment, why they, despite of their claims, would be so eager to start a nuclear war is beyond me.

Do we expect life to be fair?

I puke everyime I hear this argument. No, life is not ultimately fair, I do WANT it to be though. Do people die from cancer? Yes, does that mean we should say "well people are always going to die form decease! SCREW IT!"?

We certainly desire our leaders to be fair, and I find it hard to see too much unfairness in the actions of the British, keeping in mind their debt (perceived or real) to the Jews.


Two wrongs don't make a right, the fact that they were feeling guilty did not make the Formingof Israel all that great, if the rape victim wants ot shoot the rapists mother I don't think we should be eding em on.

A new thing I want to bring up.
Israel accept in loads of imigrants into it's nation, settlers. yet they require them to be Jewish.
Is Israel a Racist state? I can think of few states where any one ethnicity, or religious background is allowed, while others, while allowed, not in nearl y the same fashion.


israel is truly a safe haven for jews in comparison to other countries.


Was. I doubt that Israel is significantly less anti semite then, oh Norway, or Portugal. The only reason I know semi reasonable people dislike Jews in this day and age is because of the attrocities of Israel, so the overall effect is pretty negative.
Do you want to live there? That's fine
Is it because you would be burned at the stake in all other nations?
No, that's rediculous
And even atheists can be murderers, as seen in USSR and China.


That was because of their totalitarian goverments, not because their "atheist dogma", while the problems in the middle east often are based on differences in religion, and enhanced by these. Muslims quote violent parts of the Qu'ran, Jews violent parts of the Torah.


about 50% of the israelies didnt vote, and the palestinians dont even have a non-militant option to vote to.
the leaders clearly dont represent the people. thats the problem.


I think this is a very good point, the Palestinans largely could chose between Hamas, and PLO, the latter being increidbly corrupt, and generally beig unfair against political opponents in various ways. Pleage or Colera.


Grug, this post was really long... I guess I'll read it through later on and check for misstakes etc...
But i DID just write 12 pages 888
Last edited by fjafjan on Thu Apr 12, 2007 2:05 am UTC, edited 1 time in total.
//Yepp, THE fjafjan (who's THE fjafjan?)
Liza wrote:Fjafjan, your hair is so lovely that I want to go to Sweden, collect the bit you cut off in your latest haircut and keep it in my room, and smell it. And eventually use it to complete my shrine dedicated to you.

User avatar
3.14159265...
Irrational (?)
Posts: 2413
Joined: Thu Jan 18, 2007 12:05 am UTC
Location: Ajax, Canada

Postby 3.14159265... » Thu Apr 12, 2007 1:48 am UTC

THE fjafjan wrote:fucking christ man, you think they are sitting there going "man I am really hungry!"?


LMFAO

Your other quote about not harming your enemy as much as you can because he may later be your friend is by a persian poet, Saadi.


Also, well done, some of the stuff I have been hearing lately IS ridicuous. this is with real life people. like:

Do you EXPECT Israel to be fair? or
Well Hammas is a terrorist organization and Israel is a beacon of democracy. or
When terrorist [hizbullah] hide behind civilians, shouldn't we be dropping cluster bombs?


Then look at me as if I am stupid, and can't respond to those.... sometimes I just shrug because there are sooooooooooooo many of them and are willing to give up sooooooooooo much time defending those points......


anyone else ever feel that way?
"The best times in life are the ones when you can genuinely add a "Bwa" to your "ha""- Chris Hastings

User avatar
space_raptor
Posts: 1497
Joined: Fri Nov 17, 2006 5:02 pm UTC
Location: Calgary
Contact:

Postby space_raptor » Thu Apr 12, 2007 2:35 pm UTC

Yes, Pi, sometimes I do feel that way. :wink:

Fjafjan, that post was too long. Have some self-control, will ya? Please keep in mind that nobody here has killed any Palestinians, and there's no point in getting mad at us.

Not that there aren't some good points, but you're also talking about stuff like North Korea, which of course is Bush's fault. I think some other stuff is Bush's fault too. Must be nice for everything to be so simple.

I think Vietnam was in there, and something about Hamas being nice people who want to negotiate(!) for peace and live happily with the Jews. And that the other Arab countries don't matter to this conflict. Also there were railguns.

Basically, all I get from that whole post is that you think Israel is evil and Palestinians are good, and you won't stand for any opinion in between, no matter what the facts are. If that's what you were going for, you made your point.
The drinking will continue until morale improves.

User avatar
fjafjan
THE fjafjan
Posts: 4766
Joined: Fri Oct 06, 2006 12:22 pm UTC
Location: Down south up north in the west of eastern west.
Contact:

Postby fjafjan » Thu Apr 12, 2007 2:45 pm UTC

that is not at ALL my point, and i have tried to make clear that it is infact not the case. The palestinian people have very limited means, thus the part they can do to contribute to peace is very small.
My point is not that "Oh me yarm israel is evil", my point is that "israel are the worse of the two, and that is where we need to start working on this issue", I think Palestine would need to get a better goverment, loads of things. But that the reason they cannot do this is because of Israel, they are the main problem, and we should not focus on the Palestinian suicide bombers when the Israeli goverment and oppresive policy is infact the problem.

THAT is my point. It might come across as more anti Israel, since there are a number of zionists here, which ofcourse scews the arguments I need to bring forth.


Not that there aren't some good points, but you're also talking about stuff like North Korea, which of course is Bush's fault. I think some other stuff is Bush's fault too. Must be nice for everything to be so simple.


Not at all, but I have looked at that situation, and I thought "who needs to do something to solve this?"
The awnser was Bush needs to do a number of things, and he is not, thus I blame him.

And that the other Arab countries don't matter to this conflict. Also there were railguns.


The railgun was to illustrate that target range is increasingly becoming uninteresting, and that it was a false claim by Israel to grab the land. The other countries relation to Israel is largely irrelevant to Israel Palestine conflict, they do not play a huge part, they are important to Israeli foreign policy, but the fact that Lebanon does not like Israel does not matter in negotiating with Palestinians.


I think Vietnam was in there, and something about Hamas being nice people who want to negotiate(!) for peace and live happily with the Jews

JERUSALEM (Reuters) - Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert will meet on Sunday with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas under a U.S.-brokered deal but Israel made clear the focus would not be on steps toward a Palestinian state as Abbas hoped.

Who is being the bitch? Olmert, yes.
//Yepp, THE fjafjan (who's THE fjafjan?)
Liza wrote:Fjafjan, your hair is so lovely that I want to go to Sweden, collect the bit you cut off in your latest haircut and keep it in my room, and smell it. And eventually use it to complete my shrine dedicated to you.

User avatar
space_raptor
Posts: 1497
Joined: Fri Nov 17, 2006 5:02 pm UTC
Location: Calgary
Contact:

Postby space_raptor » Thu Apr 12, 2007 3:34 pm UTC

Mahmoud Abbas is not in Hamas. He is in Fatah.

"We will never recognize the usurper Zionist government and will continue our jihad-like movement until the liberation of Jerusalem" - Ismail Haniyeh, Prime Minister of the Palestinian National Authority, political leader of Hamas

You keep saying that Hamas wants to negotiate. Their stated position is that they refuse to recognize Israel as a country. Do you see the problem here?


Israel is around 70 km across in the northern part, from the ocean to the edge of the Golan heights. In a war, that is not very far at all. The wars in the area are not about firing missiles that can only kill a few people, they are about pushing the Israelis into the sea. How you can completely ignore five or six wars in 50 years is totally beyond me. The Arabs do not want the Palestinians to have peace. They support terrorism against Israel. This has an effect on the peace process, like it or not.
The drinking will continue until morale improves.

User avatar
Yakk
Poster with most posts but no title.
Posts: 11129
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2007 7:27 pm UTC
Location: E pur si muove

Postby Yakk » Thu Apr 12, 2007 6:55 pm UTC

fjafjan wrote:that is not at ALL my point, and i have tried to make clear that it is infact not the case. The palestinian people have very limited means, thus the part they can do to contribute to peace is very small.


They could stop blowing up Israelis. They could not elect leaders who profess "Israel should be destroyed".

These are simple steps.

My point is not that "Oh me yarm israel is evil", my point is that "israel are the worse of the two, and that is where we need to start working on this issue"


I think Palestine would need to get a better goverment, loads of things. But that the reason they cannot do this is because of Israel, they are the main problem, and we should not focus on the Palestinian suicide bombers when the Israeli goverment and oppresive policy is infact the problem.


Is it wrong to oppress a people who are attempting to destroy you?

Palestine lost a war against Israel, a war of annihilation.

THAT is my point. It might come across as more anti Israel, since there are a number of zionists here, which ofcourse scews the arguments I need to bring forth.


I never promoted the mass movement of Jews to Israel. I can't see a single person in this thread who claimed to have promoted and encouraged such a mass movement. Where is the Zionist?

Not at all, but I have looked at that situation, and I thought "who needs to do something to solve this?"


It comes across as "who can I persuade to do something to solve this".

Ie: Israel seems more reasonable than Palistine. So, put pressure on Israel, because it will respond to the pressure.

That is a great formula to end up with everyone pretending to be, or being, unreasonable.

The other countries relation to Israel is largely irrelevant to Israel Palestine conflict, they do not play a huge part, they are important to Israeli foreign policy, but the fact that Lebanon does not like Israel does not matter in negotiating with Palestinians.


When Lebannon's wars with Israel are about annihilating Israel and replacing it with a Palestinian state, then the relations of Lebannon with Israel matter to the relation of Israel with Palestine.

When Arab states funnel money and support into anti-Israeli Palestinian resistence movements, their actions matter to Israeli-Palestinian relations.

I think Vietnam was in there, and something about Hamas being nice people who want to negotiate(!) for peace and live happily with the Jews

JERUSALEM (Reuters) - Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert will meet on Sunday with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas under a U.S.-brokered deal but Israel made clear the focus would not be on steps toward a Palestinian state as Abbas hoped.

Who is being the bitch? Olmert, yes.


You don't grant a conquored enemy who still professes to want to destroy you the right to arm themselves and attack you.

Israel has the right to defend itself. So does Palestine.

If Palestine chooses to attack Israel to defend itself, then it should expect to be attacked in return. It deserves the attacks.

If Israel chooses to attack Palestine in order to defend itself, then it should expect to be attacked in return. It deserves the attacks.

In essence, they deserve each other.

When a nation or people rejects a freely given solution that avoids war, and chooses intead to attempt to annihilate the other state, it must realize that the original proposal does not have to remain on the table, and that retalliation is justified.

So long as Palistine, Lebanon, Syria, Iran and Iraq remain in a state of war with Israel, Israel is justified in attacking them militiarially whenever it is convienient.

This is the price of war. If you don't want war, you accept peace. If you refuse to accept peace, you deserve war.

In essence, actions have consequences.

Hamas states "we want to destroy Israel". They refuse to denounce this. As such, when the Palesinian people chose to elect Hamas, they voted for war against Israel. Nobody held a gun to their head and forced them to elect Hamas. They did it because they did not want peace.

Currently, the nearby Arab states are demanding that Israel pull back to harder-to-defend borders, and accept millions of the children of refugees from a war that they started as citizens -- children that where kept poor, denied citizenship, and taught to hate Israel explicitly as a weapon against Israel -- all in exchange for an empty promise of peace.

The Arab leaders could have peace tommorrow:

"We accept that we, collectively, expelled as many Jews as Arabs who fled from Israel. The resources claimed from the expelled Jews, or equivilent value, will be used to provide for the children of expelled Arabs. The children of refugees will be accepted as citizens of the state in which they where born.

We accept the current lines of occupation.

The Lebanese strip, Golan Heights, Gaza Strip and West Bank will remain under Israeli occupation. A 20-year-long withdrawl plan, followed by a 20-year-long demilitarization, contingent on continued peace and the cease of suicide bomb and other lethal attacks upon Israeli citizens, will be put into effect. Every attack in or near each region upon Israeli citizens can be used by Israel to delay the withdrawl plan by 1 year per fatality, with the end of the withdrawl never to exceed 20 years. Similar rules during the demilitarization will continue. Following withdrawl, Gaza Strip and the West Bank will be independant states. Golan heights will rejoin Syria. And the Lebanon strip will rejoin Lebanon.

Exceptions to the above are as follows: (some territorial concessions)."


Do you not think that would sell to Israel?

Why place the burden of concession on Israel, and not the Arab states?

User avatar
3.14159265...
Irrational (?)
Posts: 2413
Joined: Thu Jan 18, 2007 12:05 am UTC
Location: Ajax, Canada

Postby 3.14159265... » Thu Apr 12, 2007 7:31 pm UTC

Would the Israelies agree to a joint state, NOT named Israel, but rather something that is in refrence to both peoples and neither one comes first.
Change the national anthem to something non-jewish
Change everything about its laws that make it racist

No they would NOT!

Would the Israelies agree to give up east jerusalem to the arabs, and keep west jerusalem. Then have two countries with proportionate land to population? Also if there are any terrorist attacks, treat them as if there were terrorist raids by Israelies (WHICH DO HAPPEN, I cited this before and we agreed on this) into palestine, just ask the governments to help each other root out terrorist, like the LIVING son of Kahane, or current people who are funding suicide bombings? NO THEY WOULD NOT

Israel isn't happy with the land it has NOW, they want even more. The Israeli dream is not peace, its a jewish state, in Israel, with all the jews living in it, they will need to take up even more land for this to happen.

On another note, I wondered what the Israeli anthem is like to see how "secular" Israel. I was actually surprised, I was expecting some refrence to the jewish thing.
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/hatikva.html
"The best times in life are the ones when you can genuinely add a "Bwa" to your "ha""- Chris Hastings

User avatar
fjafjan
THE fjafjan
Posts: 4766
Joined: Fri Oct 06, 2006 12:22 pm UTC
Location: Down south up north in the west of eastern west.
Contact:

Postby fjafjan » Fri Apr 13, 2007 12:31 am UTC

fjafjan wrote:that is not at ALL my point, and i have tried to make clear that it is infact not the case. The palestinian people have very limited means, thus the part they can do to contribute to peace is very small.


They could stop blowing up Israelis. They could not elect leaders who profess "Israel should be destroyed".

These are simple steps.

The first they have pretty much done already, against all odds. The fact is you are confusing individual groups with a people, it's like saying "the americans believe the bible to be literal truth and want the apocalypse to come!", when only small crazy fucking groups do this.
Thing is your expectations of Palestine are unreasonable under the cirkumstances, how can you expect a people to be oppressed for 60 years, after that their land was stolen from them, and yes, it was, the fact that the Israelis payed another goverment who had conquered them before, and that the UN because of guilt accepted the Israeli state does not matter, it certainly does not matter from their point of view, which in what you can expect from them is what is important. There were in the Palestinian election essentially two parties, and they were both shit, what do you expect them to do? They were infact trying to archieve peace, and since the previous goverment had failed misserably, they elected "the other party", which was bad. Was it incredibly predictable considering the cirkumstances? Yes.
This is comparable to blaming the Iraqi people for "failing their democracy", they cannot be blamed, they know nothing of democracy, their goverment was torn down, and Palestine had none, and what work they tried to do was constantly underminded by the Israeli goverment, in Iraq that is various insurgents. It is rediculous to blame the oppressed for not being docile after years of oppression. Israelis however, have not for the past twnety or so years, had any real threat to their nation, they have a functioning democracy, and already have the Palestinians under their heel. The fact that they refuse to accept their goverment, that they refuse to discuss the potential Palestinian state, these are unreasonable demands.


My point is not that "Oh me yarm israel is evil", my point is that "israel are the worse of the two, and that is where we need to start working on this issue"


I think Palestine would need to get a better goverment, loads of things. But that the reason they cannot do this is because of Israel, they are the main problem, and we should not focus on the Palestinian suicide bombers when the Israeli goverment and oppresive policy is infact the problem.


Is it wrong to oppress a people who are attempting to destroy you?

Palestine lost a war against Israel, a war of annihilation.

60 years ago!
THAT IS A FUCKING LONG TIME AGO!
That does not give them the right to do whatever they want for as long as they want, it does, infact not. They are not a threat, they have a responsibility to establish a proper goverment, to establish peace, which ofcourse they have failed misserably.
The point is that the Israelis showed up and formed a state, and says to the people living there "get the fuck out of here", the fact that they bought it, is in this case, since the goverments they bought it from were dictatorships, irrelevant. That those civilians opposed this undesired forced reolocation is entirely ethical, Israel had at this point no right to exist. The Palestinian citizens rightfully objected, were defeated, and this is your reason for them TODAY; SIXTY, repeat that, SIXTY YEARS LATER still oppressing them. Maybe france should still be in germany going "haha bitches, you lost!". That would be great!

Where is the Zionist?

The Israeli who was here earlier was obviously a zionist, believing that the Jews had some sort of native, superior claim to the land. In a true zionist spirit.
It comes across as "who can I persuade to do something to solve this".

Ie: Israel seems more reasonable than Palistine. So, put pressure on Israel, because it will respond to the pressure.

That is a great formula to end up with everyone pretending to be, or being, unreasonable.


So you are saying we should instead of demanding the democracy of stop being an ass, we should tell it to the dictators, who are infact profiting from the current situation?
You are suggesting that in any conflict, we should not reason with the side which can be reasoned with, but the one which cannot?
What kind of logic is that?
My point is that Israel, as a democracy, are expected to do better than a dictatorship. I would not be surprised if north Korea tortured prisoners, I already after all oppose the North Korea goverment, just as I do all dictatorships. But when a democracy does it, it is alot more serious.
If Israel is allowed to do whatever, and we expect not the democracy to be of higher moral quality, but instead demand that the dictatorships to be our moral example, that if anything will make it harder for people promoting democracy and western values in these countries to say "look how good they are!".
But ultimately it falls short of diplomatic premise, you cannot in a compromise turn to the most hard boiled, least compromise willing and say "okey, you have to act first, we'll act later". This is why America diplomacy policy has failed in North Korea, and unless Israel, the only party other than Palestine (talking about goverments here, all people in the region profit, but that means the dictatorships are weakened) has alot to profit from a lasting peace, accepts to negotiate with Palestinian goverments, and actually tries to promote more secular and peace wanting forces in Palestine, instead of calling them terrorists and not listening.


When Lebannon's wars with Israel are about annihilating Israel and replacing it with a Palestinian state, then the relations of Lebannon with Israel matter to the relation of Israel with Palestine.

When Arab states funnel money and support into anti-Israeli Palestinian resistence movements, their actions matter to Israeli-Palestinian relations.


It matters, but most nearby states have little to gain from a peace with Israel, the exception would be the Lebanesse goverment, assuming the terms are fair, it is possible that the democracy there would collapse if they signed a humiliating treaty like that you suggested.
For the other states it would mean they could no longer point the finger at the Israel conflict to make the people stop thinking about the fact that they are ruled by a dictator. Even more important then, for Israel to actually establish peace, but in negotiating peace with Palestine they should probably not be present.



You don't grant a conquored enemy who still professes to want to destroy you the right to arm themselves and attack you.


So the Palestinian people, who overwhelmingly want peace, are an army?


Israel has the right to defend itself. So does Palestine.

And neither, if they want peace, should infact use that right, because then 'they' will 'defend' themselves, and you will have to 'defend' yourself again. and again.
If Palestine chooses to attack Israel to defend itself, then it should expect to be attacked in return. It deserves the attacks.


If Israel chooses to attack Palestine in order to defend itself, then it should expect to be attacked in return. It deserves the attacks.


Again, you are neglecting the fact that since there is no proper Palestinian state, while it exists, it is, largely due to Israel, fairly powerless, and thus unable to stop all attacks. You are confusing the Palestinian PEOPLE, with palestinian GROUPS, attacking civilians in retaliation of civilians being killed is not 'okey'.


When a nation or people rejects a freely given solution that avoids war, and chooses intead to attempt to annihilate the other state, it must realize that the original proposal does not have to remain on the table, and that retalliation is justified.


Let's repeat

1 60 years ago
2 Unjustified state
3 60 years ago.

So long as Palistine, Lebanon, Syria, Iran and Iraq remain in a state of war with Israel, Israel is justified in attacking them militiarially whenever it is convienient.


And it makes peace impossible, thus, Israel is to blame.
This is the price of war. If you don't want war, you accept peace.


that's hard when the peace 'offered' is "we won't talk to you, and you have no state". That is probably the worst ever 'treaty' offered in modern times, by any even remoutly demcratic country.

In essence, actions have consequences.


The fact that the Israelis have been opressing the Palestinians for 60 years is why there are still terrorist groups there, because their democracy has been undermined and largely failed, they elected Hamas.
If Israel decides to create peace, they could. If they don't, if they decide that they will not negotiate with "terrorists", ie all palestinians, if they continue to kill hundreds of innocent palestinians, peace will not magicaly appear. The arab states will not say, "hey, we want to lose this terrible oppressoin we are using to maintain our own oppression", the palestinians will not magically be able to govern, there will be no way for a Pro Israel party to get elected, and there will be no peace. I mean, there MIGHT, but it's very unreasonable, and very unlikely.

Nobody held a gun to their head and forced them to elect Hamas


Essentially, Israel did.

They did it because they did not want peace.


And yet I have shown that they do, maybe they wanted something different than what you think? Palestinians want peace, but I think it very reasonable that they don't know how to get it. And even if they did, Israel would need to be willing to talk to them, to stop killing them, to stop oppressing them before any peace could arrise.

and accept millions of the children of refugees from a war that they started as citizens -- children that where kept poor, denied citizenship, and taught to hate Israel explicitly as a weapon against Israel -- all in exchange for an empty promise of peace.

The Arab leaders could have peace tommorrow:


The Arab leaders, THEY, don't want Peace. and THIS is why going to THEM, is crazy.


We accept the current lines of occupation.

contingent on continued peace and the cease of suicide bomb and other lethal attacks upon Israeli citizens, will be put into effect
.

Interesting that you include this, but nothing to protect arab, and palestinian citizens from being indescriminately killed by the Israelis, which they are being at a much higher rate.
Every attack in or near each region upon Israeli citizens can be used by Israel to delay the withdrawl plan by 1 year per fatality

This has got to be one of the worst suggestions EVER. So if a non goverment group managed to kill, an astounding20 Israelis, they would set it back 20 years? Wow, you could teach the French humiliating treaties that are bound to cause future wars.
and they KNOW. actually they learned their lesson, but revenge is so sweet!


Exceptions to the above are as follows: (some territorial concessions)."[/i]

Do you not think that would sell to Israel?

Well maybe, but it's hard when you won't talk.
Why place the burden of concession on Israel, and not the Arab states?


Because they are the democracy, because they are the ultimate cause of the issue and because the arab states have no serious incentive to desire a solved Israel - Palestine conflict. Are they good? Hell no, but I don't expect the "bad guys" to solve the situation either.



"We will never recognize the usurper Zionist government and will continue our jihad-like movement until the liberation of Jerusalem" - Ismail Haniyeh, Prime Minister of the Palestinian National Authority, political leader of Hamas

Hamas used to be a violent terroris organisation, however I do believe they promised to become a non violent organisation as they entered the political 'race'. I have however no doubt that there are plenty of terrible quotes

You keep saying that Hamas wants to negotiate. Their stated position is that they refuse to recognize Israel as a country. Do you see the problem here?

I do, however Hamas also want to win the next election, and if they manage to establish peace, they might, and if they don't, they probably won't. This is why negotiating with a democracy is advantagous.

How you can completely ignore five or six wars in 50 years is totally beyond me. The Arabs do not want the Palestinians to have peace. They support terrorism against Israel. This has an effect on the peace process, like it or not.


It has an effect, but that effect cannot be changed, or rather, alot harder than other solutions.
And First of all most of these wars have been in the latter half of those fifty years, and none of them have been against Palestine.
If we were to discuss the security policy in the greater region things get more complicated.[/b]
//Yepp, THE fjafjan (who's THE fjafjan?)
Liza wrote:Fjafjan, your hair is so lovely that I want to go to Sweden, collect the bit you cut off in your latest haircut and keep it in my room, and smell it. And eventually use it to complete my shrine dedicated to you.

User avatar
Yakk
Poster with most posts but no title.
Posts: 11129
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2007 7:27 pm UTC
Location: E pur si muove

Postby Yakk » Fri Apr 13, 2007 2:20 am UTC

fjafjan wrote:
fjafjan wrote:that is not at ALL my point, and i have tried to make clear that it is infact not the case. The palestinian people have very limited means, thus the part they can do to contribute to peace is very small.


They could stop blowing up Israelis. They could not elect leaders who profess "Israel should be destroyed".

These are simple steps.

The first they have pretty much done already, against all odds. The fact is you are confusing individual groups with a people, it's like saying "the americans believe the bible to be literal truth and want the apocalypse to come!", when only small crazy fucking groups do this.


If those crazy minority of Americans smuggled explosives into Canada, formed the majority government in America, and the government of America demanded that the captured Americans where freed...

Hamas is an organization that dedicates it's existence to the destruction of Israel. Hamas was elected by the Palistinian people. Hamans refuses to renounce the destruction of Israel.

Thing is your expectations of Palestine are unreasonable under the cirkumstances, how can you expect a people to be oppressed for 60 years, after that their land was stolen from them, and yes, it was, the fact that the Israelis payed another goverment who had conquered them before,


If it is your position that Israel should not exist, then clearly Israel is in the wrong.

it certainly does not matter from their point of view, which in what you can expect from them is what is important. There were in the Palestinian election essentially two parties, and they were both shit, what do you expect them to do?


Form a party that isn't shit?

They were infact trying to archieve peace, and since the previous goverment had failed misserably, they elected "the other party", which was bad.


Then they are responsible for the positions of the party they elected.

Was it incredibly predictable considering the cirkumstances? Yes.


Understanding and predictability doesn't mean you aren't responsible for your actions.

This is comparable to blaming the Iraqi people for "failing their democracy", they cannot be blamed, they know nothing of democracy, their goverment was torn down, and Palestine had none, and what work they tried to do was constantly underminded by the Israeli goverment, in Iraq that is various insurgents.


Yes, the Iraqi people failed at their democracy. So did the Palistinians.

This means that they are at fault: they have the freedom. On the other hand, this does not mean that America isn't at fault for destroying the pre-existing state on false pretenses.

It is rediculous to blame the oppressed for not being docile after years of oppression.


And it is rediculous to blame Israel for not trusting any of the neighbouring states after years of siege.

Israelis however, have not for the past twnety or so years, had any real threat to their nation, they have a functioning democracy, and already have the Palestinians under their heel.


You mean other than Iraq shooting missiles at them? Demouncations of their existence of the state by Iran? Iran funding a state-within-a-state in Lebanon (Hezboula) to attack it?

Being strong doesn't mean you aren't allowed to respond to provocation.

The fact that they refuse to accept their goverment, that they refuse to discuss the potential Palestinian state, these are unreasonable demands.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oslo_Accords

Clearly an example of refusing to discuss the potential of a Palestinian state.

My point is not that "Oh me yarm israel is evil", my point is that "israel are the worse of the two, and that is where we need to start working on this issue"


One of the two sides contains governments whose stated purpose it is to utterly destroy the other and drive all of it's citizens into the sea.

That is the worst side.

I don't hold up weakness or incompetence as a virtue -- being weak or incompetent doesn't excuse wanting to be destructive.

I think Palestine would need to get a better goverment, loads of things. But that the reason they cannot do this is because of Israel, they are the main problem, and we should not focus on the Palestinian suicide bombers when the Israeli goverment and oppresive policy is infact the problem.


Based off of that, if Israel pulled out of the West Bank, the Palestinians should end up forming an effective, peaceful government?

Is it wrong to oppress a people who are attempting to destroy you?

Palestine lost a war against Israel, a war of annihilation.

60 years ago!
THAT IS A FUCKING LONG TIME AGO!
That does not give them the right to do whatever they want for as long as they want, it does, infact not. They are not a threat, they have a responsibility to establish a proper goverment, to establish peace, which ofcourse they have failed misserably.


If you lose a war, it is your responsibility to surrender.

If you fail to surrender, and the other side remains in a state of war with you, the state of war is not the fault of the victor. It is the fault of the loser.

The point is that the Israelis showed up and formed a state, and says to the people living there "get the fuck out of here",


The mass exodus happend because Israel was attacked by the Arab league.

And basically the same number of people fled Arab lands (because they where threatened and oppressed within those lands) for Israel.

the fact that they bought it, is in this case, since the goverments they bought it from were dictatorships, irrelevant.


Congradulations. You just made all land title in the world irrelevant. :)

If you track land titles back far enough, it ends up being owned by a dictatorship, or stolen.

That those civilians opposed this undesired forced reolocation is entirely ethical, Israel had at this point no right to exist.


Please generate some nice, concise data on the mass forced relocation that happened prior to the founding of Israel.

The Palestinian citizens rightfully objected, were defeated, and this is your reason for them TODAY; SIXTY, repeat that, SIXTY YEARS LATER still oppressing them. Maybe france should still be in germany going "haha bitches, you lost!". That would be great!


If Germany was run by a state that was dedicated to the destruction of France, had allies 10 to 50 times larger than France that had repeatedly engaged in war against France over the interviening years, and had never accepted France's existence -- god damn, yes, France would still be unwilling to trust Germany.

So you are saying we should instead of demanding the democracy of stop being an ass, we should tell it to the dictators, who are infact profiting from the current situation?

You are suggesting that in any conflict, we should not reason with the side which can be reasoned with, but the one which cannot?
What kind of logic is that?


One should hold dictatorships to the same standard as democracies. If they fail in that standard in their relationships with the democracy, the democracy has no responsibility to behave well towards the dictatorship.

My point is that Israel, as a democracy, are expected to do better than a dictatorship.


I expect democracies to behave better -- but I demand no better behaviour from a democracy than a dictatorship.

This means I hold dictatorships to be nearly universally much more evil than democracies, and hold the dictatorship responsible for the suffering caused by their internal and external behaviour.

If you hold democracies to a higher standard, you end up with the morally bankrupt "democracy is evil, but the dictatorship that behaves worse isn't".

I would not be surprised if north Korea tortured prisoners, I already after all oppose the North Korea goverment, just as I do all dictatorships. But when a democracy does it, it is alot more serious.


It is no more serious.

See, the difference is, I economically support the USA by buying products exported from it. I buy some of it's products, I support my nation trading with the USA, etc.

Meanwhile, I do not economically support North Korea. I don't buy North Korean products, I don't support my nation trading with North Korea, etc.

The same holds with China: I support China less than the USA, because the state of China is more evil than the USA.

I would support the USA more if it was less evil: ie, if it had a trustworthy foriegn policy, I might even support my government sending troops to Iraq.

No double standard.

But ultimately it falls short of diplomatic premise, you cannot in a compromise turn to the most hard boiled, least compromise willing and say "okey, you have to act first, we'll act later". This is why America diplomacy policy has failed in North Korea,


North Korea hasn't blasted South Korea yet. Practically, America should have played a holding game in an attempt to wait for the leader to die of old age: either that, or be willing to accept that N.K. could flatten S.K.'s capital.

N.K. is a basic example of blackmail. You can either pay the blackmail, or you can pay the price.

and unless Israel, the only party other than Palestine (talking about goverments here, all people in the region profit, but that means the dictatorships are weakened) has alot to profit from a lasting peace, accepts to negotiate with Palestinian goverments, and actually tries to promote more secular and peace wanting forces in Palestine, instead of calling them terrorists and not listening.


Hamas is a terrorist organization. Quite blatantly.

Is there anything Palestine could do that would justify a negative response from Israel in your eyes? If there is nothing that Palestine can do that would justify a negative response from Israel, why shouldn't Palestine simply grab at everything it can, break all agreements, and continue attacking Israel?

It matters, but most nearby states have little to gain from a peace with Israel, the exception would be the Lebanesse goverment, assuming the terms are fair, it is possible that the democracy there would collapse if they signed a humiliating treaty like that you suggested.


They are at war with a nation that can stomp them flat. They started this war with a war of annihilation. They lost the war.

If they refuse to accept peace on reasonable terms, they are at fault for the continuation of the war.

If the people of Lebanon are not willing to accept a reasonable peace (remember: the only Lebanese territory claimed is a small border region at the south of Lebanon, and that area would be given back in 20 years), they deserve what they get.

For the other states it would mean they could no longer point the finger at the Israel conflict to make the people stop thinking about the fact that they are ruled by a dictator. Even more important then, for Israel to actually establish peace, but in negotiating peace with Palestine they should probably not be present.


Look, more states who are unwilling to accept peace.

Why again isn't the lack of peace their fault? Why aren't you blaming the people who fund and arm violent groups like Hamas and Hezboulla? Who give money to the families of suicide bombers?

You don't grant a conquored enemy who still professes to want to destroy you the right to arm themselves and attack you.


So the Palestinian people, who overwhelmingly want peace, are an army?


They voted in Hamas, who professes to want to destroy Israel.

In response to the Oslo accords, the Palestinians rose up in the al-Aqsa Intifada.

Again, you are neglecting the fact that since there is no proper Palestinian state, while it exists, it is, largely due to Israel, fairly powerless, and thus unable to stop all attacks. You are confusing the Palestinian PEOPLE, with palestinian GROUPS, attacking civilians in retaliation of civilians being killed is not 'okey'.


The Palestinian people voted those groups into their democratically elected parlaiment. And if an area is under insurrection, the occupier can treat it as if it was under insurrection.

When a nation or people rejects a freely given solution that avoids war, and chooses intead to attempt to annihilate the other state, it must realize that the original proposal does not have to remain on the table, and that retalliation is justified.


Let's repeat

1 60 years ago
2 Unjustified state
3 60 years ago.


No peace since then. You don't get a free lunch for continueing a war for 60 years simply because you are unwilling to surrender.

Don't get me wrong: the original war was reasonable. However, if you refuse to admit you are beat when you are defeated, the result is that the other side can continue the war until you admit you are beat.

So long as Palistine, Lebanon, Syria, Iran and Iraq remain in a state of war with Israel, Israel is justified in attacking them militiarially whenever it is convienient.


And it makes peace impossible, thus, Israel is to blame.


Huh? Peace isn't impossible. Lebanon, Syria, Iran, Iraq and Palistine just have to say "we recognize the state of Israel as a nation like any other, and no longer are dedicated to it's destruction".

Egypt did it. Jordan did it.

This is the price of war. If you don't want war, you accept peace.


that's hard when the peace 'offered' is "we won't talk to you, and you have no state". That is probably the worst ever 'treaty' offered in modern times, by any even remoutly demcratic country.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oslo_Accords

Hey look! There was an agreement about forming a Palistinian state.

Currently, Palestine is run by a party that says that Israel should be destroyed, and every citizen driven into the ocean.

Shockingly, Israel refuses to negotiate from those premises. How evil of Israel.

If Israel decides to create peace, they could.


The same is true of Palistine, Syria, Iran, Iraq and Lebanon. They could create peace, if they decided to.

I hold both sides responsible. You give the dictators a free parking pass.

Nobody held a gun to their head and forced them to elect Hamas


Essentially, Israel did.


No, Israel they didn't. They responded to the election of Hamas with a withdrawl of any financial support of the Palistinian state until Hamas stopped demanding the complete destruction of Israel.

Palestinians are not automatons. They are free to choose to support Hamas, form a different party, or support Fatah. It was up to them.

This is freedom. The freedom to make choices, and the freedom to make mistakes.

They did it because they did not want peace.


And yet I have shown that they do, maybe they wanted something different than what you think? Palestinians want peace, but I think it very reasonable that they don't know how to get it. And even if they did, Israel would need to be willing to talk to them, to stop killing them, to stop oppressing them before any peace could arrise.


So, what is your road map to peace?

Should Israel bring back the descendents of anyone who claimed to ever live in it's territory? Pull back to the 1947 borders? Give half of it's military to the Palistinians? Pull back from the Golan heights, the stip in Lebanon, and say "we trust you all"?

Why do I think that
1> The government of Israel would fall if it tried that.
2> The nation of Israel would be destroyed very quickly by hostile Arabs if it managed to do that.


The Arab leaders could have peace tommorrow:


The Arab leaders, THEY, don't want Peace. and THIS is why going to THEM, is crazy.


If the Arab leaders don't want peace, then Israel should not trust them to keep a peace, and assume they will respond to any weakening concessions towards peace with aggression.

contingent on continued peace and the cease of suicide bomb and other lethal attacks upon Israeli citizens, will be put into effect
.

Interesting that you include this, but nothing to protect arab, and palestinian citizens from being indescriminately killed by the Israelis, which they are being at a much higher rate.

When was the last Egyptian citizen, on Egyptian soil, killed by Israel?

But sure, you could throw in guarantees in that direction.

Every attack in or near each region upon Israeli citizens can be used by Israel to delay the withdrawl plan by 1 year per fatality

This has got to be one of the worst suggestions EVER. So if a non goverment group managed to kill, an astounding20 Israelis, they would set it back 20 years? Wow, you could teach the French humiliating treaties that are bound to cause future wars.
and they KNOW. actually they learned their lesson, but revenge is so sweet!


So scale it. Determine how many dead Israelis are worth 1 year of peace.

Why place the burden of concession on Israel, and not the Arab states?


Because they are the democracy, because they are the ultimate cause of the issue


The ultimate cause of the issue?

What about the Romans? Had they not dispursed the Jews, this problem wouldn't exist! Or the Ottomans? Or the British?

@_@

Wait -- how about we blame the nations that rejected the UN partition plan in the region, demanded to get it all, and started a war of annihilation as the ultimate cause of the issue?

"We will never recognize the usurper Zionist government and will continue our jihad-like movement until the liberation of Jerusalem" - Ismail Haniyeh, Prime Minister of the Palestinian National Authority, political leader of Hamas

Hamas used to be a violent terroris organisation, however I do believe they promised to become a non violent organisation as they entered the political 'race'. I have however no doubt that there are plenty of terrible quotes


No. They have not renounced violence. They have not renounced their position that Israel should be destroyed.

Ok, I didn't realize you are ignorant -- I thought we just disagreed about the consequences of the facts.

Israeli president Moshe Katsav and Israel's ex–prime minister Shimon Peres both said that, if Hamas will accept Israel's right to exist and give up violence, Israel should negotiate with the organization


The US and the EU cut all funds to the Palestinian Authority, with only Russia warning against the potential dangers of cutting out the PA from any western support. The EU (which gives $500 million per year to the PA) announced that future aid to the Palestinians was tied to "Three Principles" outlined by the international community — Hamas must renounce violence, it must recognize Israel's right to exist and it must express clear support for the Middle East peace process, as outlined in the 1993 Oslo Accords. Hamas does not seem to be ready to accept such conditions, and rejected them as "unfair".


Hamas' unwillingness to renounce violence, to renounce it's demand for the destruction of Israel, and it's rejection of the Oslo accords are why Israel refused to negotiate with it.

You keep saying that Hamas wants to negotiate. Their stated position is that they refuse to recognize Israel as a country. Do you see the problem here?

I do, however Hamas also want to win the next election, and if they manage to establish peace, they might, and if they don't, they probably won't. This is why negotiating with a democracy is advantagous.


If they lose the election because they refuse to accept the existence of Israel, then maybe Israel will get a party that isn't dedicated to it's destruction to negotiate with.
Last edited by Yakk on Fri Apr 13, 2007 12:44 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Vaniver
Posts: 9422
Joined: Fri Oct 13, 2006 2:12 am UTC

Postby Vaniver » Fri Apr 13, 2007 2:59 am UTC

Nope, but the Israelis base alot of their Patriotism on religion and I think that is dangerous.
I invite you to count the number of times Allah is mentioned in the charter for the current Palestinian state. It's fun!

My point is that you won't actually have to shoot someone because they are showing suspicious behaviour, but rather as most security points a more proper checkout, body search or such.
The US has been having some problems in Iraq with people not slowing down at checkpoints. If a car is rushing my checkpoint, that's 'suspicious' (rushing here just means a failure to slow down). Can I riddle their car with bullets, since they are a clear and direct threat to the checkpoint?

The problem is that, distressingly frequently, it's someone who doesn't appear to be a terrorist or combatant; for some lamentable reason they didn't slow down, and got treated with as if they were a threat.

Suicide bombing is a severe crime, but not ultimately severe.
What do you mean by this?

Not very long, largely due to Israel.
Please, learn some objective history!

It is like treating all homosexuals as if they had AIDS, only because the percentage that does is higher.
But it *is* fair for me to treat homosexuals as being a significant AIDS risk (and taking appropriate measures) and to not treat heterosexuals as being a significant AIDS risk (and taking appropriate measures).

It is not the case that humans are entirely selfish, that is one of the points where capitalists have confused themselves, despite heaps of evidence of the contrary. Homo sapiens sapiens is infact a herd animal, and whlie we may care alot about ourselves, it is also the case that we are capable to entirely altruistic actions, aswell as limiting the good of oneself for the greater good of others.
That is, infact, realism.
But, if you look hard enough, you can see the selfishness in sacrificing yourself to save those *you* love. It generally comes through the avoidance of guilt; if I didn't join the military if America was under attack, for example, I wouldn't be happy with myself- thus, joining up can be seen as being selfish by maximizing my happiness.

Conflicts are not caused by an inbalance of guns, and while they can be staved by it, they are not solved by an excess of guns. There are plenty of conflicts where both Parties are well armed, and the battle is still raging.
The battle is still raging because it hasn't ended in a massacre.

Do you mean your life, or your Flat screen TV?
Fun fact- I'm rich because I don't spend much money.
I think infact that, you as a human being, have a right to life.
Are you going to pay to keep me alive?

It is not, as you seem to think, that people who are starving are not "doing any work", that is just such... fucking christ man, you think they are sitting there going "man I am really hungry!"? Have you ever actually starved? Because you might want to get on that train, you could cut your food bills, AND loose weight!
I'm talking about the specific example; I wasn't trying to generalize it to the majority of the poor. I know that many of them work from dawn to dusk; that still doesn't change how much work goes into keeping a human alive and happy.

Is this actually an argument? That was sixty years ago (59, okey) How many of those are still actually alive?
Considering the Average life expentancy, only a small minority. I hardly think it's fair to judge a NATION with a "Well we gave you a chance 60 years ago!". Infact, it's fucking rediculous.
Wait. You're unwilling to judge Palestine on actions 59 years ago, but you're willing to judge Israel on actions 59 years ago. Hm.

Well it is worth pointing out that in this respect the two situations are extremly different. But you should know that South Korea after all want to rejoin with NK, and a good way of doing that is not waging war, or a "starve them to death" policy, as it is their relatives who are doing the starving. But again, digression, sufice to say they are very different, and I put the blame of NK failure largely on Bush, and a bit on Clinton, and partly on Japan, but only a small bit.
I really don't see how you can't put the blame for NK on the strongman controlling it. I mean... he's kind of the one ruining things.

I can understand why South Koreans would want their country to be united; I cannot understand why they would want to cooperate with the man oppressing their relatives.

Those arguments aside, the general content of the article remain intact, and Israeli commited serious warcrimes in Lebanon.
I disagree with their statement that they must be presumed to be civilian. That gives my enemy no incentive to attack me with military forces, and every incentive to attack me with "civilian" ones. It's a bad idea in war to make sure you always fire the second shot, especially in cases where you don't get a chance to shoot second.

Common missconception, it's ALOT harder killing loads of people with swords than it is with Guns, partly because you can effectively run from people with swords.
It's almost as if you don't know anything about massacres, historical and present. Have you heard the expression "put them to the sword"?

this is missleading, almost all communist states that have become communist have BEEN poor.
And, surprisingly enough, they've stayed poor. Capitalism? Quite a bit better growth.

But they don't because nations would intervene, and it would not be nice.
Same thing could very well work down there. There needs not be a military balance(between their two military or economic power), but just a decent diplomatic one.
Diplomatic balances are contingent on military balances. If Germany had things to gain by conquering Denmark, and had an invincible military, they could waltz in with impunity. All the diplomatic sanctions in the world would be meaningless.

Now, you'll point out, "aha! Germany will not gain from such an endeavor because the loss in trade will be more than the gain in tax income!", and you'd probably be right. But, what if they don't trade? What if they're a dirt-poor country with nothing to gain from trade, and lots to gain from conquest?

Money has also been a means to aquire land.
You say that like money cannot be stolen (say, by violence), or that land bought with cash cannot be taken by violence, because, hey, he paid for it!

The second part of that was true untull about ... well estimatedly 1950? It really depends on where you are, Iceland have no army, why is there no one nvading them?
If I walk into my neighbor's home, shoot him and his family, and then take over the house, what will happen to me?

Government-sponsored violence. As it should be.

Iceland is a part of NATO- if they are attacked, the US is honorbound to defend them. Thus, attacking Iceland is a bad plan.

I theorise I could build a gun up here in sweden that could target australia without difficulty.
Your engineering and physics is as bad as your politics! Splendid.

Oh you want to bring i fucking machiavelli? Are you INSANE?!
No. Have you actually read The Prince? People make him out to be far worse than he actually is.
For him there was no such thing as genocide, anything is acceptable in order to maintain the lordship.
Really, now?
Niccolo Machiavelli wrote:And a prince should guard himself, above all things, against being despised and hated

Niccolo Machiavelli wrote:And one of the most efficacious remedies that a prince can have against conspiracies is not to be hated and despised by the people, for he who conspires against a prince always expects to please them by his removal; but when the conspirator can only look forward to offending them, he will not have the courage to take such a course, for the difficulties that confront a conspirator are infinite.


I am simply not going to quite stupid machiavelli quotes, but suffice to say he is a medieval man, and he should remain in the middle ages.
I think you are mistaken to believe that his thoughts on politics do not apply today.

That is equally true, and much more humanistic. You know, no killing of loads of people.
I have heard it as such: "Inflict not on an enemy every injury in your power, for he may afterwards become your friend."
It has its merits. And, it even applies- Israel *hasn't* inflicted on the Palestinians and their Arab allies every injury in their power, or even most injuries in their power. Their restraint might not have been as much as we would want, but they are by no means barbarous, and seem to be rather open to being friends, given their circumstances.

They do have a right to though, and they obviously want to. Also catogarising them only as Muslims is pretty insulting.
Is it insulting to categorize all Israelis as Jewish fundamentalists?

I puke everyime I hear this argument. No, life is not ultimately fair, I do WANT it to be though. Do people die from cancer? Yes, does that mean we should say "well people are always going to die form decease! SCREW IT!"?
I was nearly overcome by the desire to repeat that argument until you puked yourself into some serious health issues. But, moving on.

People die. Does that mean we should say "well, people are always going to die, let's not try to make people immortal"? Well, that sounds like a better way to spend our time (keeping in mind that extending lifespans and developing immortality are rather different) than the opposite.



Likewise, differences exist between people. Luck happens. Just because things are mandated to be fair now does not mean they will be fair a day from now; and the only way true fairness could be accomplished is by bringing people down, not raising them up (unless you're willing to 'remove' everyone who isn't perfect).

Israel accept in loads of imigrants into it's nation, settlers. yet they require them to be Jewish.
Is Israel a Racist state? I can think of few states where any one ethnicity, or religious background is allowed, while others, while allowed, not in nearl y the same fashion.
Are you familiar at all with racial quotas? They're by no means new, and by no means exclusive to Israel.

Then look at me as if I am stupid, and can't respond to those.... sometimes I just shrug because there are sooooooooooooo many of them and are willing to give up sooooooooooo much time defending those points......


anyone else ever feel that way?
I have felt discussions are pointless, yes. It tends to happen when the other person does not consider my arguments or where I am coming from, no matter how many times I extend the favor to him.

The awnser was Bush needs to do a number of things, and he is not, thus I blame him.
I thought you disliked blaming the victim?

And what reasonable thing should Bush do, except have Kim Jong-il assassinated and his government deposed (or maybe just the last bit)? It worked exceptionally well in Iraq.

The railgun was to illustrate that target range is increasingly becoming uninteresting, and that it was a false claim by Israel to grab the land.
You mean, the railguns that are only useful on naval vessels, and don't have working versions?
Right. Those railguns.

My point is not that "Oh me yarm israel is evil", my point is that "israel are the worse of the two, and that is where we need to start working on this issue"
Your point is wrong. I can see no reason to continue believing it unless your are unable to perceive reality or you cannot swallow your pride.

No they would NOT!
Because... there's no good reason for that to happen.

Then have two countries with proportionate land to population?
Land to population ratios do not matter. If two 4-person families moved into a neighborhood with four houses, and the other two houses contain 9-person families, should some common area (say, their conjoined backyards) be determined by the number of people or the number of houses?

WHICH DO HAPPEN, I cited this before and we agreed on this
I don't remember us agreeing. We might have said "yeah, there were some Israeli bad apples", but I don't think we ever saw Israeli state-sponsored terrorism.

THAT IS A FUCKING LONG TIME AGO!
So, World War II doesn't really matter anymore, because it was 60 years ago? And, the whole deal with the Native Americans, it doesn't really matter anymore, because it was even longer ago? And, the Crusades and all, they don't really matter, because it was even even longer ago?

Sorry. History matters. If you learned more, you might see why.
I mostly post over at LessWrong now.

Avatar from My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic, owned by Hasbro.

User avatar
space_raptor
Posts: 1497
Joined: Fri Nov 17, 2006 5:02 pm UTC
Location: Calgary
Contact:

Postby space_raptor » Fri Apr 13, 2007 3:29 pm UTC

Quote:
"We will never recognize the usurper Zionist government and will continue our jihad-like movement until the liberation of Jerusalem" - Ismail Haniyeh, Prime Minister of the Palestinian National Authority, political leader of Hamas
fjafjan wrote:Hamas used to be a violent terrorist organisation, however I do believe they promised to become a non violent organisation as they entered the political 'race'. I have however no doubt that there are plenty of terrible quotes

That's not just a terrible quote. It's a statement of policy.

I do not think you understand what Hamas is really about. They refuse to accept the existence of Israel. They want to destroy Israel. That is their ultimate goal. These are facts, it's written down, this is not just my opinion. You keep ignoring this. Ignoring the facts will not get us anywhere.

Here is a fun article to read. I found it by google searching "hamas peace". It came out shortly after Hamas won the elections.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=48535

It all sounds good, peace, negotiations, yada yada, until you get to the part where the Hamas leader says they will not abandon their goal of destroying Israel. Some peace.

They are willing to negotiate for peace, yes. But not a permanent peace. They just want to have a cease fire, so they can rebuild. They agree not to kill Israelis, for the time being. Only for the time being.

They have not officially renounced violence. They have stated they will never recognize Israel. They have stated that they believe that the entire region should belong to them. Until these things change, how can Israel negotiate?

Wikipedia wrote:Hamas' charter (written in 1988 and still in effect) calls for the destruction of the State of Israel and its replacement with a Palestinian Islamic state in the area that is now Israel, the West Bank, and the Gaza Strip.[3][4][5] Vehemently anti-Israel and according to many anti-Semitic,[6] its charter states: "There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad."[7]
The drinking will continue until morale improves.

User avatar
3.14159265...
Irrational (?)
Posts: 2413
Joined: Thu Jan 18, 2007 12:05 am UTC
Location: Ajax, Canada

Postby 3.14159265... » Fri Apr 13, 2007 5:35 pm UTC

Space_raptor what is this word the western media uses and u copy.

Until they renounce violence. Does that mean untill they roll up say, ok u can kill me if u want I will just watch, won't fight back anymore?

Renounce violence, that is one fuckin strong phrase.

I want you to though notice the media bias in you thought :wink:
"The best times in life are the ones when you can genuinely add a "Bwa" to your "ha""- Chris Hastings

User avatar
space_raptor
Posts: 1497
Joined: Fri Nov 17, 2006 5:02 pm UTC
Location: Calgary
Contact:

Postby space_raptor » Fri Apr 13, 2007 6:46 pm UTC

It means they won't kill innocent people, Pi. It means they won't support suicide bombing. It means they will stop making war, which is what they're doing every time they blow up a nightclub or a bus. It means that the part of their charter where it says they want to destroy Israel using violence needs to be fucking changed. Hamas is committed to a jihad against Israel. Your willful ignorance of this fact is mind-boggling.

If you guys were just arguing that the Palestinians deserve land, and that they should get international aid, and that Israel shouldn't attack civilian areas, I wouldn't have a problem with it. Now you've crossed over into cheering for terrorists. Hamas is not "fighting back". They want to destroy Israel. They are killing other Palestinians in a battle to control the Palestinian Authority. They're even killing moderate Palestinians who want a lasting peace. I would have thought everyone could agree that these guys were bad, but now I see I was wrong.

Western media bias my ass. You don't have a real argument, so you come up with this bullshit?
The drinking will continue until morale improves.

User avatar
3.14159265...
Irrational (?)
Posts: 2413
Joined: Thu Jan 18, 2007 12:05 am UTC
Location: Ajax, Canada

Postby 3.14159265... » Fri Apr 13, 2007 7:08 pm UTC

We DO agree that hammas are bad guys, and are religious fanatic bastards

But the problem is so is the majority of the Israeli government, and Hammas is the majority of the palestenian government.

The Israel government asking Hammas to "renounce violence", is like Hammas asking the Israel government to "renounce violence". Its stupid.

Israel has in its charters, to forcefully and by ALL means 'defend' the nation of God, i.e. Israel.
Hammas has in their charters to forcefully and by ALL means 'take back' the land of God, i.e. Jerusalem.

Israeli government is not more moral than Hammas, they are just AS bastardus. In fact Israel kills MORE palestinian civilians than does palestine Israeli civilians.
"The best times in life are the ones when you can genuinely add a "Bwa" to your "ha""- Chris Hastings

User avatar
space_raptor
Posts: 1497
Joined: Fri Nov 17, 2006 5:02 pm UTC
Location: Calgary
Contact:

Postby space_raptor » Fri Apr 13, 2007 7:25 pm UTC

3.14159265... wrote:The Israel government asking Hammas to "renounce violence", is like Hammas asking the Israel government to "renounce violence". Its stupid.

Israel has in its charters, to forcefully and by ALL means 'defend' the nation of God, i.e. Israel.
Hammas has in their charters to forcefully and by ALL means 'take back' the land of God, i.e. Jerusalem.


I find it interesting that you don't see the difference between "defend" and "take back". To me it makes all the difference.

"Renouncing" violence doesn't necessarily mean that violence will stop, of course. It would just be a good start for both sides to say, ok, we're not going to make it our goal to kill you anymore.

I think it's pretty clear it's not Israel's goal, because if it was they could do it easy.
The drinking will continue until morale improves.

User avatar
3.14159265...
Irrational (?)
Posts: 2413
Joined: Thu Jan 18, 2007 12:05 am UTC
Location: Ajax, Canada

Postby 3.14159265... » Fri Apr 13, 2007 8:07 pm UTC

Space_raptor wrote:I find it interesting that you don't see the difference between "defend" and "take back". To me it makes all the difference.

So kicking people out and building settlements is 'defend'. Trying to 'take bak' land that u lived in 2000 years ago is 'defend'
The same for 60 years ago is 'take bak'

My point was to realized that those are words and are FUCKIN stupid, jees did u miss the point.

Space_raptor wrote:"Renouncing" violence doesn't necessarily mean that violence will stop, of course. It would just be a good start for both sides to say, ok, we're not going to make it our goal to kill you anymore.

You mean like having peace talks with the other government the type Israel is not willing to have? Or the type where your goal is to just bring all the jews in the world into one country, and kick the other people out of their homes AS IS HAPPENING NOW! RIGHT NOW! but of course, you arn't killing them, u r just taking away all they have.....

Space_raptor wrote:I think it's pretty clear it's not Israel's goal, because if it was they could do it easy.


If it was upto Israel, they WOULD DO IT!, thats why Kahane had so much support. The reason they won't is that 1/3 of the american aid to ALL the world goes to Israel.

Think about that. America has given as much money to Africa and South america as it has to Israel. The stats were something like from 1950-1994 America gave africa and south america $65 billion and it gave Israel $65 billion too!! and it kinda gave them nuclear weapons kinda too...... they like those.......they are a peacefull people just like their nukes... what.....:D

Thats why the Israelies won't go and and kill all the palestinians, because it would hurt them economically, not because they are 'nice'. Here is why:

"A recent poll published in the Israeli magazine Monitin revealed that 21% of the Israeli public approve of Kahane’s political views. A poll conducted by the prestigious Van Leer Institute in Jerusalem last year found that 33% of Israel’s Jewish youth between the ages of 15-18 support the Brooklyn-born rabbi’s fiercely anti-Arab stance."

This was back in 1987, imagine what that rose to after the intifiada, and when he became a martyr to alot of jews for being killed by an arab.
Google it for citation.
"The best times in life are the ones when you can genuinely add a "Bwa" to your "ha""- Chris Hastings

User avatar
space_raptor
Posts: 1497
Joined: Fri Nov 17, 2006 5:02 pm UTC
Location: Calgary
Contact:

Postby space_raptor » Fri Apr 13, 2007 10:07 pm UTC

I think it's pretty clear that you're biased beyond reason.

You're talking about all kinds of random things that I didn't say anything about, and that don't matter to the peace process. Kahane doesn't matter, unless you want some reason, any reason, to claim ridiculous stuff about all Israelis. Your extreme views are just too out there for me to take seriously. Kahanism has been outlawed in Israel since 1985.

My point was to realized that those are words and are FUCKIN stupid, jees did u miss the point.


Maybe I missed the point because the point made no sense. Sometimes I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. I'm sure you think that's because I'm dumb, or biased, or whatever. Perhaps I am.

I don't disagree with you as much as others in this thread have. I recognize that Israel has made mistakes, and committed crimes. I don't think Israel should be disbanded as a country though. You're spewing all this irrational crap at me, when all I'm saying is that each side should commit to not killing each other anymore.

Israel does want peace talks, too.

Israeli, Palestinian Leaders to Meet Sunday
http://voanews.com/english/2007-04-13-voa24.cfm
The drinking will continue until morale improves.

User avatar
Yakk
Poster with most posts but no title.
Posts: 11129
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2007 7:27 pm UTC
Location: E pur si muove

Postby Yakk » Fri Apr 13, 2007 11:00 pm UTC

3.14159265... wrote:
Space_raptor wrote:I find it interesting that you don't see the difference between "defend" and "take back". To me it makes all the difference.

So kicking people out and building settlements is 'defend'. Trying to 'take bak' land that u lived in 2000 years ago is 'defend'
The same for 60 years ago is 'take bak'

My point was to realized that those are words and are FUCKIN stupid, jees did u miss the point.


No, holding on to what you currently hold is "defend".
Going after what you don't have is "take back".

Space_raptor wrote:"Renouncing" violence doesn't necessarily mean that violence will stop, of course. It would just be a good start for both sides to say, ok, we're not going to make it our goal to kill you anymore.

You mean like having peace talks with the other government the type Israel is not willing to have? Or the type where your goal is to just bring all the jews in the world into one country, and kick the other people out of their homes AS IS HAPPENING NOW! RIGHT NOW! but of course, you arn't killing them, u r just taking away all they have.....


Israel is not willing to have peace talks with a government whose position it is that Israel should be destroyed and every Jew driven into the sea. They are unwilling to fund a government whose express purpose is to arm itself and attack Israel.

This seems like a reasonable position to me.

Palestine might choose to elect a party who is at war with Israel -- that is their choice -- but expecting that Israel treat with them isn't reasonable.

Space_raptor wrote:I think it's pretty clear it's not Israel's goal, because if it was they could do it easy.


If it was upto Israel, they WOULD DO IT!, thats why Kahane had so much support. The reason they won't is that 1/3 of the american aid to ALL the world goes to Israel.


Sure.
A 160$ billion dollar per year economy.

Aid to Israel: $44,796.5 million from 1962 to 2001

Oops, that was Egypt.

$16,884 million from 2002 to 2005. Wait, Iraq.

Aha! Israel: $48,702.3 million from 1962 to 2001

The above values are in constant dollars.

$117,710.7 is the total for NA and the Middle East from 1962 to 2001.

In 2005, Israel recieved 481.9$ million. Or roughly 1/300th of GDP.

Think about that. America has given as much money to Africa and South america as it has to Israel. The stats were something like from 1950-1994 America gave africa and south america $65 billion and it gave Israel $65 billion too!!


and it kinda gave them nuclear weapons kinda too...... they like those.......they are a peacefull people just like their nukes... what.....:D


No, that was France and South Africa who "gave" Israel nukes -- if by "gave" you mean "engaged in shared research projects during times in which neither party had nukes". Israel helped France with starting up it's own nuclear program, and the same with South Africa.

Thats why the Israelies won't go and and kill all the palestinians, because it would hurt them economically, not because they are 'nice'. Here is why:


1/300th of GDP?

"A recent poll published in the Israeli magazine Monitin revealed that 21% of the Israeli public approve of Kahane’s political views. A poll conducted by the prestigious Van Leer Institute in Jerusalem last year found that 33% of Israel’s Jewish youth between the ages of 15-18 support the Brooklyn-born rabbi’s fiercely anti-Arab stance."

This was back in 1987, imagine what that rose to after the intifiada, and when he became a martyr to alot of jews for being killed by an arab.
Google it for citation.


I can give you cosmo polls that say that 90% of women would have sex with another woman to please their man. ;)

There are two kinds of statistics I find even worth looking at: stats published by stats canada, and stats that come with margins of error. Strangely the first is almost always contained in the second...

Any other stat should be presumed guilty until demonstrated innocent. The lack of error bars means that whoever is relaying the stats doesn't know the first thing about statistics.

Your source:
http://www.aliciapatterson.org/APF1004/ ... edman.html
?

Hmm. Strange:
Google Books Link

These numbers look nearly exactly the same, even the institutes and the sources, except in this case we get a particular view (authoritarian government) and a different time period.

The original quote didn't say which of Kahane’s political views where supported.

I'm sorry -- a source that references polls, that doesn't even say when the poll occurs, doesn't mention the issue of the magazine that the poll occured in, doesn't mention the wording of the poll, and doesn't include any error bars, is not a source of information, but rather propoganda.

User avatar
Vaniver
Posts: 9422
Joined: Fri Oct 13, 2006 2:12 am UTC

Postby Vaniver » Sun Apr 15, 2007 3:08 am UTC

thats why Kahane had so much support.
[edit]I've decided that I'm not actually done being civil.[/edit]This has been covered. Kahane is marginalized; he really doesn't matter when we're talking about the entirety of Israel. If you can't understand this... what's the point?
I mostly post over at LessWrong now.

Avatar from My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic, owned by Hasbro.

User avatar
3.14159265...
Irrational (?)
Posts: 2413
Joined: Thu Jan 18, 2007 12:05 am UTC
Location: Ajax, Canada

Postby 3.14159265... » Sun Apr 15, 2007 10:24 pm UTC

Sorry if I offended you vanivier, its just many Israelis I know defend Kahane, to the point where this one kid wanted to start a fight with a presentor once in my uni, for saying Rabbi Meir Kahane is no better than the muslim fundamentalists. He actually got offended to the point of wanting to fight the presentor.....

Now I have repeatedly asked for stats on what percentage of the population CURRENTLY supports Kahane's ideas, a better measure is how much support is there for the Rabbi's son, who is living now and following in daddy's footsteps. That was the best stats I could find, I urge you to find some good data on this.
"The best times in life are the ones when you can genuinely add a "Bwa" to your "ha""- Chris Hastings

User avatar
Vaniver
Posts: 9422
Joined: Fri Oct 13, 2006 2:12 am UTC

Postby Vaniver » Mon Apr 16, 2007 12:21 am UTC

its just many Israelis I know defend Kahane, to the point where this one kid wanted to start a fight with a presentor once in my uni, for saying Rabbi Meir Kahane is no better than the muslim fundamentalists. He actually got offended to the point of wanting to fight the presentor.....
Well, to be fair, Kahane is better than the Muslim fundamentalists, and to say otherwise suggests a lack of understanding of the situation that could be aggravating enough to bring a hot-headed person to violence.
I mostly post over at LessWrong now.

Avatar from My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic, owned by Hasbro.

User avatar
3.14159265...
Irrational (?)
Posts: 2413
Joined: Thu Jan 18, 2007 12:05 am UTC
Location: Ajax, Canada

Postby 3.14159265... » Mon Apr 16, 2007 2:38 am UTC

Vanivier wrote:Well, to be fair, Kahane is better than the Muslim fundamentalists, and to say otherwise suggests a lack of understanding of the situation that could be aggravating enough to bring a hot-headed person to violence.


Israel will not negotiate, untill others 'say' it has the right to exist, that seems to be important.

I will not discuss the issue, untill the other side admits that Jews are as fundamentalist as Muslims, and that its both sides fault at BEST AS MUCH AS EACH OTHER.
"The best times in life are the ones when you can genuinely add a "Bwa" to your "ha""- Chris Hastings

User avatar
Vaniver
Posts: 9422
Joined: Fri Oct 13, 2006 2:12 am UTC

Postby Vaniver » Mon Apr 16, 2007 3:12 am UTC

Israel will not negotiate, untill others 'say' it has the right to exist, that seems to be important.
Seems to be important? Don't you see why it's a waste of Israel's time to negotiate with someone if that people believes that Israel needs to be wiped off the face of the earth?

I will not discuss the issue, untill the other side admits that Jews are as fundamentalist as Muslims, and that its both sides fault at BEST AS MUCH AS EACH OTHER.
I don't know why you blindly insist on this equality when it simply isn't there.
I mostly post over at LessWrong now.

Avatar from My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic, owned by Hasbro.

User avatar
3.14159265...
Irrational (?)
Posts: 2413
Joined: Thu Jan 18, 2007 12:05 am UTC
Location: Ajax, Canada

Postby 3.14159265... » Mon Apr 16, 2007 5:27 am UTC

I know both muslims and jews. I have lived like under one roof with both.

They are quite similar.

If you wish to convince that my personal experience is wrong here and not representative of the general populition, I invite you to tell me how Kahane members are better than Hammas members.

Refer to previously cited crimes by Israelies before continuing.
I am willing to accept your argument if you can provide evidence.
"The best times in life are the ones when you can genuinely add a "Bwa" to your "ha""- Chris Hastings

User avatar
space_raptor
Posts: 1497
Joined: Fri Nov 17, 2006 5:02 pm UTC
Location: Calgary
Contact:

Postby space_raptor » Mon Apr 16, 2007 3:08 pm UTC

Wikipedia wrote:Since 1985, the State of Israel has outlawed political parties espousing Kahane's ideology as being racist, and forbids their participating in the Israeli government. The Kach party was banned from running for the Knesset in 1988, while the existence of the two Kahanist movements formed following Kahane's assassination were proclaimed illegal terrorist organizations in 1994 and the groups subsequently officially disbanded.

Hamas is the political party in charge of the Palestinian Authority.

You are comparing apples and lima beans, here.

Saying that the actions of Kahanist groups have anything at all to do with the views of most Jews or Israelis is a ridiculous statement. Kahanism doesn't matter to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict today.

Hamas is the majority party in Palestine. They are in charge. They make decisions. They want to destroy Israel. This is not just a random belief that I have, this is what they say they want to do.

Certainly, Kahane was crazy. Nobody is disagreeing with you on this, at all. You are not paying attention. I am saying that Hamas, apparently, represents most Palestinians. Kahanism IS ILLEGAL IN ISRAEL. Criticizing the Arabs for electing Hamas is valid. Criticizing Jews for the actions of one man and his followers is not.

*twitch*
The drinking will continue until morale improves.

User avatar
Yakk
Poster with most posts but no title.
Posts: 11129
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2007 7:27 pm UTC
Location: E pur si muove

Postby Yakk » Mon Apr 16, 2007 3:58 pm UTC

The majority of Palestinians elected Hamas.

The vast mejority of Israelis condemned Kahan and his followers.

Kahan, as far as I know, never elected more than 1 or 2 members to their Parlaiment.

I will admit that there are individual Israelis that are as crazy bonkers as individual Palestinians -- being crazy bonkers is not a group trait.

Electing a government is.


Return to “Serious Business”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests