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... » Mon Apr 16, 2007 5:17 pm UTC

So lets switch roles, lets say the Israelis had lived around jerusalem some arabs came and took over, lots of attrocities on both sides etc.

After 60 years of being under an occupation, would you seriously say the jewish people were being fanatic, and are being extreme in electing a government that bears hate towards arabs?

I think its the number of those individual crazy nuts that is the most important issue.

There are just as many on both sides, as I have previously cited, foreign humanatarian workers were KILLED by Israeli villagers, as they tried to take kids across an Israeli village, because the kids were always beaten.

Here is something nice to refresh your memories
http://www.thememoryhole.org/war/un-petition.htm
"The best times in life are the ones when you can genuinely add a "Bwa" to your "ha""- Chris Hastings

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 5:47 pm UTC

Let's reduce the branching from the real world.

Let's assume the Arabs beat the Israeli state at it's birth.

I'd expect there would have been a mass-exodus of Israelis, those that survived the masacres. There would be many who would resist the defeat: this would result in a similar backlash against local jews in various Arab nations, and the exodus would still happen: except this time it would be to Western nations instead of to Israel.

Memories of the holocaust would mean that the Jews would face relatively open borders in their new lands.

Continued resistence by exIsraelis in Palestine would result in crackdowns. Odds are that no true "Palestinian" state would emerge, but rather the area would be occupied by Lebanon/Syria/Jordan and Egypt.

The local Palestinian populance would be oppressed in order to prevent the loss of territory from a possible Palestinian state (like the Kurds). Occupied exIsraeli civilians would be forcefully relocated, and probably killed on reasonably large scales: the states that where at war with Israel wheren't functional democracies, and Nazi propoganda had been pretty widely spread out amoung the nations during WW2.

This would trigger an anti-Arab lobby in the west, from both Jews and people who are saying "enough is enough". However, the strategic importance of oil and the existence of the soviets (who would snap up any allies that the west turned it's back on) would overrule it on a policy level: nations ruled by dictators that didn't condone the mass slaughter, just ignored it, would be backed by the west.

Over time, the remaining non-arabs in Palestine would be driven out or killed. By today, it would be a historical post-holacost footnote. Probably there would be Jewish anti-Arab terrorists who attack various Arab states, people and the nations who back them.

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

Postby Vaniver » Mon Apr 16, 2007 6:39 pm UTC

3.14159265... wrote:If you wish to convince that my personal experience is wrong here and not representative of the general populition
3.14159265... wrote:Making yourself believe shit that isn't real, and more importantly a person more logical than you can prove wrong, is REALLY REALLY REALLY stupid.
Have you ever heard of a hasty generalization?

3.14159265... wrote: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.
Compare body counts; compare rhetoric. Hamas wins at being 'bad'. Compare political impact; Hamas wins at being relevant.
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 » Mon Apr 16, 2007 8:02 pm UTC

Hamas is an organization that dedicates it's existence to the destruction of Israel.


No to the creation of a Palestinian state.

The problem is, that the Hamas leaders that are willing to accept an Israeli state are murdered and it's really hard to drive a policy that "we want peace with Israel" when the guy that DOES that, gets killed.
By Israel.
See the irony there?
And you maintain that Hamas are completely unwilling to accept Israel, but I beg to differ, as I claimed they are in fact a lot more uncertain.

However, on February 13, 2006, in an interview in Russian newspaper Nezavisimaya Gazeta, the same Khaled Mashal declared that Hamas would stop armed struggle against Israel if it recognized the 1967 borders, withdrew itself from all Palestinian occupied territories (including the West Bank and East Jerusalem) and recognized Palestinian rights that would include the "right of return"


This is why negotiations, no matter what the enemy SAYS, can actually be fruitful. Trying doesn't actually cost very much, compared to the costs of war. Israel refusing to talk to Hamas is stupid.



Form a party that isn't shit?


I have already said that would be a great idea, but I have seen no great party rise up from fucking terrible circumstances. That is why improving the circumstances increases the likelihood you'll see some decent parties (that get support). A country occupied for sixty years is likely to get any "we love Israel!" party very many votes. It might in fact get the "we want to kill the occupier!" party vote, simply because they haven't left them alone.

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


Actually it is, if the actions you are going to take are in fact not a choice but an effect of the circumstances.
In other words, if you create perfect circumstances for someone to kill someone, such as removal of ethical doubts, risk of getting caught, hatred towards person, etc etc, and they do it, it's not immoral. It's wrong to kill, but you can't be blamed for your actions, as they were not your actions but anyone's actions.

Yes, the Iraqi people failed at their democracy. So did the Palestrina's.


So wait, the people who loose a war are then responsible for the creation of the government, while they are still occupied? See democracy is a pretty hard thing, your people need to be educated, they need to understand the democratic process, there needs to be a free media, there are lots of things are required for a democracy to work, in fact so many things that you need a government to manage it all. If there is no government to do this, or the government appointed is fucking shit, then it is the fault of the occupier as they have all the.. you know, money and resources.

This means that they are at fault: they have the freedom.


There is more needed to form a forming democracy than 'freedom'. In fact, 'freedom' is simply anarchy, which usually ends up as some form of dictatorship. they had 'freedom', but since the both of them had no democratic custom (and before WWII you can see the importance of this, the states which had had democracy imposed on them after WWI fell off, while states with a longer democratic background managed to 'hold their ground') and no decent government to set things up to begin with, Fail!.


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

And the Palestinians are different from these nations in that they have had no government, in many senses still have no government,
But mostly I am not upset about Israel not TRUSTING THEM, but the means they USE. For example, you can either shoot your enemy, or you can bomb your enemy and kill thousands of civilians. That Israel acted against Hezbollah is not what I object to, but the manner in which they did.
same goes for Palestine, that they dislike the terrorist organisations I don't mind, but when they kill hundreds of Innocent in the process, they are at fault.

Interesting fact, I have on several occasions condemned the Palestinian terrorist attacks, they do damage the peace process, even if they are largely excuses by the Israeli government, but i have heard nothing from either you or Vanivver condemning Israeli actions, no they were perfectly justified cluster bombing the Lebanese civilians!

Israelis however, have not for the past twenty or so years, had any real threat to their nation,

You mean other than Iraq shooting missiles at them?


Are you suggesting these missiles were a serious threat to the Israeli state? They were certainly a provocation, etc, but it's not going to 'end them' so to speak.
Denounciations of their existence of the state by Iran?

And they should know that is a ploy by Ahmadinejad (that man should change his name of Amid).


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


Nope, it does however mean you have a particular responsibility to make sure that strength isn't miss-used. With great strength comes great responsibility.


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.


They SAY that, while the other side ACTIVELY kills hundreds of innocent people each year. Now I am sorry but I prefer evil talk than evil actions. You know what usually improves relationships between two parties? negotiations. The fact that 'they are jerks' is not actually a reason not to talk to them.


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


Nope, I hope I never said I liked that, nor would like it to change, However, if you want that to be, wishing it won't make it so. And to change it you need to understand why it is, I claim that it is because they have been oppressed and occupied for 60 years.
Also the fact that, in terms of 'worse', whoever has power also has the capabilities of BEING a lot worse, Palestine might in opinions be worse than Israel, but since it is Israel committing the worse deeds, and generally contributing most to the problems of the situation, then it is in fact there one has to start. If Palestine had a great government it would be easier for Israel to negotiate with the, BUT, that government won't get any support unless conditions are improved, a vital part of that are things the Palestinians themselves control nothing of.


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


you are confusing what I said. What I said actually makes sense.
For Palestine to form an effective, peaceful government, Israel needs to pull out of the west bank, or rather, the occupied territories.
Confusing cause the correlation there.



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


and then for the occupier to establish a state. If they don't I think you have every right to rebell, I would have applauded Poles fighting Hitler, or Hungarians righting the Soviet Regime, they were being oppressed, much like Palestinians are today.

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


As I hoped I have made clear, I make no excuses for the Arab countries, like you do for Israel. see the difference there? That's my whole point, you are saying "Israel good - Arabs bad", I am saying "Both bad, Israel as a democracy should be the good one". which of course then BRINGS US TO

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".


See there is a reason for this, and it is because for a state to be 'good' it needs to be a democracy.
All dictatorships are, more or less, bad, I want all dictatorships to, eventually, as peacefully as possible, to turn into dictatorships.
This is why i want democracies to be good examples, and why it changes little my opinion of a dictatorship if they torture people or not, sure it would be an argument against someone saying "hey this is a great state!" but I hope there are no people here, well except possible pi, who support dictatorships.
North Korea torturing someone? Well I already know their leader is a douche, and I already want him to be deposed, it changes nothing.
Denmark torturing people? This is a serious matter.
Re the Bolded part, I hope you mean the Dictator and not the Dictatorship, as blaming a nation for the one Man (because I am unaware of any current female dictators) leading it, usually there through violent means, seems incredibly strange.
The Italicised part: No, Dictatorships are already in the 'evil basket', ie I already oppose them, and until they become dictatorships that won't change, my opinion of Italy can swing however, depending on their behaviour, in worst case I might opt for it to be removed from power.


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.

Well I would as far as possible already oppose the North Korea government, I am not entirely sure refusing to buy NK products is the best way of solving it, I am genuinely unsure of this, as I believe there eis a strong correlation with Wealth - Democracy, yet considering the kind of Dictatorship Kim is going with, things are different again, but anyhow, I don't need any reason for opposing a dictator. I do need a reason for opposing a democracy, as much as to boycott their wares, or other taking other actions.

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.


America should have followed their demands in the 'Framework' treaty, proved more reliable, and NK never would have had Nuclear weapons.


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?


Negative response - Quite certainly
The CURRENT 'negative responses'? - No (at least considering the current condition)
I would like to ask the same question to you though, would you not take up the fight if someone decided to oppress you, during your entire life, and showed little sign of relenting?


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.

Wait, so it doesn't matter 'what they get'? Or was it just that expression?
Is it that you condone of the way the war was waged, or that you condone a war?
I don't generally see how that was related to my post though.
My post was essentially
"Both parties gain from peace". I added a 'disclaimer' about the conditions of peace, but it would probably be true.

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 Hezbollah? Who give money to the families of suicide bombers?


Because blame fall at
Arab nations
Israel.
I would never call the Arab nations 'good'. Part of the reason for lack of peace is there fault, however I believe a larger part of it is Israels fault, and since no one here is defending the Arabs, why show their part of the blame more explicitly?
That's beating a dead horse.

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.


Not in opposition of Peace, but in opposition of the causes peace was having, largely economical as well as others (PLO was, as well as Fatah, incredibly corrupt).

Hamas is a terrorist organization. Quite blatantly.


Most national resistance groups, opposing an occupier are labeled terrorists.
In fact, had the American revolution occurred today, they no doubt would have been called terrorists.

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

BUT, if you treat it as if it was under unsurrection you can't treat it as a democracy.



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


Why no peace? Because no even semi decent government was established, insurgencies were given fuel by the brutal oppression, and because Israel were unwilling to negotiate.
Your argument was "60 years ago they were offered a state, they declined". Israel won the war, then they should have established a government, encouraged democracy, and pro Israeli opinions (as their other Arab opponents were encouraging anti Israeli opinions) and taken several further steps. There might have been some opposition, but there was simply no government in Palestine to admit defeat, the government was Jordan, I think, or something, and thus they WERE defeated. This is the crux of the problem. When a government eventually WAS created, it was many many years too late, and they saw themselves at war with an oppressor still, and a war against an oppressor is a justified war.
They have been offered no peace by Israel as they had no real means for the Large population to DO so.
Also you mistake the Term war, for violent oppression. There is no real Palestinian state, there is no real government, even if one has been elected, there is no real Palestinian army, and such there is no real state of war.


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".


No If israel are allowed to attack palestinian civilians whenever is convenient, does, with current Israel policy, make peace impossible.


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

But are actually more Pragmatic than that, and they are not actually run by that party as much as that people elected that party.

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


Negotiatin is infact not "hey, you, we agree to your terms" but, "this is what we think, what do you think? well let's change some thing so that maybe we can agree!". Refusing to negotiate makes nothing better, it only serves to make things worse.


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


Yeah, but I would not expect them to. I expect the democracy to.
And actually, I don't think the other arab nations could make peace in the Palestine conflict, certainly they could help, but it would demand some cooperation of Israel aswell.

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


Nope



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

Oh, the same way it's "up to" black young men in poor inner city areas to turn to crime? Or young Sunni Muslims in Iraq to dislike america?
I mean sure, they have a 'choice', But I don't think they are ultimately to blame for the high rates of crime in those area, or the dislike for america in iraq.


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.


Straw man?
No, essential road map would be for Israel to accknowledge the Palestinian their goverment, and let them govern, initiate talk with Hamas leaders, some serious action to prevent innocent Palestinian casualities, create a pro Israel campagn in palestine, showing these new efforts to peace, free political prisoners (note, these are different from proven terrorists) aswell as people who have had no or a fake trial, or try them again in a proper court of law.
This should be sufficient for Hamas to agree to sign a treaty of peace, after which israel withdraws from occupied territories, starting to remove the Wall could also be a sign of Good will.


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.


When did I say Israel should trust the arab leaders to keep peace?
Palestine is ofcourse not a part of these arab leaders, I mean they are Arabs, and they have leaders, but I mean 'the other states'.


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


Well considering that many many more Palestinian civlians die that Israeli, I would have thought that would have been a more Vital part of the 'peace plan'.

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


54.
No, actually, it's not a mtter of how many Israeli's it's worth, but how many that would die either way.
How many dead Palestinians are worth 1 'saved' Israeli?
The problem with your treaty was really the whole 'Nothing at all in return, except peace, when we are not really in war'.
And it would not solve the Israel - Palestine conflict, as I imagine
We accept the current lines of occupation.

Might be hard to sell.

The ultimate cause of the issue?

What about the Romans? Had they not dispersed 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?


Okey, North Korea is the cause of the North Korean problem as well. And what has that accomplished?
Oh wait, that's right, nothing!
By Ultimate cause of the issue I mean the current situation, if the Romans hadn't dispersed them, they probably would have converted to Islam, as the rest of the region, and there would be no issue, or maybe they would have been conquered by "ubabbidjad" in 1843, because the world would have been very different. I would hardly blame the Romans for today's situation, the crux is the Existence of Israel, that is unfixable, but Israeli policy is what is maintaining the conflict.

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.


Fun fact - those are not good reasons.
Negotiations are seldom harmful, and improved relations, even personal relations, often do lots of good.


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.


But they already had that party, and they were a fucking corrupt bunch, sadly, and Israel were still then killing hundreds of Palestinians ever year.


Congratulations. 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.


Well if you look far enough, but I don't see how that proves anything.
Most democracies have either become so through revolution, or by a foreign nation defeating the totalitarian government and establishing an independent democracy. I can think of no other example where a large group of people have arrived, bartered with the government, which had conquered the area long ago, buying some of the land from that government, and then establishing a country. But anyhow, Israel has a land claim there NOW, which is that of mere existence, which is all any nation has. I was trying to prove that Palestinians Initial resistance was valid and just.


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


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",


Not prior.

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.



there are a number of simple solutions to the case of the speeding cars, such as speed bumps, or other means of simply "not being able to drive fast/at all untull given permission" which would solve these problems.

What do you mean by this?

it's not a "ultimate crime" worse than all others, and that should be treated fundamentally different. It's a crime, and a serious crime. How is it worse than a serial killer? (or I guess, serial killing would be the correct verb)


Please, learn some objective history!

Had Israel did their job and established a proper Palestinian state, at any point, rather than 'defending themselves' killing loads of Palestinians, there very likely would have been peace.


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).

Having 'Palestinianness' as one of the criteria could be 'okey, but having it as the main, or one criteria is completely unfair, if you are Palestinian, but atheist, and is working for a furthering of democratic ideas, the chances you are a terrorist are probably lower than if you are an Israeli (or rather, a threat to peace, which is really what such guards should be looking after).

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.


if you get guilty for not helping others, you are caring about others and that is a vital part of feeling good about yourself. It IS not an act of selfishness, it is an act which you hope will have good effects for you, but such is the goal for all compassionate behaviour, if your neighbor asks you to help carry something heavy, you could charge him for it, earning a small profit, but probably dislike, or you could do it for free, and he might help you at some other point. By paying for public schools you are helping educate poor people, who will eventually do good things for society, alot more effectively than if they were till poor. And you, ofcourse is part of that society.

The greatest amount of good for the greatest amount of people.
vs
The greatest amount of good for you.
The battle is still raging because it hasn't ended in a massacre.


And them both being unarmed is vital to the peace process. Or do you want IRA to remain armed? or Hamas? Hmm..
Fun fact- I'm rich because I don't spend much money.

Me neither actually, even though i'm hardly 'rich', I don't see what this has to do with your unwillingless to dispence of small luxuries for the lives of others?

Are you going to pay to keep me alive?


In nearly all cases, yes, i might not do it unconditionally, and I might, in some cirkumstances, requie the money back, but yes, I would.

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.


Alive - ofcourse during a lifespan of something to 0-50, with modern technology, surprisingly little. Now happy, that's hard, since alot money there goes wasted onto such things as TV, Computers, computer software, various things, but it is ofcourse subjective. However, the cost of the Human rights is fairly small, once you get to a certainl level of society.

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.


Huh?
No, I have said Israel had 60 years ago no right to exist, and part of the problems today are because of actions taken then, however, there has been ample time for change to occur, but it has not. That is part of the reason why I blame Israel. but it would be good if you could specify, so I know what to explain.


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.


Well certainly, he is at fault, but he is not at fault for not solving the situation, if a hostage situation goes wrong it is more or less the police that fucked up.


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.


Statement? It's human rights baby!
That way you don't have soldiers massacring a village going "hey, we thought they were military, cause we saw this guy in a uniform, and you know ... them children looked awefully dangerous"
Point is, bombing a civilian airport is hardly the case of "well maybe they were going to shoot us", nor is a school, or a hospital.


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"?


Possible? pretty much equally possible (though, it's alot easier to defend yourself with virtually nothing against someone with a sword, against someone with a rocket launcher. a pointy stick might save you in one of the cases.) but one is alot easier.

And, surprisingly enough, they've stayed poor. Capitalism? Quite a bit better growth.

Yepp, I just wanted to point out the bad phrasing in your argument.


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.

Actually, I think the germans would never again elect the goverment that invaded denmark, which is also part of the reason. But your arguments are correct aswell, but there is no one in the world with an invincible military, so it's pretty rediculous anyway.

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?


Then it is more likely to occur, but no less reason for us to prevent it, and those diplomatic ones still hold, because if Kongo knew the European union would dispatch their army and push them back if they tried to invade Egypt, they would not do it, nomatter how poor they are. I guess in some cases they might be desperate, or plain stupid, but it goes a long way towards peace.


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!


How is this relevant? :S all money is unlawfully aquired?

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.

Well I imagine the police would do that, not the military?
Ofcourse at some point the two sort of intertwice, special forces and so, but I imagine that would be a policinary matter.
But in a world with, (and ofcourse, we are not there) a vast majority of Democracies, with decent foreign relations and atleast semi healthy morality (ie, occupying another nation, and taking land from them, is bad) no goverment would want to invade another. Thus maintaining anything more than a very limited military capacity would be unnecesary.

so your statement that you need to use violence to keep land is not really true, some military force will still be needed, but I imagine eventually that need will disappear.

Your engineering and physics is as bad as your politics! Splendid


You see adversity and hopelessness, I see a challange, but are you saying railguns would be impossible? Hmm, it appears your military knowledge is impaired then.


No. Have you actually read The Prince? People make him out to be far worse than he actually is.


Nope, and I am doubtful, certainly he was a man of his time, but that changes nothing of his ideas.

as for the genocide, as long as the public did not know, and did not hate him, genocide would be fine.
Before all else, be armed.



It is better to be feared than loved, if you cannot be both.



Politics have no relation to morals.



There is no surer sign of decay in a country than to see the rites of religion held in contempt.


And so forth and so forth. there are a few that I like, such as

I think you are mistaken to believe that his thoughts on politics do not apply today.

Some do, some don't, I think largely don't and that is not the best source of quotes.

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.


Ah, that is correct I believe, but I hope I got the general gist of the quote.
And no it was not to be applied onto Israel specificaly, but a responce to the quote you wrote.

Is it insulting to categorize all Israelis as Jewish fundamentalists?

I have? :S Now the ones in power are certainly jews, and are by most standards more or less fundamentalist, they may appear reasonable when compared to some movements, but they are still a theocracy.

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.

You see if we argue about what is right and wrong, and you say "well things are wrong" that sort of destroys the whole argument. It's like arguing "what tastes nicest of all?" "Oh apples!" "No oranges!" "Well nothing tastes perfect"
That argument is retarded.
As for the "people die" thing, why working towards extending life may be difficult, but I doubt it's impossible, let's get to work!
It's not a good argument against the useless deaths of AIDS, or a reason to prevent things that, you know, kill us.


Are you familiar at all with racial quotas? They're by no means new, and by no means exclusive to Israel.


I think they are, with exception of affirmative action, even that, sort of, but necessary, immoral. Most blacks in america will tell you the Police are hardly the ones to love.


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.


I think it comes down to the different views being incredibly fundamental to each world view, thus being very hard to argue, due to the massive massive amount of 'data' that has been interpeted differently.


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.

1 Actually followed the frame work
2 Agreed to a non agression pact
3 Maintained negotiations
There are probably many other things, but that is what I concluded after looking into it. Kim is scared of Bush, he needs to not be.
I am not sure how Bush is the victim either? Blaming the victim would be blaming the North Koreans.
You mean, the railguns that are only useful on naval vessels, and don't have working versions?
Right. Those railguns.

I am curious, what is the ultimate reason railguns will only work on Naval Vessels, givvena few years? but as I said, it was to illustrate a point, we are pretty close to reaching, infact we with nuclear nations already are, at a state where distance doesn't matter very much, and a "safety buffer zone" would have to span the entire globe.

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.

Please do so, without saying "Israel has the right to do whatever", making any point from Israel unecessary cruelty wrong by this magic rule, which you created. The ball is in Israel court because they are in power, because they have the means, because they are refusing to negotiate, because they are the ones violating the Human rights most frequently, and because they are actually a democracy.


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?

It should teach us about cause and effect, etc, etc, but claiming, I don't know, that germany is a thread to democracy because they were 60 years ago, yeah that is stupid, because what germany did 60 years ago..
Doesn't matter. I should have specified, to the current situation, certainly it had an affect on today, as has all history, but it is a poor cause in politics today.
If Bush wanted to invade Mecka because the pope said you should during the crusades, you don't think that would be a bad argument? Or maybe France, you know Napoleon is a danger!
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,

No, but you would have to argue why it is infact the case that it would be fair, not just declare that it IS not so, and then get rid of the discussion.

I feel as there were some arguments that I missed, so feel free to bring those to my attention, I am not going to read through all the posts again.

EDIT: Hmm, Chomsky seems to say alot of smart things in this video, even though I am still judging the man, he does speaketh the truth.
//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 » Mon Apr 16, 2007 10:19 pm UTC

fjafjan wrote:
Hamas is an organization that dedicates it's existence to the destruction of Israel.


No to the creation of a Palestinian state.


Hamas Charter:
Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it

"The Islamic Resistance Movement believes that the land of Palestine is an Islamic Waqf consecrated for future Moslem generations until Judgement Day. It, or any part of it, should not be squandered: it, or any part of it, should not be given up."

"There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are all a waste of time and vain endeavors."

"After Palestine, the Zionists aspire to expand from the Nile to the Euphrates. When they will have digested the region they overtook, they will aspire to further expansion, and so on. Their plan is embodied in the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion", and their present conduct is the best proof of what we are saying."

"The Day of Judgement will not come about until Moslems fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Moslems, O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him. Only the Gharkad tree, (evidently a certain kind of tree) would not do that because it is one of the trees of the Jews." (related by al-Bukhari and Moslem).


Hamas is dedicated to the destruction of Israel. It might be dedicated to other things as well, but it it is dedicated to the destruction of Israel.

The problem is, that the Hamas leaders that are willing to accept an Israeli state are murdered and it's really hard to drive a policy that "we want peace with Israel" when the guy that DOES that, gets killed.
By Israel.
See the irony there?
And you maintain that Hamas are completely unwilling to accept Israel, but I beg to differ, as I claimed they are in fact a lot more uncertain.


Hmm. That guy, obviously a peaceful guy. Wait a second, isn't he the guy who said:
Palestine is an Islamic land
"consecrated for future Muslim generations until Judgement Day"

"The so-called peace path is not peace and it is not a substitute for jihad and resistance."

"Six million descendants of monkeys [i.e. Jews] now rule in all the nations of the world, but their day, too, will come. Allah! Kill them all, do not leave even one."


This is why negotiations, no matter what the enemy SAYS, can actually be fruitful. Trying doesn't actually cost very much, compared to the costs of war. Israel refusing to talk to Hamas is stupid.


I repeat: What action or statement could Hamas make that would justify Israel stopping negotiations?

If there is no such statement and no such act, what incentive is there for Hamas to play nice?

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


Actually it is, if the actions you are going to take are in fact not a choice but an effect of the circumstances.


People are not automatons. People can learn that actions have consequences. Failure to learn this has consequences.

Reducing the palestinian people into automatons is racist and insulting.

In other words, if you create perfect circumstances for someone to kill someone, such as removal of ethical doubts, risk of getting caught, hatred towards person, etc etc, and they do it, it's not immoral. It's wrong to kill, but you can't be blamed for your actions, as they were not your actions but anyone's actions.


Yes, you can be blamed for your actions.

So wait, the people who loose a war are then responsible for the creation of the government, while they are still occupied?


Yes. If you lose a war, you better bust your balls to rebuild your society, or you are all screwed.

This means that they are at fault: they have the freedom.


There is more needed to form a forming democracy than 'freedom'. In fact, 'freedom' is simply anarchy, which usually ends up as some form of dictatorship. they had 'freedom', but since the both of them had no democratic custom (and before WWII you can see the importance of this, the states which had had democracy imposed on them after WWI fell off, while states with a longer democratic background managed to 'hold their ground') and no decent government to set things up to begin with, Fail!.


Every democracy on the earth built themselves up from anarchy and dictatorship. I didn't say it was easy. I didn't say they are likely to succeed. However, I hold them responsible for their own failures and own successes.

No, it isn't fair. The playing field is not level. This does not mean you are not responsible for the consequences. Because once a people are not responsible for their own fate, they are not to blame no matter how much they screw it up.

You have to try, try and try again. You have to fall down, and get back up. Thousands of people will have to die to build a free and democractic tradition. It will most likely be bloody.

But mostly I am not upset about Israel not TRUSTING THEM, but the means they USE. For example, you can either shoot your enemy, or you can bomb your enemy and kill thousands of civilians. That Israel acted against Hezbollah is not what I object to, but the manner in which they did.


Israel has no obligation to risk it's own soldiers. Hezbollah was the de-facto government in the entire southern end of Lebanon. It was heavily armed, it hides amoung civilian population, and it attacks Israel regularly.

When a military force hides amoung the civilian population, that civilian population should either reject the military (resist it/fight it/flee), or accept that they are now legitimate targets. I blame the force that hides itself behind civilians.

The laws of war (attacking each other's military) only work if both sides follow them. If one side rejects them, then it just called the bets off.

Israelis however, have not for the past twenty or so years, had any real threat to their nation,

You mean other than Iraq shooting missiles at them?


Are you suggesting these missiles were a serious threat to the Israeli state? They were certainly a provocation, etc, but it's not going to 'end them' so to speak.


No, it won't end Israel directly -- currently, Israel is safer than it has been in it's entire existence.

Israel is surrounded by hostile states. Israels strong economy and military production is what keeps it capable of defending itself. Attacks on it's economy are existential threats.

Weakness does not justify evil. Strength doesn't mean you have to avoid provocation.

Denounciations of their existence of the state by Iran?

And they should know that is a ploy by Ahmadinejad (that man should change his name of Amid).


You are saying that Iran, if it had the means, wouldn't destroy Israel? It would be a great ploy, and would create lots of votes back home.

Sure, it might take 20 years to build up the capability.

With great strength comes great responsibility.


This isn't Spiderman. If another state has a head-of-state that says "we should kill every one of your citizens", you have no obligation to play with kid gloves.

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.


They SAY that, while the other side ACTIVELY kills hundreds of innocent people each year. Now I am sorry but I prefer evil talk than evil actions. You know what usually improves relationships between two parties? negotiations. The fact that 'they are jerks' is not actually a reason not to talk to them.


The side that says it was part of a war that killed 1% of the entire population of Israel. Threats matter.

If someone threatened to kill my family, I wouldn't negotiate "instead of my entire family, how about you just kill my older brother?".

I'd use the biggest stick I could find (be it police, military, or gunpowder based) to stop that person.

The leader of Iran's statement "I will drive every Israeli into the sea" is a provocation that could justifies war. It is a threat of genocide.

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


you are confusing what I said. What I said actually makes sense.
For Palestine to form an effective, peaceful government, Israel needs to pull out of the west bank, or rather, the occupied territories.
Confusing cause the correlation there.


No, Palestine can form an effective, peaceful government with Israel occupying the territory. It was on it's way in the past, then the Infata happened, and they elected Hamas.

Israel did pull out of the Gaza strip. And the Gaza strip is not being ruled by an effective, peaceful government.

I claim that forming an effective, peaceful government is really really hard. I expect the Palestinians to fail at it many many times.

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


and then for the occupier to establish a state. If they don't I think you have every right to rebell, I would have applauded Poles fighting Hitler, or Hungarians righting the Soviet Regime, they were being oppressed, much like Palestinians are today.


Sure, they have the right choose to rebel. But so long as you rebel, the occupying power should continue treating the populance as hostile. There are consequences to actions, even ones you have a right to.

You have the right to freedom of speech in most western nations -- yet if you call your boss a whore, you get fired. There are consequences.

The Arab nations didn't surrender. Palestine didn't surrender.

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


As I hoped I have made clear, I make no excuses for the Arab countries, like you do for Israel. see the difference there? That's my whole point, you are saying "Israel good - Arabs bad", I am saying "Both bad, Israel as a democracy should be the good one". which of course then BRINGS US TO


Democracies have no obligation to be good to bad nations. Being good to a bad nation is stupidity.

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".


See there is a reason for this, and it is because for a state to be 'good' it needs to be a democracy.


Not really -- you can have a good monarchy. They just don't last. Virtue is not inheritied. :)

All dictatorships are, more or less, bad, I want all dictatorships to, eventually, as peacefully as possible, to turn into dictatorships.


I think you mean "turn into democracies".

This is why i want democracies to be good examples, and why it changes little my opinion of a dictatorship if they torture people or not, sure it would be an argument against someone saying "hey this is a great state!" but I hope there are no people here, well except possible pi, who support dictatorships.


Then why shouldn't dictatorships torture people? This is the problem with "shoot all criminals" -- if the punishment for robbery is death, why not shoot the victim?

North Korea torturing someone? Well I already know their leader is a douche, and I already want him to be deposed, it changes nothing.
Denmark torturing people? This is a serious matter.
Re the Bolded part, I hope you mean the Dictator and not the Dictatorship, as blaming a nation for the one Man (because I am unaware of any current female dictators) leading it, usually there through violent means, seems incredibly strange.


No man rules a nation. You need a massive number of people to rule even an unarmed populance. And all that a dictator can do is kill you.

America should have followed their demands in the 'Framework' treaty, proved more reliable, and NK never would have had Nuclear weapons.


I see no reason why NK wouldn't have continued working on nuclear weapons at alternative sites. Admittedly, it would have slowed down NK's bomb.

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?


Negative response - Quite certainly
The CURRENT 'negative responses'? - No (at least considering the current condition)


List some. Given the current condition. What could Palistine do that would justify Israel not talking to them? What could Palistine do that would justify Israel occupying them and oppressing them?

I would like to ask the same question to you though, would you not take up the fight if someone decided to oppress you, during your entire life, and showed little sign of relenting?


Quite possibly. And my family would suffer.

Or maybe I'd try to build up my strength and try to build what I could. Maybe I would vote in parties that supported peace. Maybe I'd turn in the idiots who keep on bringing down the oppressor on me.

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.

Wait, so it doesn't matter 'what they get'? Or was it just that expression?
Is it that you condone of the way the war was waged, or that you condone a war?
I don't generally see how that was related to my post though.
My post was essentially
"Both parties gain from peace". I added a 'disclaimer' about the conditions of peace, but it would probably be true.


I condone Israel using high-explosive ordinance to attack Hezboulla positions that saturated the south end of Lebannon. As far as my current state of information is concerned, Hezboulla hid a pretty damn decent size military force in civilian camoflauge, and was equipped with modern weapons imported from Iran.

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 Hezbollah? Who give money to the families of suicide bombers?


Because blame fall at
Arab nations
Israel.
I would never call the Arab nations 'good'. Part of the reason for lack of peace is there fault, however I believe a larger part of it is Israels fault, and since no one here is defending the Arabs, why show their part of the blame more explicitly?
That's beating a dead horse.


If Israel fell back to it's 1967 borders, gave the Palestinians complete control over the West Bank Gaza and East Jerusalem, pulled out of the Lebanon strip, pulled out of the Golan Heights... and terrorist attacks continued on Israeli border posts and inside Israel, military troops where moved into the border regions, Iran started shipping Hezboulla heavy ordinance.

The Arab nations demand that Israel pull back to their 1947 borders now -- I mean, why not? Now is Israel obligated to comprimise again?

10 years later, a mass invation hits them, and Israel barely survives: loses 20% of it's economy and 1% of it's population is killed in the resulting war.

Would Israel be justified in taking territory? Would it be justified in occupying Palestinian land?

Now the exact same demands are made. Should Israel withdraw again, and let the Arab nations attack again?

What possible action could the Arab nations do that would not mean that you would place the obligation not on Israel?

In fact, had the American revolution occurred today, they no doubt would have been called terrorists.


Yes, and the British government was quite justified in killing them and refusing to negotiate with them.

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

BUT, if you treat it as if it was under unsurrection you can't treat it as a democracy.


Yes you can.

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


Why no peace? Because no even semi decent government was established, insurgencies were given fuel by the brutal oppression, and because Israel were unwilling to negotiate.


It was willing to negotiate. Each side was unwilling to negotiate on the other's terms.

Your argument was "60 years ago they were offered a state, they declined". Israel won the war, then they should have established a government, encouraged democracy, and pro Israeli opinions (as their other Arab opponents were encouraging anti Israeli opinions) and taken several further steps.


Israel didn't occupy the west bank at that time. It claimed very little territory. The West Bank and Gaza where under Jordinian and Egyptian rule.

They where annexed by the other side.

These territories where then used as a military base to threaten and attack Israel. Israel didn't want to occupy them -- it only occupied them because the alternative was destruction.

Have you actually read up even a brief overview of the history of Israel?

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".


No If israel are allowed to attack palestinian civilians whenever is convenient, does, with current Israel policy, make peace impossible.


Why does that make peace impossible? It makes peace on good terms that the Arab side would like impossible, but it doesn't make peace impossible.

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


Negotiatin is infact not "hey, you, we agree to your terms" but, "this is what we think, what do you think? well let's change some thing so that maybe we can agree!". Refusing to negotiate makes nothing better, it only serves to make things worse.


Comprimise isn't always a virtue.

For example, someone walks up to me and says "I want everything you own". I say "no". They say "let's negotiate -- I'll take half of what you own".

If comprismise is always the best, you should first act by taking far more than you are justified to, then "comprimise" and give some back.

Yeah, but I would not expect them to. I expect the democracy to.


I expect a democracy to defend itself, first and foremost.

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

Oh, the same way it's "up to" black young men in poor inner city areas to turn to crime? Or young Sunni Muslims in Iraq to dislike america?


Yes. You can choose to turn to crime, or you can choose not to turn to crime. You can choose to hate, or you can choose to build.

I mean sure, they have a 'choice', But I don't think they are ultimately to blame for the high rates of crime in those area, or the dislike for america in iraq.


There is no ultimate blame. There is enough blame for everyone involved.

Straw man?
No, essential road map would be for Israel to accknowledge the Palestinian their goverment,


Should Israel fund the government? Should it allow Hamas to build up a large oranized and trained police force? Should it open the borders to allow weapons to be brought in?

and let them govern,


If 100 Israelis are killed by explosives brought in through the Palesitian territories, what should Israel do?

Should it ask Hamas to send them the people responsible? If Hamas refuses?

Should it send investigators into the Territories? If they get killed?

Should it have open borders with the Palestinian territories?

initiate talk with Hamas leaders, some serious action to prevent innocent Palestinian casualities, create a pro Israel campagn in palestine, showing these new efforts to peace, free political prisoners (note, these are different from proven terrorists) as well as people who have had no or a fake trial, or try them again in a proper court of law.


Which prisoners should it free? A list of 10 would do to start. :)

This should be sufficient for Hamas to agree to sign a treaty of peace, after which israel withdraws from occupied territories, starting to remove the Wall could also be a sign of Good will.


But wait -- when does Israel withdraw again?

And what actions on would change Israel's response? What if Hamas starts talking about destroying Israel?

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.


When did I say Israel should trust the arab leaders to keep peace?
Palestine is ofcourse not a part of these arab leaders, I mean they are Arabs, and they have leaders, but I mean 'the other states'.


The Arab leaders and states provide the funding and weapons to attack Israel via Palestine.

Imagine Hamas starts talking all peaceful. Suddenly, funding from the Arab states shifts to a seperate organization, call it "Hamas 2.0". It is far more radical, and arms itself. It then starts attacking Israel.

Hamas doesn't stop it, because that would damage it's own ability to get the votes needed to stay in power.

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


54.
No, actually, it's not a mtter of how many Israeli's it's worth, but how many that would die either way.
How many dead Palestinians are worth 1 'saved' Israeli?


Now, are we talking about Palestinians who vote 60% for a party that says "destroy Israel", or Palestinians who vote 90% for peace parties, or Palestinians who work in paramilitary organizations to attack Israel?

The problem with your treaty was really the whole 'Nothing at all in return, except peace, when we are not really in war'.


If Israel gets nothing, why should it give anything?

Note that Israel makes promises about withdrawing from occupied territory in my proposal. Are these promises worth nothing?

And it would not solve the Israel - Palestine conflict, as I imagine


It says "stop the war for 20 years, and you'll be free". A definite timeline.

We accept the current lines of occupation.

Might be hard to sell.


So is "pull back to the borders that we attacked you from, and allow in 4 million people who hate your nation as citizens".

Okey, North Korea is the cause of the North Korean problem as well. And what has that accomplished?
Oh wait, that's right, nothing!



By Ultimate cause of the issue I mean the current situation, if the Romans hadn't dispersed them, they probably would have converted to Islam, as the rest of the region, and there would be no issue,


You mean, converted by imposing an insanely high oppressive tax on anyone who isn't Islamic? Slaughtered for not bending to the will of Allah?

That would solve the problem. ;)

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.


Fun fact - those are not good reasons.


Those are the positions of an organization at war with Israel. You respond to threats of war with war.

So, Israel should start bombing the shit out of the occupied territories, and say "we will accept the unconditional surrender of Hamas".

Or, instead of responding to provications to war with war, it could just say "smarten up" and let them stew.

Negotiations are seldom harmful, and improved relations, even personal relations, often do lots of good.


You don't negotiate with someone unwilling to pretend to speak pleasantly. If their pride means that much to them, then fuck'm: if they are unwilling to bend on even surface protocol, they are unlikely to bend on anything of substance.

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.


But they already had that party, and they were a fucking corrupt bunch, sadly, and Israel were still then killing hundreds of Palestinians ever year.


Can you cite your source that during the period between the infatas, Israel was killing 100s of Palestinians every year?

Thanks.

I was trying to prove that Palestinians Initial resistance was valid and just.


Sure, they had the right to resist. But when you fail to annihilate a state, there are consequences. If you try again and again, there are worse consequences.

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


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",


Not prior.


You mean during the Israeli war of independence?

Are you going to pay to keep me alive?


In nearly all cases, yes, i might not do it unconditionally, and I might, in some cirkumstances, requie the money back, but yes, I would.


How many people? 1? 10? 100? 1000? 10000? 100000? 1000000? 1000000? 10000000? 100000000? 1000000000?

Well certainly, he is at fault, but he is not at fault for not solving the situation, if a hostage situation goes wrong it is more or less the police that fucked up.


The hostage taker is responsible for the lives of everyone he threatens to kill. I blame him. If the police choose to not negotiate with him in order to reduce the number of future hostage takings, that is OK with me. If the police respond to hostage takings by sniping and killing the target, and miss, and that causes the hostage taker to kill the hostages -- that is sad, but I blame the hostage taker for murdering the hostages.

If the police negotiate with the hostage taker, and feed him lies in order to kill him/capture him, that is OK as well.

If the police negotiate with the hostage taker and give him what he wants, then I start blaming the police for the next hostage situation. You don't encourage hostage takers. You treat them like murderers who just haven't done it yet. You don't give them what they want, because that encourages the next one, and the next one, and the next one.

Incentives work. Bandages don't.

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.


Statement? It's human rights baby!
That way you don't have soldiers massacring a village going "hey, we thought they were military, cause we saw this guy in a uniform, and you know ... them children looked awefully dangerous"
Point is, bombing a civilian airport is hardly the case of "well maybe they were going to shoot us", nor is a school, or a hospital.


If the school shoots at you, you bomb the school.

If the hospital shoots at you, you bomb the hospital.

If the "civilian" airport shoots at you, you bomb the airport.

If and only if the hospital has a huge sign on it saying "I'm a hospital", and the other side strictly avoids shooting from hospitals, and the other side strictly avoids attacking your hospitals, then you don't bomb hospitals.

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"?


Possible? pretty much equally possible (though, it's alot easier to defend yourself with virtually nothing against someone with a sword, against someone with a rocket launcher. a pointy stick might save you in one of the cases.) but one is alot easier.


Heard of Rwanda? Genocide by Machette's and Clubs. Guess how many million?

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.

Actually, I think the germans would never again elect the goverment that invaded denmark, which is also part of the reason. But your arguments are correct aswell, but there is no one in the world with an invincible military, so it's pretty rediculous anyway.


I don't think never means what you think it means.

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.

Well I imagine the police would do that, not the military?


If I do it on a mass scale, the military handles it.

Police actions presume the consent of the general populance.

But in a world with, (and ofcourse, we are not there) a vast majority of Democracies, with decent foreign relations and atleast semi healthy morality (ie, occupying another nation, and taking land from them, is bad) no goverment would want to invade another. Thus maintaining anything more than a very limited military capacity would be unnecesary.

so your statement that you need to use violence to keep land is not really true, some military force will still be needed, but I imagine eventually that need will disappear.


You are presuming that your situation is stable. Morality drifts: once one nation starts flirting with "we have rights to land X that you are violating" and starts using force to back up their arguement...

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

Postby Vaniver » Tue Apr 17, 2007 12:39 am UTC

In other words, if you create perfect circumstances for someone to kill someone, such as removal of ethical doubts, risk of getting caught, hatred towards person, etc etc, and they do it, it's not immoral.
Emphasis mine. What's the point of this tautology?

In fact, had the American revolution occurred today, they no doubt would have been called terrorists.
Ah, but here's the rub.

The American revolutionaries were living in the 1700s. The Palestinians were living in the 1900s. More than once in this thread, people have asked if something was acceptable "within the last 50 years". You cannot justify something that is held to the standard of modern morality by historical morality in one sense, and not in the other- you need one consistent morality.

Refusing to negotiate makes nothing better, it only serves to make things worse.
Well, it saves Israel's wasted time, and sends a message to the Palestinian people to change their government to one that can obtain peace.

Oh, the same way it's "up to" black young men in poor inner city areas to turn to crime?
Really, yes.

Fun fact - those are not good reasons.
What makes you think those are bad reasons? How do you expect us to value your opinion if you do so?

Negotiations are seldom harmful, and improved relations, even personal relations, often do lots of good.
Fun fact- I don't like having improved relations with people sworn to kill me; I keep on getting the feeling I'm being set up to be stabbed in the back.

there are a number of simple solutions to the case of the speeding cars, such as speed bumps, or other means of simply "not being able to drive fast/at all untull given permission" which would solve these problems.
... What the hell does your second solution mean? And do you really expect speed bumps to deter a car bomb? They're designed to annoy the drivers more than actually slow them.

it's not a "ultimate crime" worse than all others, and that should be treated fundamentally different. It's a crime, and a serious crime. How is it worse than a serial killer? (or I guess, serial killing would be the correct verb)
I'm afraid I cannot explain well my revulsion at suicide bombings, or what about them makes them different.

But one of the main differences is that they don't give you a culprit. You can catch the serial killer; you can't catch the suicide bomber until he's already dead. You can point the finger back at the person who sent the suicide bomber, but that requires a morality that opposes terrorist organizations instead of just punishing people for crimes.

Had Israel did their job and established a proper Palestinian state, at any point, rather than 'defending themselves' killing loads of Palestinians, there very likely would have been peace.
...

Why is it Israel's job to establish a Palestinian state? Isn't that the job of the Palestinians?

Having 'Palestinianness' as one of the criteria could be 'okey, but having it as the main, or one criteria is completely unfair, if you are Palestinian, but atheist, and is working for a furthering of democratic ideas, the chances you are a terrorist are probably lower than if you are an Israeli (or rather, a threat to peace, which is really what such guards should be looking after).
Your atheism takes considerably more (generally impossibly more) effort to determine than your appearance or nationality. Using it as a predictive measure would be nearly impossible.

And them both being unarmed is vital to the peace process. Or do you want IRA to remain armed? or Hamas? Hmm..
I have few problem with them having weapons; I have problems with them using them. If I believed that the Israelis would massacre Palestinians if given the chance, I would argue that it is vital that Hamas have weapons to defend itself.

Me neither actually, even though i'm hardly 'rich', I don't see what this has to do with your unwillingless to dispence of small luxuries for the lives of others?
Because you were talking about big luxuries, and my point was I already don't partake in them.

In nearly all cases, yes, i might not do it unconditionally, and I might, in some cirkumstances, requie the money back, but yes, I would.
Please send me your address so I can send you my rent bills. Would you mind doing the same for all of my friends?

However, the cost of the Human rights is fairly small, once you get to a certainl level of society.
And what if that certain level isn't there? How much does it cost then?

Well certainly, he is at fault, but he is not at fault for not solving the situation, if a hostage situation goes wrong it is more or less the police that fucked up.
Why are we blaming the victim here? If a hostage situation goes wrong, it's generally because there was a hostage situation in the first place.

Point is, bombing a civilian airport is hardly the case of "well maybe they were going to shoot us", nor is a school, or a hospital.
My point is that it might not be a civilian airport or school or hospital, because there might be militants using it. It strikes me as silly to limit our targets based on what our enemy says they are, not on where our enemy actually is.

Possible? pretty much equally possible (though, it's alot easier to defend yourself with virtually nothing against someone with a sword, against someone with a rocket launcher. a pointy stick might save you in one of the cases.) but one is alot easier.
Once again, you seem to have little idea of perspective. It's generally impossibly hard to defend yourself against a group of people better armed than you, regardless of the absolute level of the armament.

Well I imagine the police would do that, not the military?
Are you implying that the police is not an arm of the government, or that it does not employ violence?

so your statement that you need to use violence to keep land is not really true, some military force will still be needed, but I imagine eventually that need will disappear.
That need will not disappear so long as there are people willing to shoot other people to take their stuff; those people will always be present.

but are you saying railguns would be impossible? Hmm, it appears your military knowledge is impaired then.
Yes and no.

I'm saying that a railgun that can hit the target you mentioned from the location that you're in is impossible, for a number of reasons.

I'm saying that what railguns exist today are prototypes at best, and have limited military application. The only real benefit they have over other forms of weaponry is inert ammunition, and that only really matters for the Navy; if they're using railguns, you can't blow up a ship by shooting its ammunition cache.

But, you might say, they have tremendous muzzle velocities! Keep in mind that the damage inflicted by a projectile is determined more by its weight than its velocity (at least, while we're talking about bullets). Bullet A is twice as heavy as bullet B; in order to deal the same damage, B would have to be going three times as fast (the coefficient 3 is made up, but the idea holds) to do the same damage as A. But, that would mean B would need four and a half times the kinetic energy of A- heavier, slower bullets are more efficient than lighter, faster ones.

Keep in mind as well the prodigious power of air resistance- you might leave the muzzle at a phenomenal velocity, only to bleed it off into the air rather quickly. If we're talking about conquering distance, firing something that cannot propel itself so that it'll hit a target very far aware takes an unimaginably larger amount of energy than firing something that *can* propel itself, and can maintain a constant, relatively low-friction flight.
I mostly post over at LessWrong now.

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

User avatar
Roffle
Posts: 804
Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2007 1:28 pm UTC
Location: Here.
Contact:

Postby Roffle » Thu Apr 19, 2007 6:15 pm UTC

Hi.

I'm Norwegian, and I can claim to be unbiased in this debate. Why? Because I don't have any strong personal feelings towards jews, Israel, Palestinians or the general muslim world (not included fundamentalists of any kind, whom I loathe). I don't know any jews or muslims. All I know about this conflict is what Norwegian media (which, by the way, is very unbiased) has reported, stuff I've encountered online, and the things that have been said in this thread.

Firstly, I'd like to point out that I've spent several hours reading through this thing. Call it my pet project, if you will. I've also taken it upon myself to examine the sources you've provided, biased and unbiased. I even watched that video clip.

This thread is literally ripe with seething emotions and fact distortions. It is a very unfortunate thing that people in a heated debate will distort facts and keep shouting them until they are reasonably certain that people have read them enough times to influence them. This is called propaganda, and I hope anyone reading this thread took the time to actually research some of the claims that have been made. Things start to clear up a lot when you find out who is deliberately spreading disinformation and skewing perspectives. I'll leave that up to you.

From what I've read, and what I've seen, the case is very simple. The jewish people (not the religion, the people), have a clear and lawful right to the geographical location known as Israel, by international law and multi-lateral agreements. All democratic, law-abiding countries are behind this. Countries controlled by dictators and despots, or with religious fundamental regimes in government, do not abide by this decision. It is blatantly obvious that it is the will of certain non-secular countries around Israel that the state be oblitherated, and it's people slaughtered. Defending this position is not only morally wrong, it is downright inhuman, and shows just how effective fundamentalist propaganda is in turning people with no sense of source-research and critical thinking to their cause. And it is not possible to simply move 7,1 million people, nor is it desireable.

I think it is very unfortunate that this conflict is fanning the flames under anti-semittism again, a practice and a state of mind that should have vanished with the atrocities of world war two. People should know better. But sadly, history teaches us nothing. I am quite certain that anti-semittism, fundamentalist religious beliefs and politics are the main reasons for these "certain countries" to wish for the annihilation of Israel and its people. I am also quite certain that self-preservation motivates the people of Israel. Of the two, I find the latter to be the one deserving of appreciation and sympathy.

I know there are a lot of heated emotions about this, and I don't even expect to be heard in this debate, but I do hope you all (that's everyone) take a long, hard look at yourselves in the mirrior and ask yourselves, why you feel as you do, why you feel as strongly as you do, and what those feelings are based on. Then reexamine your beliefs. Are they all correct, or are some of them archaic? Are they all based on logic, reason and respect for your fellow humans? Dare to criticize your beliefs, and the ones hammered into your mind. Just because something is repeated enough times does not make it correct. And that is especially considering where you heard it from.

Also, lyworm, I thought this was really beautiful.

"Here I was born,
Here I gave birth to my children,
Here I built my home with my two hands
Here you are with me and here are my thousand friends,
And after two thousand years - an end to my wandering."
"Error juris semper nocet"

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 20, 2007 2:40 am UTC

Roffle wrote:Hi.

hello
Because I don't have any strong personal feelings towards jews, Israel, Palestinians or the general muslim world (not included fundamentalists of any kind, whom I loathe).

Well I personally think that any unbiased organisation will be "bias" in the way of Palestinians (certainly Amnesty, Human rights watch, etc certainly is that, though ofcourse it is not a bias, but a sympathy for the oppressed people, but more on that later)

All I know about this conflict is what Norwegian media (which, by the way, is very unbiased) has reported, stuff I've encountered online, and the things that have been said in this thread.

The Norwegian media unbiased? Oh please, who told you that? The Norwegian media? Hmm...
I am curius if this unbiased and fair media has reported as much on the suicide bombings of palestinians as on killings of innocent palestinans, or why not something like the genocide in Darfur? Sure they might have mentioned the Palestinians, but I am certainly they will give them less, or as much, time, despite the fact that, as previously mentioned, it was something like 10 times as many, was it more? Well way way more.

Firstly, I'd like to point out that I've spent several hours reading through this thing.

Impressive :D
Call it my pet project, if you will. I've also taken it upon myself to examine the sources you've provided, biased and unbiased. I even watched that video clip.

I am unsure as of what Video clip that would be? I am providing a number of videos from one, ofcourse in the sence that he has an opinion, biased, expert, citing various sources himself.
This thread is literally ripe with seething emotions and fact distortions. It is a very unfortunate thing that people in a heated debate will distort facts and keep shouting them until they are reasonably certain that people have read them enough times to influence them




I too dislike factual inaccuracies, which is why I like it when people with more credable sources refute them. For example your claim that Israel would be somehow obliterated if they stopped killing hundreds of innocent palestinians, depriving them of human rights and generally treating them in an appertheid like manner. You understand how those are separate right?



This is called propaganda, and I hope anyone reading this thread took the time to actually research some of the claims that have been made. Things start to clear up a lot when you find out who is deliberately spreading disinformation and scewing perspectives. I'll leave that up to you.

The secret research? Please tell

Countries controlled by dictators and despots, or with religious fundamental regimes in government, do not abide by this decision. It is blatantly obvious that it is the will of certain non-secular countries around Israel that the state be oblitherated, and it's people slaughtered. Defending this position is not only morally wrong, it is downright inhuman, and shows just how effective fundamentalist propaganda is in turning people with no sense of source-research and critical thinking to their cause. And it is not possible to simply move 7,1 million people, nor is it desireable.

It is not obvious at all, I mean certainly there are agressive sentiments, but really there is no nation that seriously would consider an invasion style war against Israel, if nothing else for the simple reason that Israel would have NATO backing.
As for moving Israel, I hope that my discussions of that have been purely hypothetical, really that is not a realistic solution, there is however a realistic solution that both palestinians and Israelis can agree upon, based on the '67 borders, and that could most likely solve the problem. Ofcourse Israel refuses to officially negotiate, and for the past 20 or so years any attempts to get such an agreement has been Vetoed by the US. Ho ho.



From what I've read, and what I've seen, the case is very simple. The jewish people (not the religion, the people), have a clear and lawful right to the geographical location known as Israel, by international law and multi-lateral agreements. All democratic, law-abiding countries are behind this.

I don't think anyone is disagreeing with this, what my claim has always been is that the Israelis, before they came here, much like the americans, had no claim to their land. they do now. however there are sitll areas that are, according to international law occupied, and contested. But that Israel is to exist are all parts, including Hamas, agreed upon, despite speeches they have had, Hamas has agreed to Normalise relations. But ofcourse they can't do shit because they ar eoccupied without any means.


I think it is very unfortunate that this conflict is fanning the flames under anti-semittism again, a practice and a state of mind that should have vanished with the atrocities of world war two. People should know better. But sadly, history teaches us nothing. I am quite certain that anti-semittism, fundamentalist religious beliefs and politics are the main reasons for these "certain countries" to wish for the annihilation of Israel and its people. I am also quite certain that self-preservation motivates the people of Israel. Of the two, I find the latter to be the one deserving of appreciation and sympathy.

Well I really doubt it, certainly now people hate Jews, but this is because of what has occured in Israel, not because of the kind of anti semitism common in older europe and america. Much the way America are disliked for their policies in many parts of the world. It just happens that Israel is a jewish state.
But I think you have completely missunderstood the problem. You are fully buying the excuses of Israel. The problem is not that 'they are defending themselves' but that they are breaking international laws while doing so. For example, before the Lebanon invasion, two civilians were captured in Gaza. Now capturing civilians, that was not seen as "bad" at all, by Israeli apologists, while the capture of soldeirs in a conflict was apparantly terrible enough for Apologists to think it is okey for Israel to kill thousands of Lebanesse civilians because of it. How is that not a double standard?

. Then reexamine your beliefs. Are they all correct, or are some of them archaic? Are they all based on logic, reason and respect for your fellow humans? Dare to criticize your beliefs, and the ones hammered into your mind. Just because something is repeated enough times does not make it correct. And that is especially considering where you heard it from.


Let us bring in some new facts, which have been left out

regarding Lebanon(though mentions palestine aswell, since the conflicts are connected)
Regarding the classic "defence" claims
More on Israel Palestine
The suffering of Palestine
A student objects, and gets pwned (poor sound quality in the middle, but the same arguments as brought up here, and he knows enough to crush them)
I love when Chomsky tells it like it is :)

Then reexamine your beliefs. Are they all correct, or are some of them archaic? Are they all based on logic, reason and respect for your fellow humans? Dare to criticize your beliefs, and the ones hammered into your mind. Just because something is repeated enough times does not make it correct. And that is especially considering where you heard it from.


Why? Well I think because I trust human rights organisatoins like Amnesty, Human rights watch, and the general left (a numberof social commentators, most of them are swedish, I can mention them if you want).
I know that Palestine is occupied, I know that Palestinians are being killed all the time, and it is going unreported. I know that Israel is generally oppressing the Palestinians, more or less like South africa did against the blacks. Infact, amusingly they have openly admitted to a "bantu stand" policy, which is what the appartheid goverment called their policy in south africa, which was the same principle. They were trying to create small black/palestinian settlements, almost entirely surrounded by Israeli/white land, so that they would be almost entirely dependant on the whites/israelis. The barricade is part of this.


The American revolutionaries were living in the 1700s. The Palestinians were living in the 1900s. More than once in this thread, people have asked if something was acceptable "within the last 50 years". You cannot justify something that is held to the standard of modern morality by historical morality in one sense, and not in the other- you need one consistent morality.


Well I consistantly think people have the right to rule themselves, basically if France occupied germany, I think germany has every right to fight against france through road bombs etc etc in order to get back their freedom. Palestinians are trying to get their own state and get Israel to stop the occupation, that is entirely defendable. Israel is trying to opress the Palestinian people and defeat the "insurgents". The attacks on civilians are deplorable, but attacks on military are entirely acceptable.



Well, it saves Israel's wasted time, and sends a message to the Palestinian people to change their government to one that can obtain peace.

Bull
Shit
First of all you cannot demand that another nation to change their goverment.
Second there has been no proof, other than statements, and simular statements have been made on the regard of high ranking Israelis, such as
[quote=Moshe Dayan]"Israel must be like a rabid dog, so that the rest of the region will be terrified to come near"[/quote]
[quote="olmert"]“Half of Lebanon is destroyed. Is that a loss?â€
//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 » Fri Apr 20, 2007 7:00 am UTC

fjafjan wrote:I too dislike factual inaccuracies

Well, your post is full of them. But you clearly are not interested in discussing anything. You're just yelling, for a very long time, about the same old stuff. It is clear your opinion has been formed, and nothing will change it in even the slightest way. Bullheaded ignorance is not the way to discuss this.

I have reached the limit of my patience. I want to discuss this. I want to learn about the situation. You clearly do not.

You don't provide evidence. Sorry, but Noam Chomsky isn't evidence, it's just his opinion. It just as easily qualifies as "propaganda". Your blind bias is galling. Find some facts for once.

You do the Palestinian people an injustice. They deserve better than your rambling and confusing posts. Jeez, I almost want to change sides just so the Palestinian viewpoint gets some rational arguments.
The drinking will continue until morale improves.

User avatar
Roffle
Posts: 804
Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2007 1:28 pm UTC
Location: Here.
Contact:

Postby Roffle » Fri Apr 20, 2007 8:29 am UTC

The Norwegian media unbiased? Oh please, who told you that? The Norwegian media? Hmm...
I am curius if this unbiased and fair media has reported as much on the suicide bombings of palestinians as on killings of innocent palestinans, or why not something like the genocide in Darfur? Sure they might have mentioned the Palestinians, but I am certainly they will give them less, or as much, time, despite the fact that, as previously mentioned, it was something like 10 times as many, was it more? Well way way more.


No, actually, the norwegian media reports on a great number of things from that region, all from a journalistically and politically neutral perspective. As I understand you are Swedish?, you're perhaps familiar with NRK, the gouvernment run news channel? I'm guessing you think that's pretty biased, huh? Well, the fact remains that Norway has now become one of the most impartial arbitrators of that region, having brokered peace treaties and generally worked towards stablilizing that entire region, with the small resources we have. That would make the governmentally controlled news organisation in Norway a most impartial source. They report from both sides of the conflict, and they do not take sides.

Well, that's not entirely true, they have focused a lot more on palestinians lately, as it's become a good political tactic for the Progress party (FRP, whom I call the turncoat-party), who will do anything and say anything for a vote, a sadly efficient tactic, to convince our county governors to boicot Israeli wares, to "force" Israel to "make peace". A practice of which I am not fond, and a practice I find detestable. Unfortunately, many people don't even bother to look into the claims that only Israel can "make peace", and just do as they are told. I don't want to be a sheeple, so I think twice.

So if anything, norwegian media is skewed in favour of the palestinians. But I am very confident that they report accurately and truthfully.

Impressive


Not really, this issue is very interesting, very important, and deserving of one's time, critical thinking, and opinions.

I am unsure as of what Video clip that would be? I am providing a number of videos from one, ofcourse in the sence that he has an opinion, biased, expert, citing various sources himself.


Pi's. I chose to ignore yours. Your posts aren't very factual anyway, and this was a long thread, so I didn't spend my time on that.

I too dislike factual inaccuracies, which is why I like it when people with more credable sources refute them. For example your claim that Israel would be somehow obliterated if they stopped killing hundreds of innocent palestinians, depriving them of human rights and generally treating them in an appertheid like manner. You understand how those are separate right?


Apartheid? How so? Do Palestinians live *in* Israel? Wouldn't that make them Israeli? If not, then it's hardly apartheid. That is a very bad comparison, due to the fact that referring to something unilaterally concidered to be an abmination, with the sole purpose of evoking negative emotions towards Israel, without any factual basis for the claim, really only hurts your case. If you want people to take you seriously, you need to stay factual. If not, you're just that annoying kid in the corner, jumpin up and down screaming incoherently. You might as well start comparing the Israelis with the Nazis. Wait, didn't someone already do that a while back? Why wasn't Godwin's law called?

Now, as for Israel being oblitherated, no, that won't happen. Even though there are a lot of despots and religious fanatics who would dearly love to see that happen, Israel will not lose the support of the UN, the USA, and the rest of the democratic world. It may look like Israel stands alone, but it doesn't. Should it come under all-out attack, which it itself cannot defend itself against, its allies will rally to its cause. So, whatever happens, Israel won't be abandoned, won't be left to die, and won't be "conquered" by islamistic states and terrorists.

There's a problem in the region. I agree. Inhuman things are done on both sides, I agree. There needs to be peace, I agree. But peace will be impossible as long as the middle east is filled with aggressors, fundamental religious beliefs, and regimes thirsting for western blood. That is not a foundation for peace. We can only hope things will be resolved. In the meantime, Israel will have to do what it must to ensure its safety and continued existance.

The secret research? Please tell


What secret research are you referring to? That sentence(?) does not make any sense. I'm spesifically asking people to check the "facts" being presented here. You don't approve?

Okay, let's just cut through the rest of your, dare I say, "crap". I'm not trying to convince you, I'm trying to convince people who might be reading your stuff to check your sources very throughly, before they decide to lend them any weight. Also, I am asking people not to just assume that you know what you are talking about, to not just accept your arguments out of hand, and go form their own opinion.

I don't really see the point in debating this with you, as this is what everyone should do to begin with. It's called critical thinking, and has brought more good to humanity as a whole than practically anything else.

I would rate your general arguments as about as factual as, say, me claiming we can't listen to anything you say, because we all know the Swedes collaborated with the Nazis during WW2. What? That sounds totally stupid? So does your apartheid analogy.

I'm not going to respond to you anymore now, because it would be completely pointless, and I don't have the energy nor the time to refute inacurate or downright silly claims. So I'll just trust that whoever reads your posts do that themselves.

Du måste lugna deg, grabben.
"Error juris semper nocet"

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

Postby 3.14159265... » Fri Apr 20, 2007 8:34 am UTC

@space_raptor

Its an important issue, people are suffering, ALOT, for A LONG TIME.

I am talking about the palestinians.

People need to have strong opinions for there to be justice. Especially those fighting for palestinians, the reason being that America likes having Jr.America (Jewish version) in the middle east even at the cost of human life, or more importantly the quality of it.

These opinions take time to form and change, yours are the same, fjafjan has GREAT patience, continuing to make great point while you arn't understanding him. This is my point of view, quite similar to yours of him.

That means we should both take a step back and re-analyze our positions.
"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 20, 2007 1:23 pm UTC

There's a problem in the region. I agree. Inhuman things are done on bot

Oh cmon. Are you seriously suggesting this? I agree that they can't have too much of a say in future politics, but those elemnts are there, on both sides of the fence, and I'd say they are unavoidable.

And I will withdraw my claim that the norweigan media is Bias, and apologize.
Unfortunately, many people don't even bother to look into the claims that only Israel can "make peace",


Well they could, withdraw from occupied territories, accept hamas, and then sign a peace treaty. But ofcourse, that is, just as expecting Hamas to suffender all their unreasonable positions before nagotiations can begin, unrealistic.

I chose to ignore yours. Your posts aren't very factual anyway, and this was a long thread, so I didn't spend my time on that.


I think I have contributed most of the actual facts and statistics, while mainly quotes have been provided by Yakk and Vanivver.

I definately think you should watch this onesince you need to understand the situation of the palestinians to realise how unreasonable Israels demands are, and to show just how opressive their occupation is.

partheid? How so? Do Palestinians live *in* Israel? Wouldn't that make them Israeli? If not, then it's hardly apartheid.


Well first I should mention that there were plans in the Apatheid goverment, the ones I mentioned, to create black states, which would be surrounded by white land, but yes they are different. Palestinians do live in occupied territories, and even the ones that don't are regularily harassed by the Israeli military forces. They are heavily regulated in their own nation by the Israeli goverment.

Israel will have to do what it must to ensure its safety and continued existance.


So you think there is not even a theoretical action israel could take htat would be immral? say the killed a million palestinians, and said "look, they were going to harm us" you would find that acceptable?
Now ofcourse, that has not occured, but the fact that they need to defend themself does not justify whatever means they are using. You need to be able to prove that Israels methods, in violation of the Geneve convention (they are moving settlers to occupied land, and removing civilians from it) are necessary to defend Israel.



What secret research are you referring to? That sentence(?) does not make any sense. I'm spesifically asking people to check the "facts" being presented here. You don't approve?


I do, but essentially you are saying "I know who is right, I did alot of research, however I will not tell you what this research was". I would love you to present facts

I'm not trying to convince you, I'm trying to convince people who might be reading your stuff to check your sources very throughly, before they decide to lend them any weight. Also, I am asking people not to just assume that you know what you are talking about, to not just accept your arguments out of hand, and go form their own opinion.


That is great, I think you should present the contradictory facts though, rather than defence rethorics.



I would rate your general arguments as about as factual as, say, me claiming we can't listen to anything you say, because we all know the Swedes collaborated with the Nazis during WW2. What? That sounds totally stupid? So does your apartheid analogy.

The palestinians are systematically opressed, lacking basic human rights, subject to economical strangulation. They are separated from Israel, through a huge wall, aswell as check points even withing Palestine.

Du måste lugna deg, grabben.


Polarn, du borde läsa mer om mänskliga rättigheter, och de organisationer som försöker försvara dem.

ou're just yelling, for a very long time, about the same old stuff.


The ground facts have not been refuted, Israel is opressing palestine, killing loads of civilians, and this is not "okey".

I want to learn about the situation. You clearly do not.


Find some facts for once.

Ah, ofcourse, I forgot that you assuming that Israel are killing civilians in self defence, without displaying any evidence to suggest this, while most are shot when they are protesting the Israeli occupation, or resisting the Israeli military presens there.
I suggest you look at that human rights organisation homepage I linked to, they have loads of good facts, ofcourse it shows only some parts of the occupation, i think you need to look at some documentaries done in paletine to understand it better, but it's definately accurate, and important.

But again, I reccomend this movie thingie

EDIT: regarding the Apartheid thing, I admit I partly stole it from Nobel Peace Prize winning Jimmy Carters Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid.

EDIT2: I think this, while a later part of that video I already linked, is really hopefull, and for you pro Israelis might seem more easily swallowed.
//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 20, 2007 4:33 pm UTC

As for moving Israel, I hope that my discussions of that have been purely hypothetical, really that is not a realistic solution, there is however a realistic solution that both palestinians and Israelis can agree upon, based on the '67 borders, and that could most likely solve the problem.


Why would Israel accept borders that it offered in exchange for peace 30 years ago, when they where refused and met with terrorism then?

If Israel has been refusing to negotiate, what was Oslo?

But that Israel is to exist are all parts, including Hamas, agreed upon, despite speeches they have had, Hamas has agreed to Normalise relations. But ofcourse they can't do shit because they ar eoccupied without any means.


Cite. Please show where Hamas is willing to recognize the right for Israel to exist.

Well I really doubt it, certainly now people hate Jews, but this is because of what has occured in Israel, not because of the kind of anti semitism common in older europe and america.


The Arab states where bombarded with Nazi propoganda during WWII. There are quotes about "killing the Jew" in the Hamas charter. There are open holocaust denials. There is plenty of evidence that anti-semitism is common in the middle east.


regarding Lebanon(though mentions palestine aswell, since the conflicts are connected)
Regarding the classic "defence" claims
More on Israel Palestine
The suffering of Palestine
A student objects, and gets pwned (poor sound quality in the middle, but the same arguments as brought up here, and he knows enough to crush them)
I love when Chomsky tells it like it is Smile


Can you find transcripts for those? I can read orders of magnitude faster than I can listen to audio.

You are fully buying the excuses of Israel. The problem is not that 'they are defending themselves' but that they are breaking international laws while doing so. For example, before the Lebanon invasion, two civilians were captured in Gaza. Now capturing civilians, that was not seen as "bad" at all, by Israeli apologists, while the capture of soldeirs in a conflict was apparantly terrible enough for Apologists to think it is okey for Israel to kill thousands of Lebanesse civilians because of it. How is that not a double standard?


Lebanon and Israel are not at peace with one another, there is a cease-fire line. Either can engage in acts of war against each other.

This is a war that Lebanon started decades ago, and never negotiated a peace. There is a de-facto cease fire along the lines of occupation.

So yes, Hezboulla can cross the border and attack Israel. And Israel can cross the border and attack Lebanon. That is what war means. If Lebanon seeks peace, it can start by recognizing Israel as a state. If it doesn't seek peace, then the state of war can continue.

Well I consistantly think people have the right to rule themselves, basically if France occupied germany, I think germany has every right to fight against france through road bombs etc etc in order to get back their freedom. Palestinians are trying to get their own state and get Israel to stop the occupation, that is entirely defendable. Israel is trying to opress the Palestinian people and defeat the "insurgents". The attacks on civilians are deplorable, but attacks on military are entirely acceptable.


I agree. But so long as the Germans are resisting France via road bombs and the like, the French are justified in oppressing the Germans to the degree required to pacify them. I'm talking curfew, travel passes, shooting anyone who refuses to dispurse, shooting anyone who throws a rock...

There are prices to resisting occupation. There are prices to wars of annihilation.

First of all you cannot demand that another nation to change their goverment.


Yes, you can. You can say "if you continue to threaten to attack and destroy my people, we will destroy you."

So people from those areas are just 'worse' people, it has nothing to do with social factors.
Yeah I think this is pretty rediculous.


Sure, the situation you are in is up to social factors.

Your response to your situation is up to you.

I refuse to reduce human beings to automatons. They are intelligent beings capable of making their own choices.

Rediculous, the Palestinians have NO WAY of doing that. That is the simple FACT. That is like the nazis saying that the jews would "Rise up" and kill geman civilians if they didn't kill them all. Or America claiming (as it did) that Nicoragua was a "threat to the american heartland". It's just rediculous.


Ok, so Israel pulls out. Then Iran starts shipping large numbers of weapons to the Palestinians, and the area becomes an armed camp.

Wait, that is what is happening with Hezboulla in Lebanon.

Imagine a "hole" in the road, maybe a metre or so deep, with the direction of the road running downwards. Looking from it from the side, it would be a triangle basically. so if you drive forward, you collide into the wall, smack. at the bottom a hydraulic system, which, after admittance, (or more easily, you stop the cars before the hoole and lift it up afterwards) so that cars can drive over it. I think that would work pretty well.


Oh my god. Do you have any clue what it would take to build and maintain that?

Just in infrastructure? The energy needed to lift up every single car that passes by a checkpoint? The slowness that cars could pass through the checkpoint?

And when someone crashes head-on into the pit, they die just as dead as if they where shot.

No, because when you have been conquored you can't do that. It's like asking a guy who got beat up to fix his own broken arms. Except he has no functioning arms to do it with.
To have a functioning state you need
A Police


Palestinians had and have police.

B you need to be able to make your own decisions, even if these decisions are not loved by all neighbors.


No state is an island.

C Resources.


Palestine, when it isn't being ruled by an organization dedicated to the destruction of Israel, gets a large amount of foriegn aid.

Do you know how much foriegn aid Palestine gets in the normal course of events, per capita?

Which usually has it's reasons, usually a number of causes in society.
The fact that there IS a hostage situation is not an excuse for failing to solve it, assuming ofcourse it was "solvable", if there is a hostage sitation and you say "fuck you, you are pathetic", he (I am guessing there are very few female hostage takers) shoots a bunch of innocent civilian, that 'negotiator' fucked up pretty bad.
After all, he would get the credit had he succeeded. You can't have your cake and eat it too.


When something is not caused by you, and you try to solve it, you should not be blamed for trying and failing to fix it.

Good samaritan ethics. If you try to solve a hostage situation and fail, the hostage taker is the one to blame. If you try to solve a hostage situation and succeed, the negotiator gets the credit.

This is an entirely hypothetical question, and has little to do with the reality of the situation, where Israel is not using "the bare minimum of force" but excessive force killing hundreds of innocent people to advance their occupational agenda.


Israels agenda is "security and defense for it's population". It is attempting to do this by making it too scary to be attacked, because it has experience with being attacked repeatedly by states which are still at war with it that surround it.

Fact remains taht Israels reasons are BS, their army is by any meassure far more powerful than any in the region, and there is no serious threat from lebanon, if you want to have a safety buffert zone from lebanon you essentially have to seize all of lebanon, and that would just promote terrorism and anti Israeli sentiments making it a bad decision.


They managed to reduce the rocket attacks from Lebannon by taking the strip of territory. Are you claiming that didn't happen? Now Iran is sending more advanced and more expensive rockets to Lebannon to attack Israel with.



Unmentioned is that Israel and the United States flatly reject all of these conditions. They do not recognize Palestine; they refused to end their violence even when Hamas observed a unilateral truce for a year and a half and called for a long-term truce while negotiations proceed for a two-state settlement; and they dismissed with utter contempt the b]2002 Arab League call for normalization of relations[/b], along with all other proposals for a meaningful diplomatic settlement. Even when it accepted the "Road Map" that is supposed to define U.S. policy, Israel added fourteen "reservations" that rendered it entirely meaningless, eliciting the usual tacit approval in Washington and silence in commentary.8


Let's aim at one Chomsky claim: Israel rejected a call for normalization of relations. Let's see what conditions applied to that normalization:

The plan, proposed by Saudi Arabia's crown prince Abdullah, offers a "normalisation" of relations with Israel if it withdraws from all occupied Arab land, accepts a Palestinian state with Jerusalem as its capital and agrees to the return of Palestinian refugees.


By "Palestinian refugees", it refers to:
return of all Palestinian refugees and their descendants to Israel.

and in that clause, it refers to anyone who spent at least 2 months in what is currently Israel before Israel became a state.

So, in exchange for normalization of relations, Israel gets to be overwealmed with people who hate the state of Israel and want it destroyed (statistically).

Sounds like a good deal for Israel!

Israel will not accept a deal that results in the destruction of the Israeli state. This is something that must be understood. If you provide Israel with the option "either be destroyed, or continue your war in which you are winning", it will continue the war.

The cultivation of the Palestinian refugees is a weapon against Israel.

As for the Hamas truce:
Rantissi confirmed that Hamas had come to the conclusion that it was "difficult to liberate all our land at this stage, so we accept a phased liberation." He said the truce could last 10 years, though "not more than 10 years".


Ie, "give us a state and 10 years, then we plan on attacking you again".

So we cannot preach democracy and then say that those who won are not accepted by us. Either there is democracy or there is no democracy.


Yes, you can preach democracy, then reject those who win a democratic election. That is democracy. It isn't perfect.

The people have the right to make a choice, and they have a right to make a mistake in their choice. There is no obligation for anyone else to accept the mistake that the people make when they elect the "wrong" government.

If you refuse to attempt to negotiate with hamas, ofcourse they won't negotiate.


And if you make it easy to form a splinter sect, start terrorist attacks, enter the political arena, get extra concessions for stopping terrorism -- then people will do that to get the extra concessions.

When you make an offer and the other side refuses it and resorts to war, you respond by hitting back: if you win the war, you then place a worse offer on the table, not a better offer.

Statement? Nothing really, in the position of the palestinians, which is essentially powerless, you could quote various insane things from Bush aswell, however I definately think nations disagreeing with him, Iran, NK, should negotiate rather than using violent methods.
(You are either with us or against us is a good example of that)


No statement at all? Let's see if I can invent one bad enough:
"We will never honour an agreement with Israel! Any concessions made by Israel will be used to strengthen our position, and when it is in our advantage, we will bathe in the blood of Jews! We will never stop until every Jew is driven into the sea!"
Nobody said that -- but would Israel be justified in not negotiating with an organization for which that was their official policy?

Condoning mass murder and opression of an entire people, on the basis that their goverment is in speeches as violent


Yes. You have freedom of speech, but if you use your freedom of speech to threaten someone, they can respond with force. What you say matters.

Just because they chose a poor goverment, which in my mind Israel, killing way more people than Hamas ever has, it does not justify the cruel treatment of civilians.


Yes. If you choose a poor government, you are screwed. That is what democracy is -- you get to choose how good a government you get. Those that choose poorly are screwed. Those that do not, benefit.

THE DAMAGE THEY ARE DOING IS SO INCREDIBLY INCREDIBLY UNPROPORTIONAL TO THE HARM DONE UNTO THEM.


I am not a utilitarian.

Seems you forgot that that is impossible unless they leave your country. Infact, it is impossible.


False. Germany and Japan rebuilt themselves while occupied.

You can rebuild a country while you are occupied. You cannot rebuild a country while you are occupied and engaged in mass resistence against the occupation.

Once again, you have a choice. You can resist, or you can rebuild.

This is infact not true. And ofcourse, please show SOME KIND OF EVIDENCE that most of these civilians were sheltering hezbollah, other than assumptions.


It doesn't have to be most.

I can't believe you are making this argument.
Well as many as I could afford, I think it is a very fundamental moral principle to save someones life if you can.
HOW IS THIS EVEN QUESTIONABLE?
"Would you give someone starving food?"
"Yeah"
"well how many? FIVE MILLION PEOPLE?"
"well if I had that much food"
"THEY NEED TO SUFFER! SUFFER BAD!"


Are you living in a western society? You, personally, can live a life of poverty in your society and earn as much income as you can, and send it all to feed the poor and hungry. This will make your own life worse, but you can save many other lives by doing so.

I encouage you to do this. I reject a moral system which says someone not doing this is evil.

When you define "attempts" as "talk about it", or "suicide bombings killing incredibly few people", you end up with crazy things. they don't have an army.


No, they don't have an army capable of attacking Israel any more.

Can you cite your source that during the period between the infatas, Israel was killing 100s of Palestinians every year?

Thanks.


Sure

Let's go from Oslo to Infata II.

367 Palestinians killed by Israeli civilians or security forces in the occupied territories from 14.9.93 to 28.9.00.

96 Isreali citizens or security forces killed by Palestinians in that time.

Inside green line: 22 Palestinians killed, 225 Israeli civilians.

That isn't 100s of Palestinians killed per year. So you are saying you are incorrect with your claim?

If you fabricate facts, you bomb the farbication.
Do you have any claim that these facilities were infact not civilian as they were claimed by human rights groups?
But ofcourse, as said, they have to make sure that they are not civilian (which, being shot at, would do) before.


No, you don't have to make sure. If you can establish that the opposition uses hospitals, schools, or other "area designated as a no-war zone" to attack you, all hospitals that they are defending lose their protection, at least for the time being.

This is why you religiously do not use no-war zones to attack your opponent.

They actually had guns in Rwanda.


Yes, but as far as I know, it was Machete and Club that did most of the genocide.

They would elect another goverment and have them leave.


Yes, todays Germans might, unless they where convinced otherwise. Tommorrows Germans? Never is a very absolute statement.

In between functioning democracies, there are, as far as I have heard of, no such problems. Especially as borders become less important, as in Europe, and in america, it doesn't really matter if you are in sweden and talk finnish, there is no problems in crossing the border. If that border is Russia and China, things get more complicated.


There are territory disputes between Canada and the USA, as an example.

Is it your contention that functioning democracies cannot go to war with one another?

are not good reasons to refuse to negotiate is simply because you need to negotiate to change that.


No, you can simply say "change it, or we will consider you an organization hostile to our state". If they change it, they change it. If they do not change it, they get pounded.

Well they could, withdraw from occupied territories, accept hamas, and then sign a peace treaty.


Did Isreal withdraw from Gaza or not? Did attacks on Israel from Gaza stop or not?

Ah, ofcourse, I forgot that you assuming that Israel are killing civilians in self defence, without displaying any evidence to suggest this, while most are shot when they are protesting the Israeli occupation, or resisting the Israeli military presens there.


As provided above, when the government of Palestine wasn't at war with Israel, and there wasn't an uprising against Israel, the levels of death where pretty damn even.

There are about 2.5 million people in the West Bank and Gaza.

Over 6 years, less than 400 Palestinians killed by Israeli security forces and/or Israeli civilians.

That is less than 3 deaths per 100,000 per year.

Is there an error in my math?

This doesn't look like a brutal occupation to me.

I'll admit the death rates probably increase during an Infata.

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 20, 2007 4:42 pm UTC

only have time for a very short post, but yes your math is wrong, 3 post per 100k would = 30 per million, a total of ca 90, which is wrong.

I suggest you watch those videos if you didn't aswell, I shal return with a longer post at a later time
//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... » Fri Apr 20, 2007 7:02 pm UTC

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fqi2GTxB7SE&mode=related&search=

Follow the links to see all the 10 parts, uses alot of facts :)
"The best times in life are the ones when you can genuinely add a "Bwa" to your "ha""- Chris Hastings

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 20, 2007 7:37 pm UTC

fjafjan wrote:only have time for a very short post, but yes your math is wrong, 3 post per 100k would = 30 per million, a total of ca 90, which is wrong.


You linked to a website that had a count of palestininan deaths at israeli hands. In the time between Oslo and Infata II, the death count was almost always in the double-digits on both sides per year.

Please point out where my math is wrong, based off of the numbers supplied in your links. Maybe I misread them.

I suggest you watch those videos if you didn't aswell, I shal return with a longer post at a later time


I read one of them, but it was annoying: I had to manually page through the transcription in the video.

As I noted, a transcription would be much quicker for me to read.

While videos are great propoganda, they tend to leave out the important sources and technical details of statements. And the technical details (like a peace proposal that doesn't mention the terms) are often very important.

Errata: The death count of "Israeli civilians" above includes Israeli security personell. My apologies, it was an editing error.

A question I didn't answer:
Yes, Israel could do and say things that would make me abhore it.

Let's give some examples:
They could become ruled by a party that says "we will not rest until every Arab has been driven into the sea" as part of their official platform.

They could start killing every Palestinian in the occupied territories. Set up industrial death camps, use poison gas to clean out cities, and engage in mass slaughter.

They could drop a nuke on the capital of Egypt (Cairo), take back the Sainai, and claim the Suez canal, killing or driving out every civilian they encounter.

These are not nessicary conditions, but sufficient ones. Note that every one of the above conditions are things that Israel is physically capable of doing. None of them are things I would expect Israel to do.

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

Postby 3.14159265... » Fri Apr 20, 2007 7:46 pm UTC

What about forcibaly thing palestinian lands and continuing to make settlements to the point where Gaza and the west bank are reduced to 60% of what they were for the arabs?

What if it is reduced to 30%?

What if they drive out all the palestinians into Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, by simply taking thier land gradully and forcing them to emigrate, would that be sufficient?


And all this for religious reasons.
"The best times in life are the ones when you can genuinely add a "Bwa" to your "ha""- Chris Hastings

yoni45
Posts: 2123
Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2007 9:16 am UTC
Contact:

Postby yoni45 » Sun Jul 08, 2007 10:08 am UTC

Hi, sorry if I'm digging out an old topic (as a new member at that), but I'm always interested in this (from the Israeli side, granted), and figured I'd put in a few things myself on what was touched on...

Pi wrote:Ah, ofcourse, I forgot that you assuming that Israel are killing civilians in self defence, without displaying any evidence to suggest this, while most are shot when they are protesting the Israeli occupation, or resisting the Israeli military presens there.


That's just largely untrue...

4 000 Palestinians have died in a period of 7 years. While unfortunate, hardly indicative of a campaign to shoot protestors on sight... Single battles in war have casualty counts of that magnitude... When Hussein needed to silence Palestinians he killed off well over 5 000 of them in 3 weeks... When Assad needed to do the same in Syria he killed over 25 000 in a day...

Then, there's the more specific evidence...

http://212.150.54.123/articles/articled ... icleid=440

That's a summary of a study done of Palestinian casualties of the intifada...

To quote:

"Over 54 percent of the Palestinians killed were actively involved in fighting – and this does not include stone-throwers or “unknownsâ€

zenten
Posts: 3799
Joined: Fri Jun 22, 2007 7:42 am UTC
Location: Ottawa, Canada

Postby zenten » Sun Jul 08, 2007 3:35 pm UTC

I see this as two fundy and rather corrupt governments trying to wipe each other out, or the in the case of the moderates on either side subjugate the other side. This is based from what I've read in the news, and from people I've talked to from both countries.

Personally, I would either have a perfectly moral divine figure come down and fix everything, or since that's impossible, just leave the two places alone, and just have a non-partisan UN task force set up to provide humanitarian aid to the two countries, until they manage to settle it themselves.

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

Postby 3.14159265... » Mon Jul 09, 2007 6:08 am UTC

Hi yoni45

4 000 Palestinians have died in a period of 7 years. While unfortunate, hardly indicative of a campaign to shoot protestors on sight... Single battles in war have casualty counts of that magnitude...
The problem I have isn't with the dead usually, its with 60 years of opperession.
When Hussein needed to silence Palestinians he killed off well over 5 000 of them in 3 weeks... When Assad needed to do the same in Syria he killed over 25 000 in a day...
And whya re these Palestinians not in Palestine, oh right....

Well, Israel is *not* occupying Lebanon, as the Shebaa Farms are *not* Lebanese but Syrian, as agreed upon by the vast majority of relevant bodies, including Israel, Syria, the UN, and even accepted by Lebanon.
So would it have been fine if syrians had captured your soldier? though I disagree with what you said up there, its important enough to note that Israel and Israelies believe they are "good" which they are not.

As for the claims of a religious state, Israel largely isn't one. There are a few religious laws, which are unfortunate, but they are few and far between, and largely aren't discriminatory per se... (The marriage law is the biggest issue, where Israel allows each religion's religious body to dictate terms of marriage...)
This was debunked by a few statistics that showed that Israel was PRETTY religious. Ever read the Israeli national anthem? Ever see the Israeli flag?

As for the Palestinians under Israeli occupation, life could be better, granted. But even so, the Palestinians actually have the highest literacy rate of the entire middle east, excluding Israel.
A reason I hate Israeli supporters, because its the literate of the middle east they are opressing.

I find it especially ironic, that while the Ahmadi, Bahai, and Druze communities are thoroughly and systematically persecuted all over the middle east, they can live in relative peace and freedom in Israel...
The lesser of two evils is still evil.
"The best times in life are the ones when you can genuinely add a "Bwa" to your "ha""- Chris Hastings

Thematic-Device
Posts: 328
Joined: Sat Jun 30, 2007 4:13 am UTC

Not About To Skim Through 8 Pages That Look Longwinded

Postby Thematic-Device » Mon Jul 09, 2007 6:38 am UTC

They're no ally of the US, between selling US military secrets to China, and by proxy to Iran (That bites them in the ass nicely), and who knows who else, meddling in our elections, bombing one of our ships in a black flag operation, and telling us what to do, all the while tarring us with their mistakes, I say screw em. We're better off distancing ourselves as far as way from them as possible.

I have yet to see Taiwan, South Korea, NATO or any of our other assorted allies intentionally attack a US boat and then lie about it.

Thematic-Device
Posts: 328
Joined: Sat Jun 30, 2007 4:13 am UTC

Postby Thematic-Device » Mon Jul 09, 2007 6:41 am UTC

zenten wrote:Personally, I would either have a perfectly moral divine figure come down and fix everything, or since that's impossible, just leave the two places alone, and just have a non-partisan UN task force set up to provide humanitarian aid to the two countries, until they manage to settle it themselves.


Nah, the divine being would probably be from the wrong religion so at least one of the sides would try to kill him/her if not both (my bets on both)

yoni45
Posts: 2123
Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2007 9:16 am UTC
Contact:

Postby yoni45 » Mon Jul 09, 2007 9:53 am UTC

3.14159265... wrote:The problem I have isn't with the dead usually, its with 60 years of opperession.


Well then, it's good to know we're past your claims of brutal Israeli shooting of random innocent protesters and such...

As for the 60 years... Well, first off, it's actually closer to 40 years... The first 20 years the Palestinians were 'oppressed' by the Egyptians and Jordanians who occupied the Gaza Strip & West Bank respectively.

Next, that's the price you pay for continuing one's state of belligerency for extended periods of time...

And finally, considering the fact that the Palestinians under Israeli occupation have been better off than many of their unoccupied non-Israeli brethren... Well, it makes you question just how oppressive this occupation has been...

3.14159265... wrote:And whya re these Palestinians not in Palestine, oh right....


Actually, they technically are, as Jordan makes up over 70% of the region of Palestine, but that's probably not what you were referring to when your tried to veer the point in question of track...

Said Palestinians aren't west of the Jordan River for numerous reasons, including the fact that many Jordanians identify themselves as Palestinians, and the fact that many Palestinians who originally resided west of the Jordan fled in the '48 war eastwards and weren't allowed back as they were a largely hostile populace. (The minority that was forcibly expelled was usually expelled to the West Bank...).

Now, how does this excuse the Jordanian decision to kill off over (and possibly well over) 5 000 Palestinians in a period of 3 weeks in their clampdown...?

Was Canada also justified in sending Asian looking people into ghettos in WWII because those Asian looking individuals weren't in Asia?

3.14159265... wrote:So would it have been fine if syrians had captured your soldier?


Depends on how you define "fine". In terms of not dragging a war-torn 3rd party country into a war for Syria and Iran's personal gain, yes, it would have been "fine". It would have been a Syrian act of war, and Israel would have responded against Syria accordingly.

Regardless, Galloway was wrong, and on more than one occasion. He just knows how to yell at people when called on it...

3.14159265... wrote:This was debunked by a few statistics that showed that Israel was PRETTY religious.


You do know how much that statement means without your having provided claimed "statistics"...? :)

3.14159265... wrote:Ever read the Israeli national anthem? Ever see the Israeli flag?


Ever see the American dollar bill? Ever hear someone go under oath in an American court of law? Ever read half of Europe's national anthems...?

Ever inquire as to England's official state religion?

National symbols that make religious references are hardly evidence of pervasive religious following in a government...

3.14159265... wrote:A reason I hate Israeli supporters, because its the literate of the middle east they are opressing.


Faulty cause and effect. The Palestinians largely weren't very different when compared to the other Arabs in the region prior to occupation and such. High Palestinian literacy is largely a by-product of the Israeli occupation...

3.14159265... wrote:The lesser of two evils is still evil.


Tell that to Sudanese Muslims who risk getting shot (and often do get shot) by Egyptian guards as they try to sneak into Israel across the Sinai for a better life...

User avatar
McLurker
Posts: 189
Joined: Fri May 18, 2007 2:04 pm UTC
Location: Scotland
Contact:

Postby McLurker » Mon Jul 09, 2007 2:16 pm UTC

yoni45 wrote:
Ever see the American dollar bill? Ever hear someone go under oath in an American court of law? Ever read half of Europe's national anthems...?

Ever inquire as to England's official state religion?

National symbols that make religious references are hardly evidence of pervasive religious following in a government...



Personally, I disagree with that stuff when it happens in the west, too.

Difference is, I can do it without being labelled a racist.

Zionism is just another product of 19th-Century European Nationalism, and I see no reason to treat it differently to any other misguided ethnic-nationalist movement.

The Jewish state has no right to exist. Neither does the Anglo-Saxon state, Serb state (Israel's kindred spirit on this continent, though lately the Serbs are doing better at letting go of their ethnic nationalism and joing the modern world), French state etc.

There is a difference in degree between what goes on in Israel and what goes on in, say, the UK. Nationalistic views that would seem extreme over here are normal in Israel. Fopr example, a survey showed a large proportion of Israelis would consider someone who married a Palestinian a traitor.

yoni45
Posts: 2123
Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2007 9:16 am UTC
Contact:

Postby yoni45 » Mon Jul 09, 2007 3:04 pm UTC

McLurker wrote:Zionism is just another product of 19th-Century European Nationalism, and I see no reason to treat it differently to any other misguided ethnic-nationalist movement.


That's fine. By and large I can say that I agree with you. The issue is that Israel is treated differently.

Israel is regularly treated like the worst thing to happen to civilization for things that are common across the Western world... ("How dare THEY have religious leanings in THEIR national anthem...")

McLurker wrote:There is a difference in degree between what goes on in Israel and what goes on in, say, the UK. Nationalistic views that would seem extreme over here are normal in Israel. Fopr example, a survey showed a large proportion of Israelis would consider someone who married a Palestinian a traitor.


http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=ant ... arch&meta=

http://www.google.ca/search?source=ig&h ... arch&meta=

if you assume that ethnic/social rifts are an Israeli phenomenon, then you're deeply mistaken... :)

User avatar
McLurker
Posts: 189
Joined: Fri May 18, 2007 2:04 pm UTC
Location: Scotland
Contact:

Postby McLurker » Mon Jul 09, 2007 3:18 pm UTC

yoni45 wrote:
if you assume that ethnic/social rifts are an Israeli phenomenon, then you're deeply mistaken... :)


Like I said, the differene is one of degree. There is racism in every country, but some countries have racism built into the fabric of their society at a deeper level than others.

How many Muslim babies has the French military (and when it comes to dealing with Muslim minorities the French are about the worst in Western Europe) killed recently?

yoni45
Posts: 2123
Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2007 9:16 am UTC
Contact:

Postby yoni45 » Mon Jul 09, 2007 3:25 pm UTC

McLurker wrote:How many Muslim babies has the French military (and when it comes to dealing with Muslim minorities the French are about the worst in Western Europe) killed recently?


How many wars has the French military fought recently? Over 7 000 civilians died in the French-participated war in Afghanistan. Is it even necessary to make a guess as to what proportion of those civilians can be labeled as "babies"?

If you wish to make an appropriate comparison, then how many Muslim babies has the IDF killed in Israel?

User avatar
McLurker
Posts: 189
Joined: Fri May 18, 2007 2:04 pm UTC
Location: Scotland
Contact:

Postby McLurker » Mon Jul 09, 2007 5:11 pm UTC

While I strongly disagree with the war in Afghanistan, I wouldn't compare the actions of the military there with IDF actions. The coalition military in Afghanistan at least try to avoid blowing up civilian neighbourhoods, the IDF target them.

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

Postby 3.14159265... » Mon Jul 09, 2007 8:56 pm UTC

Well then, it's good to know we're past your claims of brutal Israeli shooting of random innocent protesters and such...
I didn't say that :?
What I said is that the killing of the innocent (a few thousand) is not as bad as the oppression of millions for decades.
Next, that's the price you pay for continuing one's state of belligerency for extended periods of time...
So its time for a second holocaust because of what Israel has done? (don't comment on this, just read what you had written, while considering that a palestinian are also humans worth as much as a jewish person)

And finally, considering the fact that the Palestinians under Israeli occupation have been better off than many of their unoccupied non-Israeli brethren... Well, it makes you question just how oppressive this occupation has been...
First off, the "unoccupied" you refer to are refugees that are refugees because of Israel.

Was Canada also justified in sending Asian looking people into ghettos in WWII because those Asian looking individuals weren't in Asia?
NO! and the Canadians apologize for it till this day!

Regardless, Galloway was wrong, and on more than one occasion. He just knows how to yell at people when called on it...
"I am not going tell you why though, but really I have some proof, really..."

You do know how much that statement means without your having provided claimed "statistics"...?
What my statement meant, was that you can go through this thread and find it, because the rest of us agreed on it, and you are a newcomer.

Ever see the American dollar bill? Ever hear someone go under oath in an American court of law? Ever read half of Europe's national anthems...?
Americans are pretty religious... its not AS bad as Israel though.

Faulty cause and effect. The Palestinians largely weren't very different when compared to the other Arabs in the region prior to occupation and such. High Palestinian literacy is largely a by-product of the Israeli occupation...
All jews should thank Hitler, its because of him that Israel exists today.

"The lesser of two evils is still evil"

Tell that to Sudanese Muslims who risk getting shot (and often do get shot) by Egyptian guards as they try to sneak into Israel across the Sinai for a better life...
I'm telling it to a guy who has access to a computer, and isn't being killed very soon. There is a difference.
"The best times in life are the ones when you can genuinely add a "Bwa" to your "ha""- Chris Hastings

User avatar
Phenriz
I'm daaancin' like a monkey!
Posts: 2450
Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2007 10:33 pm UTC
Contact:

Postby Phenriz » Mon Jul 09, 2007 9:06 pm UTC

3.14159265... wrote:All jews should thank Hitler, its because of him that Israel exists today.


Thread just jumped the shark.

3.142 wrote:
Ever see the American dollar bill? Ever hear someone go under oath in an American court of law? Ever read half of Europe's national anthems...?
Americans are pretty religious... its not AS bad as Israel though.


and that bit about Europe, i'll take it that since you dodged that bit, you haven't? Or are did you avoid it because it doesn't fit your view of the world?
Last edited by Phenriz on Mon Jul 09, 2007 10:30 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
I loveded you piggy, i lovded youuuu!!!

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

Postby Vaniver » Mon Jul 09, 2007 9:13 pm UTC

The Jewish state has no right to exist.
Right to exist? The only internationally recognized right to exist is the ability to defend one's territory.

Nationalistic views that would seem extreme over here are normal in Israel.
That's because it's been six decades since England's last (serious) war, and Israel has been at war for six decades. Being attacked tends to harden the national character.

First off, the "unoccupied" you refer to are refugees that are refugees because of Israel.
NO. You are wrong, and have been proven wrong on this issue many times. Acknowledge or be ignored.
I mostly post over at LessWrong now.

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

yoni45
Posts: 2123
Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2007 9:16 am UTC
Contact:

Postby yoni45 » Mon Jul 09, 2007 10:00 pm UTC

McLurker wrote:While I strongly disagree with the war in Afghanistan, I wouldn't compare the actions of the military there with IDF actions. The coalition military in Afghanistan at least try to avoid blowing up civilian neighbourhoods, the IDF target them.


Um, no?

While in fact, the IDF largely has a better track record on civilian vs non-civilian ratios than much of the Western world in similar situations...

15 000 deaths in Afghanistan, 7 200+ of them civilian, about 50% militant:civilian ratio... that's the minimum experienced in the occupied territories, and is largely considerably greater...

And that's with an adversary that largely doesn't operate from amongst a civilian populace...
Last edited by yoni45 on Mon Jul 09, 2007 10:16 pm UTC, edited 2 times in total.

yoni45
Posts: 2123
Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2007 9:16 am UTC
Contact:

Postby yoni45 » Mon Jul 09, 2007 10:10 pm UTC

3.14159265... wrote:I didn't say that :?


No, you just jumped topics when your original claim was refuted.

3.14159265... wrote:So its time for a second holocaust because of what Israel has done?


Godwin's law says you've lost, but regardless, relevance to anything?

3.14159265... wrote:First off, the "unoccupied" you refer to are refugees that are refugees because of Israel.


Um, no. The "unoccupied" I refer to are your average day-to-day Egyptians, Syrians, and Pakistanis, and Iranians that have little to nothing to do with the Palestinians.

The same ones the Palestinians completely decimate vis a vis general education, and in most cases even in general human development.

Heck, the Palestinians even have the highest life expectancy of all these other groups...

3.14159265... wrote:"I am not going tell you why though, but really I have some proof, really..."


Huh? I've already debunked the two points his Galloway's entire argument rests on...

3.14159265... wrote:...because the rest of us agreed on it, and you are a newcomer...


Doesn't sound like it by the comments following yours. Feel free to link me otherwise, or rehash if need be.

3.14159265... wrote:Americans are pretty religious... its not AS bad as Israel though.


Well, it's good to know we have your opinion to set us straight...

Source?

3.14159265... wrote:All jews should thank Hitler, its because of him that Israel exists today.


Not only is the parallel faulty, but it's not even true. Zionism long pre-dated the Holocaust or Hitler, and there were clear-cut plans for a Jewish state as early as the 1920's...

3.14159265... wrote:I'm telling it to a guy who has access to a computer, and isn't being killed very soon. There is a difference.


There is indeed a difference. It largely isn't very relevant. Israel isn't perfect, no country is. That said, Israel is far closer to it than any state in the middle east, if not the majority of the world...

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

Postby 3.14159265... » Mon Jul 09, 2007 11:50 pm UTC

First off, the "unoccupied" you refer to are refugees that are refugees because of Israel.

NO. You are wrong, and have been proven wrong on this issue many times. Acknowledge or be ignored
Wait are you claiming that palestinian refugees exist for a reason other than the fact that Israel won't go back to pre-1967 borders?

The Jewish state has no right to exist.
This is stupid. They can live where-ever or how ever they want, the problem is when they want to kill other people to do it. Who said that anyway?

and that bit about Europe, i'll take it that since you dodged that bit, you haven't? Or are did you avoid it because it doesn't fit your view of the world?
European countries are religious too, hear of Vatican? I am not all that happy with the amount of secularism in the world, its particularly horrible in Israel, if you consider Israel a developed country.

No, you just jumped topics when your original claim was refuted.
What are you talking about?
I said
The problem I have isn't with the dead usually, its with 60 years of opperession.

You said:
Well then, it's good to know we're past your claims of brutal Israeli shooting of random innocent protesters and such...
Then I said
I didn't say that
The point bieng I didn't, don't make random statements to get me to shut up by not replying because I would get tired.

Godwin's law says you've lost, but regardless, relevance to anything?

You said and I paraphrase: Palestinians are fighting back so they deserve to be under opression.
As an analogy I said: Jews are occupying a country so we should kill them all.

Huh? I've already debunked the two points his Galloway's entire argument rests on...
Where?

Doesn't sound like it by the comments following yours. Feel free to link me otherwise, or rehash if need be.
This is the general "We like Israel" crowd right now, I will add the link as an edit here:http://atheism.about.com/library/weekly/aa120998.htm
http://www.wrmea.com/backissues/08092000/0010072.html
I think support for someone like Kahane is enough proof of the religiousness, I will look further into this anyway.

Well, it's good to know we have your opinion to set us straight...

Source?
Terry Schiavo

Not only is the parallel faulty, but it's not even true. Zionism long pre-dated the Holocaust or Hitler, and there were clear-cut plans for a Jewish state as early as the 1920's...
The palestinians weren't savages before you "saved" them. Please claim that the colonization of Africa was a good thing, so I know, I have to start with, "humans like to live" lesson.

There is indeed a difference. It largely isn't very relevant. Israel isn't perfect, no country is. That said, Israel is far closer to it than any state in the middle east, if not the majority of the world...
A guy who rapes and kills a three year old is FAR better than a guy who rapes and kills 10 three year olds, so lets give Billions of dollars in aid to the first guy.

Here is something that you need to understand.

Israel is not a beacon of democracy and hope, it is just another extremist country in the middle east. You will not realize untill you realize that Jews are not BETTER than other humans. Also that the Jewish people have no more right to life than other people. Contrary to what your holy books say.[/quote]

And to put some prespective on this, Gaza is reduced to 60% of its original land for the palestinians. Not for security reasons but for wanting to bring the jewish people of the world to their home, their given birth right, to come around to their great city of Jerusalem. That kinda shit.

All I would like to see are pre-1967 borders. Also less racism.
"The best times in life are the ones when you can genuinely add a "Bwa" to your "ha""- Chris Hastings

dryfire
Posts: 6
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 1:22 am UTC

Postby dryfire » Tue Jul 10, 2007 12:14 am UTC

They have a nice tendency to bomb power plants in Lebanon, for whatever reason. It has a tendency to divert tourists from Lebanon and to Israel (how convenient).

In general I don't like Religious states, Israel is no exception. I'm not quite sure what's worse though, a state that is openly religious or one that is covertly religious.

yoni45
Posts: 2123
Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2007 9:16 am UTC
Contact:

Postby yoni45 » Tue Jul 10, 2007 12:17 am UTC

3.14159265... wrote:
No, you just jumped topics when your original claim was refuted.
What are you talking about?


Your original claim that most dead Palestinians are innocent protesters that Israel likes to shoot at random.

That was debunked.

As a response, you adjusted to:

3.14159265... wrote:The problem I have isn't with the dead usually, its with 60 years of opperession.


3.14159265... wrote:You said and I paraphrase: Palestinians are fighting back so they deserve to be under opression.


Poor paraphrasing. What I said was that as long as Palestinians continue to be a belligerent populace, Israel has the right to keep them under a military occupation.

3.14159265... wrote:
Huh? I've already debunked the two points his Galloway's entire argument rests on...
Where?


My first post here.

3.14159265... wrote:
Source?
Terry Schiavo


That's a source on religion in America. Not a source on it supposedly being "much worse" in Israel.

(We'll ignore the useless tangent considering the fact that religious inclination of the populace is not necessarily correlated with the government or the law...)

3.14159265... wrote:The palestinians weren't savages before you "saved" them.


http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html

If you wish to consider pre-1948 Arabs in the region "savages", then let it be.

Regardless however, this does not change the fact that Palestinians have largely done better under Israeli occupation that the Arab populaces surrounding them under their own governments. Once again, this questions just how "oppressive" or "brutal" this occupation really is...

Amusingly enough, when there was talk of East Jerusalem being handed over to the Palestinian Authority around 2000 before the Camp David accords, East Jerusalem Arab applications for Israeli citizenship skyrocketed almost immediately...

3.14159265... wrote:A guy who rapes and kills a three year old is FAR better than a guy who rapes and kills 10 three year olds, so lets give Billions of dollars in aid to the first guy. [/qupte]

Faulty analogy; assumes a consistently guilty intent on both sides while ignoring potential positive actions of either one.

3.14159265... wrote:Here is something that you need to understand.

Israel is not a beacon of democracy and hope...


Except considering the countries surrounding it and the majority of the world, that's exactly what it is. Fully functioning democracy, which encompasses all its citizens. Full equality for all its citizens under the law....

Heck, Israel is even one of the by far most progressive countries in the world when it comes to gay rights... Where do Palestinian gays run to when there's a chance of them being exposed? Here's a hint: it starts with a "T" and ends with "el-Aviv"
Last edited by yoni45 on Tue Jul 10, 2007 12:23 am UTC, edited 1 time in total.

yoni45
Posts: 2123
Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2007 9:16 am UTC
Contact:

Postby yoni45 » Tue Jul 10, 2007 12:22 am UTC

3.14159265... wrote: here:http://atheism.about.com/library/weekly/aa120998.htm
http://www.wrmea.com/backissues/08092000/0010072.html
I think support for someone like Kahane is enough proof of the religiousness, I will look further into this anyway.


Is this where I bring up links to the KKK and various other white power movements in the US?

Of course there's religious extremism in Israel. Fortunately, the religious extremists are mostly the minority, nor do they run the government.

In fact, Kahane is an excellent example - his group was illegalized in Israel as a terrorist group.

(For the record, WRMEA is a joke as far as a credible source goes...)

yoni45
Posts: 2123
Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2007 9:16 am UTC
Contact:

Postby yoni45 » Tue Jul 10, 2007 12:30 am UTC

3.14159265... wrote:All I would like to see are pre-1967 borders. Also less racism.


Those pre-1967 borders happened to lead to a war against Israel in 1967. Until that state of belligerency ends, Israel has little reason to return to those borders to give the Arabs another kick at the can.

In cases where said belligerence did end, Israel did withdraw and return land, very, very valuable land at that...

Thematic-Device
Posts: 328
Joined: Sat Jun 30, 2007 4:13 am UTC

Postby Thematic-Device » Tue Jul 10, 2007 12:47 am UTC

yoni45 wrote:Regardless however, this does not change the fact that Palestinians have largely done better under Israeli occupation that the Arab populaces surrounding them under their own governments. Once again, this questions just how "oppressive" or "brutal" this occupation really is...


Yes, funny how easy it is to succeed when you're stealing the money from the US populace. A few stolen secrets here, the enlistment of people who want to cause Armageddon there, and suddenly Israel doesn't really need to pay for or work for anything.

yoni45
Posts: 2123
Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2007 9:16 am UTC
Contact:

Postby yoni45 » Tue Jul 10, 2007 8:58 am UTC

Thematic-Device wrote:Yes, funny how easy it is to succeed when you're stealing the money from the US populace. A few stolen secrets here, the enlistment of people who want to cause Armageddon there, and suddenly Israel doesn't really need to pay for or work for anything.


Odd, last I checked, US aid to Israel comes with the US government's approval, so that hardly constitutes 'theft'...

Furthermore, while US aid to Israel is indeed appreciated, $3 billion per year (most of which has to be spent *in* the US economy), for a state with a $175 billion annual GDP...

Well, I'm sure you can do the math yourself on just how much this allows Israel not to "pay for or work for anything"... Yeah, Israel offered to refurbish a number of Chinese drones for them. US concerns were taken into account, and the deal was canceled. Get over it.

(Especially since American aid to Israel only substantially came in the 1970's, and by that time, Israel had already won quite few wars against its Arab neighbors...)


Return to “Serious Business”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests