Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Rictor on February 25, 2005, 08:11:44 am
-
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4297097.stm
-
I don't get it... why do they need to build there, of all places? I mean, I understand there's probably an ulterior motive (i.e. population shift to legitimise owning / occupying the territory and justify a 'protective' military presence) anyways, but on the bare face of it.... why not just build somewhere else and save the inevitable hassle of it?
-
Cause biblical Israel is quite a bit larger than the modern day version. Therefore, those who percieve that the land was given to them by God will naturally have expansionist policiies.
Even the territory in 1948 is quite a bit bigger than the original UN mandate given in 1947. Following that, there's been steady expansion outward, with a few unsuccesful attempts, where Israel has been forced to give back captured territory (the Sinai Peninsula to Egypt and part of the Golan Heights to Syria). Yeah, these territories were captured in wars that were not (mostly) initiated by Israel, but if you look at Israel in 1947 and Israel today, it is beyond question that expansion and annexation has indeed taken place. even Assuming that this trend stops, the "security fence" will still have carved out a good chunk of the West Bank. The article says there are 7k settlers in Gaza, and 400k in the West Bank. Logically, it makes sense to ditch Gaza in return for a bigger piece of the West Bank.
-
Originally posted by Rictor
Cause biblical Israel is quite a bit larger than the modern day version. Therefore, those who percieve that the land was given to them by God will naturally have expansionist policiies.
Even the territory in 1948 is quite a bit bigger than the original UN mandate given in 1947. Following that, there's been steady expansion outward, with a few unsuccesful attempts, where Israel has been forced to give back captured territory (the Sinai Peninsula to Egypt and part of the Golan Heights to Syria). even Assuming that this trend stops, the "security fence" will still have carved out a good chunk of the West Bank. The article says there are 7k settlers in Gaza, and 400k in the West Bank. Logically, it makes sense to ditch Gaza in return for a bigger piece of the West Bank.
I know, I know....this is just my general annoyance at the world being filled full of intransigence speaking here. i just wish nations/people would sometimes just look and think for a second - "Is this going to cause problems? Ok, maybe we should try something else".
Pisses me off.
-
I've heard of this "natural growth" before... it was called breathing room. *sighs*
-
[q]Yediot Ahronot newspaper said the government land agency plans to ramp up the number of settlement homes to coincide with a withdrawal from Gaza.
But the Israel Lands Authority said the reported plan was old and never received official approval. [/q]
I just read that article in Yediot Aharonot a few hours ago. They've been known to jump on things that aren't much more than rumor to get a story, so i wouldn't put all that much credence in it, especially if the ILA refutes the report.
That said, Israel's planned pullout from Gaza is a huge concession, which will include forcibly removing people from their homes, lands, uprooting the graves of their loved ones... there needs to be similar concessions on the Palestinian side, and no, cessation of terrorism, violence, and incitement to violence isn't a concession - it's a given condition they must meet if negotioations are to proceed.
And FYI, just so you all get an idea of what this planned pullout is doing to the nation, there are no lack of settlers who specifically are not making any plans for after the relocation, because they plan on staying there. There are drills being run in police and military bases throughout the country to train soldiers and security forces on how they should act while performing the relocation, and there is talk in some circles of a civil war - a newspaper report a few days ago said that there are thousands (I forget the exact number - may have been 7k) of weapons in the legal possession of the settlers, and that the government has no plans to collect those weapons for the pullout.
It could very well turn ugly, very easily. :doubt: :blah:
-
Violence begets violence.
-
I like how you think giving back stuff you've taken from someone by force is a concession. What was it jesus said, do unto others as you'd have them do unto you?
-
To quote the Robot Jews from Futurama: "We believe that he was built, and that he was a very well-programmed robot, but that he was not our messiah."
On a more serious note, God/YHWH in the Old Testament was just a bit more vengeful and less forgiving than the New Testament version.
-
Aye but Sandys christian, was aimed at him. Also a settler iirc.
-
Isn't half your island still in turmoil over whether Catholics or Proddies got it right?
No offence Gank, I just wanted to make sure we don't completely demonize Sarnie by pointing out your own national flaws.
-
Well see it was never really about the religious differences between catholic and protestant creeds, the trouble up the north (which is less than a quarter btw) stems from a time known as the plantations, where Irishmen were evicted from their lands and it was handed over to settlers loyal to the crown. Mostly Scots presbyterian btw. This happened in the 16th century and theres still ****e today.
So you see our national flaws are a direct result of the same kind of policy being pursued in Israel today.
-
I think you'll find the ****e today is more gangsterism than political differences. However, thats a debate for another time.
-
Originally posted by Gank
I like how you think giving back stuff you've taken from someone by force is a concession. What was it jesus said, do unto others as you'd have them do unto you?
I like how you think that the Gaza Strip, Judea, and Samaria were taken from the Palestinians to begin with. :rolleyes: Besides, I don't see Syria or Jordan complaining that Israel initiate a war against them and took their lands. They know very well precisely what happened in '67. Do you?
And yes, that was Jesus. What's the point? Israel should have invaded a neighboring country the day they were formed to wipe them off the map? Israel should support and harbor terrorists? Israel should tell the world one thing in English and then tell her own population the opposite in Hebrew? Oh, no, wait - Israel should summarily execute via public hanging any suspected collaborators and leave their bodies in the town square for days. Or hey, we could even brutally lynch any Arabs found wandering into a Jewish city, toss their bodies out of the police station window, and proudly wave our bloodied hands in the air for all to see.
No, Israel doesn't want any of that done to her, so she doesn't do any of that.
P.S. Don't get me riled up - I've got a gun and I know how to use it. ;) :p
Originally posted by Grey Wolf
On a more serious note, God/YHWH in the Old Testament was just a bit more vengeful and less forgiving than the New Testament version.
Oh puhleese. God didn't mellow with age. Read Jeremiah 31 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=30&chapter=31&version=50). Read Revelation. He hasn't changed.
Originally posted by Gank
Aye but Sandys christian, was aimed at him. Also a settler iirc.
Tell me, do you go around calling every American you meet a settler? Just curious.
-
Originally posted by Sandwich
I like how you think that the Gaza Strip, Judea, and Samaria were taken from the Palestinians to begin with. :rolleyes:
Weren't they?
-
Originally posted by Black Wolf
Weren't they?
Among others...?
-
Without even going back to Biblical times, no. Those territories were part of Egypt and Jordan, repectively. As far as I know (darn Wikipedia is down ATM), "Palestinians" were invented circa 1970-something with the formation of Egyptian-born Arafat's PLO.
-
[q]
Tell me, do you go around calling every American you meet a settler? Just curious.[/q]
No I call them colonials. I generally follow it up by waving highly taxed Tea in their face.
Yes, it's a saturday and I'm bored.
-
OK, assuming that civil war doesn't break out, which is not at all a sure thing, the Gaza pull out would end up relocating maybe around 6 thousand people. Note the word relocating. They get moved from one occupied territory to another.
I don't think there is a single court in the world, including Israeli, that sees the territories as a legitimate part of Israel. The occupation of Gaza is unsustainable, the settlers are a vast minority and generally the place is more trouble than its worth. So, abandon Gaza (though not completely, I hear Israel plans on retaining control of the buffer zone with Egypt), and instead move everyone over to the West Bank, where they are used as a sort of demographic weapon to legitimize the occupation by trying to build a significant presence of Israelis.
The bad behaviour (settling on land that does not belong to you) does not in fact go away, it just moves a few kilometers to the west. How is this a major concession? In fact, in the long term it could very well prove to be a setback for the Palestinians, since already the wall has carved out something like an additional 20% of the West Bank.
Think of it this way: back in the days of the Britsh Empire, if Britain decided to move its settlers from occupied Hong Kong to occupied India, would that be a great and generous act on their part?
Until I see some legitimate authority rule that the territories legally belong to Israel, and provide a good reason why, I'm going to continue to see it as a foreign occupation which is illegally trying to annex another's land.
I think thats the jist of it Sandwich, you think that Gaza and the West Bank belong to Israel for whatever reason (God, military conquest, whatever) and I don't.
-
[q]if Britain decided to move its settlers from occupied Hong Kong to occupied India, would that be a great and generous act on their part? [/q]
Personally I think we should've done it the other way around... but meh...
-
Originally posted by Rictor
I don't think there is a single court in the world, including Israeli, that sees the territories as a legitimate part of Israel. The occupation of Gaza is unsustainable, the settlers are a vast minority and generally the place is more trouble than its worth.
And, speaking from experience, I'd say that most Israeli people agree with you. The setterls are a tiny minority and many Israelis would rather that the settlers weren't there so that maybe there'd be a better chance at peace. I have friends and friends' relatives in the IDF right now and their families hate it when they have to go into the territories in order to protect the settlers. Most people just plain don't like the settlements and don't want to see modern Israel's borders be the same as biblical Israel's.
-
Originally posted by Rictor
The occupation of Gaza is unsustainable, the settlers are a vast minority and generally the place is more trouble than its worth.
You know, this brings up an interesting point. If 6,000 Jews amidst a sea of a million Arabs is an unsustainable situation, then it logically follows that 6 million Jews amidst a sea of 250 million Arabs is equally unsustainable. Where does one draw the line?
Don't quote me on the exact numbers, but you get the point.
Originally posted by Rictor
In fact, in the long term it could very well prove to be a setback for the Palestinians, since already the wall has carved out something like an additional 20% of the West Bank.
Actually, despite claims throughout the world that the security fence will be the de facto border, Israel just changed the route the security fence takes. The new route will only seperate 6% of Judea and Samaria.
Also, in case anyone is wondering about the repercussions of the suicide bombing at that Tel-Aviv discotheque the other day, Israel has announced that she will not respond militarily, but will delay the planned handover of the West Bank security control (http://news.google.com/?hl=en&ncl=http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1109423886087_17/%3Fhub%3DCTVNewsAt11) to the Palestinians.
-
Israel as a nation is sustainable because
a) its borders (pre 1967) are defended by international law
b) world public opinion strongly favours the continued existance of Israel with its curernt borders
c) it has might on its side
The mistake in viewing Gaza as a microcosm of Israel is that Israel's borders are legally defined and not open to discussion (at least not discussion about pushing them inward) while Gaza is not legally part of Israel. And considering that the settlements in Gaza and the West Bank are a relitively new concept, its hard to view them as anything other then demographic warfare.
Think of it this way:
Israel has immigration policies that prevent non-Jews from becoming a majority. And I'm fine with this, it makes sense, cause otherwise the whole exercise of creating a Jewish state was pointless. But they can back it up with force, while the Palestinians in the territories can't. Imagine the roles reversed; Palestinians start moving into the border regions of Israel and setting up settlements which are protected by a powerful military, then use the fact that they have a presence in the area to justify annexing that land.
As for the wall, answer me honestly: once its up, whichever route it takes, do you think that if/when a Palestinian state is created, the border will not at the wall? Its seems to me to be a pretty permanent measure, so any land grabs are for keeps.
-
Oh and, as the retaliation, if it indeed works out that way then Israel gets my sincere kudos. We'll see, I can only hope that cooler heads prevail, on both sides.
-
Originally posted by Rictor
As for the wall, answer me honestly: once its up, whichever route it takes, do you think that if/when a Palestinian state is created, the border will not at the wall? Its seems to me to be a pretty permanent measure, so any land grabs are for keeps.
:wtf: You misunderstand. The security fence is already erected along a good portion of its length (hence the drastic lowering of terrorist attacks inside Israel in recent months). They're not just changing the planned future route of the fence, they're relocating sections that have already been erected as well.
I was on guard along part of the fence (wall at that location, actually) at the Kalandia checkpoint between Jerusalem and Ramallah. I've attached a picture I took so you can see how easily moved the wall / fence really is - nothing more than concrete blocks sitting on the ground.
-
I actually don't care if people call it a fence, wall or barrier, its just semantics. Probably barrier is most accurate.
As for changing the location of the already installed parts, I wasn't aware that that was the case, or that it was even possible. Quite interesting, thanks for brining that up, I'll look into it.
-
You know, it streikes me that if the Palestineans have all these spare explosives lying about, they'd be better off blowing up that thing than strapping them to themselves and blowing up nightclubs.
-
Yeah well, when waging a war against a superior enemy, attrition is the name of the game. The wall can be rebuilt at minimal expense..
-
In balance I never did understand suicide bombers. Surely after this long they have the logistical ability to plant explosives in a target area and get the hell out before it goes off. I know there is a certain glamarous martyrdom thing going on, but it's still poor tactics.
-
Wha? You mean you wouldn't blow yourself up for the promise of a roomfull of virgins?:p
-
Originally posted by Black Wolf
You know, it streikes me that if the Palestineans have all these spare explosives lying about, they'd be better off blowing up that thing than strapping them to themselves and blowing up nightclubs.
Actually, that's not true - forgetting the whole who's right or wrong for a moment and just focusing on the practicalities of the matter.
{Combat Engineer mode} Human flesh is what's called a "soft" target; damage from suicide bombers is primarily through the shrapnel such as nails, bolts, and other metallic debris that they pack around the explosives, just like in a fragmentation grenade (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hand_grenade).
To cause significant damage to something as dense as stressed and reinforced concrete, you either need a projectile of significant mass travelling at high velocity (eg. a tank shell), or a fairly big shaped charge to focus a large percentage of the explosive force in one small area (eg. an RPG). Returning to the specific case of Israel and the Palestinians, simply placing explosives against a wall such as the Israeli security barrier is partially composed of would not have much of an effect unless the amount of explosives was inordinately high (I'd hazard a guess in the range of hundreds of kilos). Contrast that to the average suicide bomb attack having anywhere from 3-15 kilos of explosives, and you can see why the suicide bomber method is more "effective".
Besides, from what I recall, all parts of the barrier are either under direct observation or are wired to detect tampering. That pretty much neutralizes any gain the Palestinians would attain in blowing a hole in the wall.
Digging another of their favored tunnels, OTOH... :shaking:
-
Originally posted by Sandwich
{Combat Engineer mode} Human flesh is what's called a "soft" target...
I'll admit to being no expert on the technicalities, but I'm more talking from a symbolic POV. Bombing the wall that's carving god knows how many hectares out of their land is going to be much better accepted in the international community than bombing civillians, which, in the long term, will lead to less international condemnation of the palestinians and more on the Israelis.
-
Originally posted by Sandwich
I like how you think that the Gaza Strip, Judea, and Samaria were taken from the Palestinians to begin with. :rolleyes: Besides, I don't see Syria or Jordan complaining that Israel initiate a war against them and took their lands. They know very well precisely what happened in '67. Do you?
Umm, Syria do complain they want the Golan heights back, the west bank was never part of Jordan to start with. Dont think its me who needs educating on the situation. And not to lecture you on biblical history, but werent the jews only one tribe of twelve which formed the kingdom of Israel? Expelled from same kingdom for worshipping false gods and fought wars with it? Not very good ground to make a claim on the territory. Tell me, should we give spain back to the moors? They ruled it for longer than the kingdom of Israel existed. England ruled a large part of france for a while, should anyone whos church of england be entitled to move there, forcibly expell any frenchmen and set up their own country?
Originally posted by Sandwich
And yes, that was Jesus. What's the point?
Say for a minute the guy came back and looked at Israel, thought about what he'd said you should do and decided to do to the Israelis as they had done to others, how do you think the country would last? your supposed to live your life by the ideals he thought, not some vague prophosies about his return
Originally posted by Sandwich
P.S. Don't get me riled up - I've got a gun and I know how to use it. ;) :p
As do I, but i dont think either of us have a clear shot at each other
Originally posted by Sandwich
Tell me, do you go around calling every American you meet a settler? Just curious.
Only if said american first told me the were born in another country, had no anscestral links to the place, lived in a settlement in a part of america that had taken from indians by force, served in the army and taken part in raids into indian refugee camps and had made it clear that they thought they had every right to evict the indians and take their homes. Then I would yes.
-
Originally posted by Sandwich
Without even going back to Biblical times, no. Those territories were part of Egypt and Jordan, repectively. As far as I know (darn Wikipedia is down ATM), "Palestinians" were invented circa 1970-something with the formation of Egyptian-born Arafat's PLO.
This is complete and utter bollox mate, Gaza and the West bank were never part of either, both jordan and egypt came into existance at the breakup of the ottoman empire by the allies after ww1 at the same time as the british mandate of palestine. the name palestine itself comes from the phillistines, who existed there since biblical times.
-
Originally posted by Gank
This is complete and utter bollox mate, Gaza and the West bank were never part of either, both jordan and egypt came into existance at the breakup of the ottoman empire by the allies after ww1 at the same time as the british mandate of palestine. the name palestine itself comes from the phillistines, who existed there since biblical times.
I think this is what he was reffering to.
http://www.israel.org/MFA/Facts%20About%20Israel/Israel%20in%20Maps/Armistice%20Lines%201949-1967
-
Originally posted by Gank
Only if said american first told me the were born in another country, had no anscestral links to the place, lived in a settlement in a part of america that had taken from indians by force, served in the army and taken part in raids into indian refugee camps and had made it clear that they thought they had every right to evict the indians and take their homes. Then I would yes.
I think sandy here is second generation, he doesn't look like he was alive in 48, he has about as much anscestral links as we do, actualy more becase of the who jew thing, one could assume all of America is a 'setlement', "taken from indians by force" as opposed to the parts that we just 'found' unocupied ? :wtf:, ok I don't serve in the military but we didn't leave any 'refugees' like Israel did, maybe that was there mistake :), Israel doesn't seem to be expanding at the moment, infact they are shrinking a little.
-
Actually Sandy was born in the US Bobbaou, Washington iirc. And whether he was alive in 48 or not has nothing to do with it, he lives in the west bank, in occupied territory where the very people who owned the land he lives on most likely live in a refugee camp a few miles away. Hes an adult and a US citizen, if he doesnt feel happy with the way things are done theres nothing keeping him there. The difference between him and say you is that you had no say in what was done to the indians, you didnt take part in it.
Btw Israel isn't shrinking, they havent actually given up anything yet and they're continuing to build the wall which cuts off larges areas of the west bank from the palestinians. I dont think the gaza pull out is likely to happen either, or if it does it'll be accompanied by a similar land grab in the west bank, likuds not going to give anything to the palestinians without gaining more first.
Originally posted by Splinter
I think this is what he was reffering to.
They were under Egyptian and Jordanian rule, not part of those countrys, Egypt and Jordan never made any claims to the territory. he also seemed to be implying that palestinians never existed, which is a popular theory among right wing Israelis, along with the theory that Jordan is Palestine. Both are complete and utter bollocks, and just used as a way of excusing the dispossesion of these people.
-
Gank, I love your method of counter-argument. Unfortunately, I must state that everything you say is complete and utter bollocks, sheer propoganda used by hard-core left wing "World Peace!" tree-huggers who think that fighting for one's rights went the way of the dodo when global television started injecting the ooey-gooey scenes of bloody warfare into the household of every Tom, Dick, and Harry, exposing their children to the brutal realities of what true Humanity is, and imprinting the scenes of gore and spilled guts into their retinas far beyond what Hollywood could ever do.
Personally, I'm finished arguing with people who think they can see the whole picture from the vantage point of their comfy couches in their air-conditioned living rooms, growing ever more bloated on the excesses of the fattened society they exist in. Just keep in mind what stage of a cow's life comes after the fattening up.
So, let this be a Personal Service Announcement by me:
Unless you have been here, seen with your own eyes the wretched living conditions of the Palestinians, seen their suffering at the eternal lines of the checkpoints, read thei school cirriculum, and spoken to the mother of a suicide bomber face-to-face, don't you dare start to argue "their" side with me - you have NO right.
And unless you've been here, visited the Jewish settlements in Judea and Samaria, stopped for a moment at one of the myriad memorial sites scattered around the streets of the cities, attended the funeral of a mother of four or an only son murdered near one of the abovementioned memorial sites, and seen the way the IDF operates, don't you dare start arguing the Israeli side alongside me either - you equally have NO right.
Keep your "I can see how to solve the world's problems from the comfort of my own home" ideas to yourselves - nobody cares, least of all the people whose problems you think you can solve. They know precisely how disconnected you are from their reality, and they know precisely what kind of world you live in when you're spoon-fed your world view by the media.
Leave them the hell alone.
{/rant from inside a guard tower}
-
If we're talking about NO right lets start with the no right you have to settle in the West Bank and Gaza Strip considering that all the problems you've talked about stem from that one.
By your logic no one should argue against Iraq or any other country beyond our own cause we're not there.
Rwandan Massacre? Lets do nothing. We're not Rwandan we have no right to stop it.
-
Hoboy. I'm not touching this thread with a 10 foot clown pole.........
-
Originally posted by Sandwich
Leave them the hell alone.
{/rant from inside a guard tower}
There's being hypocritical and then there's being ****ing hillairous.
You might not like it Sandwich but we all have a responsibility to world affairs. You supported the US invading Iraq, when there was no threat to US soil from that nation - suddenly when you're the one being interfered with (erm... I don't quite think that came out right) you change your tune. Yeah, there's a shock.
-
[q]Just keep in mind what stage of a cow's life comes after the fattening up.[/q]
Just keep in mind what happens when a militarily superior nation reins supreme for any length of time over another people.
-
Originally posted by karajorma
If we're talking about NO right lets start with the no right you have to settle in the West Bank and Gaza Strip considering that all the problems you've talked about stem from that one.
:rolleyes: Oh, puhleese. You can do better than that, can't you? If you're going to start talking about rights to land, then either you've got to go back a few thousand years to get the whole picture, or you have to set some arbitrary line in the sand of time, where nothing before that line is "valid", only what came after. It's a self-defeating argument, and you (should) know it. If you want to go back until the beginning of recorded history, then let's all up and leave and give the land in question to the Cannanites. One problem - they don't exist any more, do they?
All this, however, is completely beside the point. The point is that nobody can take the media's view of a situation as factual or historical. The camera can only point in one direction at a time, and you cannot get the whole picture by watching TV. Without the complete picture, there can be no "justice".
THAT is the only point I was trying to make.
Originally posted by karajorma
By your logic no one should argue against Iraq or any other country beyond our own cause we're not there.
Just so! Bush believed there was reason to attack Iraq to remove WMDs or whatnot - his world view was filtered through advisers and reports that in the end were inaccurate!
-
Originally posted by Sandwich
Just so! Bush believed there was reason to attack Iraq to remove WMDs or whatnot - his world view was filtered through advisers and reports that in the end were inaccurate!
Interesting idea. Blame a governments mistakes on individuals who got the wrong information from the governmental body, thus absolving both of any responsibility.
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
Hoboy. I'm not touching this thread with a 10 foot clown pole.........
...30 foot clown pole...
-
Originally posted by Sandwich
:rolleyes: Oh, puhleese. You can do better than that, can't you? If you're going to start talking about rights to land, then either you've got to go back a few thousand years to get the whole picture, or you have to set some arbitrary line in the sand of time, where nothing before that line is "valid", only what came after. It's a self-defeating argument, and you (should) know it. If you want to go back until the beginning of recorded history, then let's all up and leave and give the land in question to the Cannanites. One problem - they don't exist any more, do they?
How about "no one alive who remembers it the other way"? Surely that's a fair and just line in the sand that isn't arbitary. There are Palestinians alive who were forced off of their land in both places. Find me a Jew who can say the same thing and you might be able to give some real validity to your argument.
Originally posted by Sandwich
All this, however, is completely beside the point. The point is that nobody can take the media's view of a situation as factual or historical. The camera can only point in one direction at a time, and you cannot get the whole picture by watching TV. Without the complete picture, there can be no "justice".
THAT is the only point I was trying to make.
Similarly when you live in a county where you're constantly bombarded with propaganda about why your side is correct and the other side is evil incarnate you can't form an objective view either.
Seriously Sandwich answer me this. Your basic argument about why you're entitled to the West Bank boils down to "we took it from the guys who had it so it's ours" so let's say that one day someone comes along and invades Israel. Are you telling me the moment your country surrendered you'd all put your arms down say "Well played lads" to your enemy and not ever try to take the country back? Cause that's what you're expecting the Palestinians to do.
-
Ah, I'm not there so I have no right to comment on it. How pathetic. It boils down to this sandy, YOU were not born in the region, YOU are not descended from middle eastern stock (your words not mine), YOU have no right to take somebody elses land. Doesnt matter what ****ing kings establised a nation 3 thousand years ago for a couple of hundred years, YOU have no right to be there.
Btw, you never answered my question, do you honestly think if Jesus comes back the man who told us to treat others as you would have them treat you is going to be driving a Nagmachon through Rafah? Who the **** are you kidding?
-
he believes in what he is doing, i'd say that gives him the right. whether you choose to agree with what he is doing or not. and WHEN the christ returns, how will he view you, personally. since you are fond of asking others. and as long as we are at it, his first and greatest commandement wasn't the golden rule, it was love thy neighbor as thyself. How do we know it is his greatest commandment to us? he said so, he even repeated it, more than once. maybe instead of trying to solve the problems with the rest of the world you could turn that formidable intellect toward solving the problems of your own nation, and then leading by example. The irish have helped the scots throw off the yoke of english opression. now each has her own soveriegn nation, and as far as i can tell, the borders are pretty much where they were ancestrally. why then would you belittle another country that same right?
-
If Jesus exists, I'm heading for a very hot reception in the afterlife.
Either way, that doesn't give him the right to take violent action to support a policy based on frankly incredible evidence (read: the bible etc). Nor does it justify your comparison with Gank - Irelands borders were defined during medieval times, in fact they're not even complete since we (UK) still hold the north east.
[q]The irish have helped the scots throw off the yoke of english opression[/q]
And all this time I thought that was Robert De Brus...
-
I'd like to point out that I'm not sure Sandwich ever said that he wants to keep the West Bank. With the exception of a few hard-core extreme right-wingers, no Israeli wants to own the West Bank.
And Gank, I'm just curious. What about Israelis who are of Middle Eastern descent? I know some kids whose grandparents were originally Iraqis and walked across the desert to Israel in '48.
-
Whats he doing living there then?
And I believe I've said on a few occasions my solution would be to load anyone who wasnt born there or whose parents werent born there onto boats and send them back to Russia, the US or whereever else they came from then hold elections for whoevers left. If anyone feels like shooting somebody else or causing ****e be they christian muslim or jew find a wall and make an example out of them.
Originally posted by ShadowWolf_IH
he believes in what he is doing, i'd say that gives him the right. whether you choose to agree with what he is doing or not.
Hitler belived what he was doing, so did Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Franco, etc etc, did this give them the right to do what they did?
Originally posted by ShadowWolf_IH
and WHEN the christ returns, how will he view you, personally. since you are fond of asking others
I'll leave that up to him to answer, but I aint driving through refugee camps in an Apc.
Originally posted by ShadowWolf_IH
maybe instead of trying to solve the problems with the rest of the world you could turn that formidable intellect toward solving the problems of your own nation, and then leading by example.
In other words sop talking about the middle east because you dont like what I'm saying. No.
Originally posted by ShadowWolf_IH
The irish have helped the scots throw off the yoke of english opression. now each has her own soveriegn nation, and as far as i can tell, the borders are pretty much where they were ancestrally. why then would you belittle another country that same right?
You know you might want to go and learn a bit about the whole thing before you talk anymore, because pretty much everything in there is completely wrong. As for belittling another country the same right, explain to me exactly how the jews are entitled to the kingdom of Israel when they only ever comprised a small portion of it and were expelled from it on gods orders?
-
Originally posted by karajorma
...that isn't arbitary...
Seems pretty arbitrary to me.
Originally posted by karajorma
Similarly when you live in a county where you're constantly bombarded with propaganda about why your side is correct and the other side is evil incarnate you can't form an objective view either.
Ahh, thank you for proving my point. You obviously have no idea what kind of propoganda us poor misguided Israelis are bombarded with. Sarcasm aside, this is a democratic country with freedom of the press (you can't say that about any of our wonderfully friendly neighbors, now can you?). We hear both sides quite often - politics is THE topic of choice in ANY conversation here. We are highly and widely opinionated - the joke is 2 Jews, 3 political parties, and one's a coalition.
If you'd like a more personal account of how we get our fair share of both sides of the coin, we've had women from some sort of watch organization standing at the checkpoint my company's been manning for the past 22 days, keeping their eyes on the IDF soldiers and their treatment of the Palestinians. Somehow I don't think they'd be allowed to be there if we were all being subjected to the government propoganda machine concerning the Evil Palestinians. :rolleyes:
Originally posted by karajorma
Are you telling me the moment your country surrendered you'd all put your arms down say "Well played lads" to your enemy and not ever try to take the country back? Cause that's what you're expecting the Palestinians to do.
What country?? Oh, wait, you mean the one we were one the way to giving them? The one the Islamic Jihad doesn't want the Palestinians to have, because then they'd have no excuse for trying to exterminate the Jews? The one Arik Sharon, our hard-liner, extreme right wing, executor of the Jabra and whatever-its-called massacres, was willing to compromise so much to give them in return for some f***ing peace??
Originally posted by Gank
Ah, I'm not there so I have no right to comment on it. How pathetic.
You're being dense. Stop it. You're entitled to have your own opinion, but you have no right to think you have the full picture of the situation here when your only insight on the situation is filtered through the eyes of others! That's all I'm trying to say - is it really that hard to comprehend?
Originally posted by Gank
Btw, you never answered my question, do you honestly think if Jesus comes back the man who told us to treat others as you would have them treat you is going to be driving a Nagmachon through Rafah? Who the **** are you kidding?
Would you mind thinking about that statement for a second, especially in light of the recently-shattered cease-fire between Israelis and Palestinians?
It's like standing nose-to-nose with an adversary who's agreed to stop fighting with you. You then slap him, and then run whining to mommy when he punches you in the nose, complaining that he shouldn't hit you if he doesn't want to get hit. Utter idiocy.
Originally posted by Corsair
I'd like to point out that I'm not sure Sandwich ever said that he wants to keep the West Bank. With the exception of a few hard-core extreme right-wingers, no Israeli wants to own the West Bank.
Actually, that's not true. Many, many Israelis, myself included, are of the opinion that we should not give up Judea and Samaria - what the world calls the West Bank. Just like I don't think we should give up Gaza, either. My opinion, however, is based upon my religious beliefs, so if you want to criticise me for that, go right ahead.
-
gank you are again trying to get others to answer a question that you won't answer. This seems to be a modus operandi with you. personaly, you can keep talking about the middle east, i don't care. But do you even acknowledge the problems of your own country? how would you solve those? by avoiding any question directed at you?
just answer the questions. and stop being a hater.
-
Originally posted by Sandwich
Actually, that's not true. Many, many Israelis, myself included, are of the opinion that we should not give up Judea and Samaria - what the world calls the West Bank. Just like I don't think we should give up Gaza, either. My opinion, however, is based upon my religious beliefs, so if you want to criticise me for that, go right ahead.
Religious beliefs aside, do the people who want that think that Israel should incorporate Judea and Samaria into the state as part of a larger Israel, or just that it should maintain some sort of control over it? I'm just curious and trying to learn because almost all of my friends over in Israel would happy to just see the creation of a Palestinian state and not have to send the IDF into the West Bank or Gaza.
-
Originally posted by Corsair
Religious beliefs aside, do the people who want that think that Israel should incorporate Judea and Samaria into the state as part of a larger Israel, or just that it should maintain some sort of control over it? I'm just curious and trying to learn because almost all of my friends over in Israel would happy to just see the creation of a Palestinian state and not have to send the IDF into the West Bank or Gaza.
Well personally, the closest thing to an ideal solution that does not compromise my beliefs but yet is "fair" on a certain level (obviously not everyone agrees as to what's fair), would be that Gaza, Judea, and Samaria become an internationally recognized part of the state of Israel. Those Palestinians willing to live in the state of Israel peacefully can do so without any problems; they would become Israeli Arabs, receive their citizenship, and have all the rights and obligations that Israeli Arabs have (AFAIK the only difference Arab citizens face is that military service is not mandatory).
Those Palestinians not ready to live peacefully in the Jewish state would be expelled - to where, I don't know, nor do I particularly care. I'd say Jordan, but no Arab nation is willing to receive Palestinian refugees. Ironically, Israel is the only country in the region that has been willing. :rolleyes:
Anyway, this has a Biblical basis as well; there are a few verses that deal with the stranger and sojourner among {Israel} who is willing to live alongside them. Don't know the reference off the top of my head though.
But I realize that doesn't quite answer your question. But you need to realize that that most people who want Judea, Samaria, and Gaza to remain as part of Israel do have their religious beliefs as their reason. There's no way to seperate the conflict into sheer political or national elements; the core of the conflict is in the "spiritual" realm, if you know what I mean.
-
Interesting. Thanks, Sandwich, I learned something today, which isn't bad for the day only being 45 minutes old.
Anothe question, then. At the current growth rate of the Arab and Jewish-Israeli populations, if the Palestinians were incorporated into Israel, then at least population-wise, wouldn't the Jews be a minority in their own country once more? I've heard people say that it'll happen anyway even with the current amount of Arab-Israelis, but it'll happen a lot faster with what you say, and then doesn't that sort of defeat the purpose?
EDIT: whoa. Timewarp.
-
Originally posted by Corsair
Interesting. Thanks, Sandwich, I learned something today, which isn't bad for the day only being 45 minutes old.
Anothe question, then. At the current growth rate of the Arab and Jewish-Israeli populations, if the Palestinians were incorporated into Israel, then at least population-wise, wouldn't the Jews be a minority in their own country once more? I've heard people say that it'll happen anyway even with the current amount of Arab-Israelis, but it'll happen a lot faster with what you say, and then doesn't that sort of defeat the purpose?
EDIT: whoa. Timewarp.
Yes, that's an issue that's been brought up enough times. I never looked into it, but seeing as the State of Israel was formed as the home for the Jewish People, I think there are laws to deal with that situation... I can't begin to imagine what those laws are, though.
-
Not to get preachy or anything, but it seems to me that if a peaceful solution is to possible, the agreement must have a political, not religious basis. The problem is that all three major religion stake claim to parts of Israel as they divine right, and its virtually impossible to reach a solution when dealing on those terms. I mean, you can't dispute religion with logic, its a belief, which makes it a matter of faith. For those interested in peace, it doesn't seem wise to me to allow religious views to influence policy, and I would say this is any Palestinians that hung around HLP as well.
However, I can see no legal reason why Gaza and the West Bank (or Judea and Samaria, call it what you will) should be part of Israel, or even under Israeli contol. Population wise, its clear who is in the majority, and historically (as in, recent history, not millenia ago) its also pretty clear who it belogs to. The only arguement, as far as I can see, that Israel can make is "spoils of war", and even then its not only uncivilized but also illegal. In my mind, there is little legitimacy for Israeli control over the area (not counting religious arguements), aside from "might makes right" which so far seems to have worked. As for your idea about incorporating the territories into Israel proper, you would have to face the fact that Jews would then be a minority, and all that that entials. Sorry, you can't have your cake and eat it too.
On a semi related note, I have finally managed to find a website that brands Sharon (and most other PMs in recent years including Ben-Gurion, as well as the Yesha Council) a tratorious, anti-Zionist Bolshevik surrender-monkey, collaborating with Muslim terrorist Nazis to destroy the Jewish homeland.. Enjoy, folks. ("http://www.jtf.org/")
-
ok so a political solution when the problem isn't politics? and the religeous zealots are going to abide by it? The problem is that so far it's been the governments who have been trying to end a religeous war. until people wake up to the fact that religeon is the ruling factor of people's lives in the middle east, and aproach the problem from that standpoint, there can be no peace. The war didn't start just recently. It has to be faced as what it is. This means that the governments of those nations cannot make peace, except by right of might. The religeous leaders are the ones who need to find a solution.
The poloticians who are involved have an agenda for the country that they represent. The heads of religeon will also have an agenda, but perhaps somewhere they may find the common ground that the heads of governments don't find....that common ground is a safe place for them to live. A place where all of them are welcomed to worship on land that IS HOLY TO THEM ALL. it isn't a wiping out of each other that they want, especially when all of the factions preach love. They want to be reassured that the Holy Lands will remain open to them.
The problem is, none of them are willing to tolerate a temple of the other on the ground that they consider to be holy to themselves.
-
you know I've always wondered how can you have a land grab with land that you've already grabbed?
if you start out controleing 100 square miles, and you end with 10 square miles, how are you the one takeing land?
Israel 'owns' that land, they concered it, took it, won it, stole it, what ever, by what ever means you may want to describe, through means ligitimate or not that have come into the posesion of the west bank Gaza and the Golen hights. so if they get rid of most of it, but not all, I fail to see how one can describe this act as grabbing land, as the land grab would have taken place many years ago.
also I fail to understand something, you consiter Israel some sort of evil expansionist empire of doom, why don't you try to do something about it? if you feel so sure of the threat and tyrany of the situation then why doesn't somebody do something about it? start calling for your government to put some real (read military) preasure on the situation, if Israel is as you say it is, then this is the only thing they would understand after all. or is it, that it isn't that important that you actualy do something. becase you haven't done anything so far, Israel is still there and there still doing whatever the hell they feel like and your still getting worked up about it and your still voteing for the guy who is going to enact the same pollicies that have failed to do anything but prolong the situation... hmmm...
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
you know I've always wondered how can you have a land grab with land that you've already grabbed?
if you start out controleing 100 square miles, and you end with 10 square miles, how are you the one takeing land?
Israel 'owns' that land, they concered it, took it, won it, stole it, what ever, by what ever means you may want to describe, through means ligitimate or not that have come into the posesion of the west bank Gaza and the Golen hights. so if they get rid of most of it, but not all, I fail to see how one can describe this act as grabbing land, as the land grab would have taken place many years ago.
It's a land grab if Israel manages to make occupation of part of that land appear to be (or simply be recognised as) legitimate, when all the currently held land is considered illegitamate (by UN resolution IIRC). i.e. like stealing something, and then handing it back for a reward consisting of part of what you stole.
Originally posted by Bobboau
also I fail to understand something, you consiter Israel some sort of evil expansionist empire of doom, why don't you try to do something about it? if you feel so sure of the threat and tyrany of the situation then why doesn't somebody do something about it? start calling for your government to put some real (read military) preasure on the situation, if Israel is as you say it is, then this is the only thing they would understand after all. or is it, that it isn't that important that you actualy do something. becase you haven't done anything so far, Israel is still there and there still doing whatever the hell they feel like and your still getting worked up about it and your still voteing for the guy who is going to enact the same pollicies that have failed to do anything but prolong the situation... hmmm...
I think for most people the criticism of Israel (and indeed Palestine) is really based around the desire to stop people dying unecessarily; so supporting a candidate who would apply military pressure (to either side) would contradict that. Most politicians (or at least those who aren't fringe party loonies) generally appeal for a compromise solution rather than the somewhat pointless idea of just putting responsibility and blame on the one side (because blaming one side never leads to a solution, just animosity).
My personal belief is that both sides are at fault, but I think that (IMO) - as a stable democracy and the regional superpower - Israel is the side best placed to make the first gesture of compromise or reconciliation. And I know some people will say that the Palestinians can't be trusted to match that, but IMO that attitude (on both sides) is what has lead this conflict to continue for all these years. (and also that when you equate an entire people with the terrorists who claim to represent them, then you encourage those people to become terrorists, or at least to regard you in the same way back)
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
also I fail to understand something, you consiter Israel some sort of evil expansionist empire of doom, why don't you try to do something about it? if you feel so sure of the threat and tyrany of the situation then why doesn't somebody do something about it? start calling for your government to put some real (read military) preasure on the situation, if Israel is as you say it is, then this is the only thing they would understand after all. or is it, that it isn't that important that you actualy do something. becase you haven't done anything so far, Israel is still there and there still doing whatever the hell they feel like and your still getting worked up about it and your still voteing for the guy who is going to enact the same pollicies that have failed to do anything but prolong the situation... hmmm...
Bob. It's YOU who has to put the pressure on. I don't live in America and the only reason why Israel gets away with this is because the US vetos any attempt to do something about it. I can't vote out the politicians who cause this mess because I don't live in either of the countries responsible.
Not to mention the fact that there isn't a single candidate from either party who has ever made the slightest attempt to show any signs of wanting to do something against Israel.
Plus on top of all that it's pretty f**king stupid to try to bring military pressure onto a nation with nuclear weapons as they know it's a bluff.
On top of which the second anyone tries to do something about Israel they instantly get labled as anti-semitic as if that should be the end of the matter. :rolleyes:
Originally posted by Sandwich
Ahh, thank you for proving my point. You obviously have no idea what kind of propoganda us poor misguided Israelis are bombarded with. Sarcasm aside, this is a democratic country with freedom of the press (you can't say that about any of our wonderfully friendly neighbors, now can you?). We hear both sides quite often - politics is THE topic of choice in ANY conversation here.
So? America also has a free press but you hear both sides complaining about the other side distorting the truth. The right is constantly banging on about the lies of the liberal elite while the left complains about the distortions and outright lies of Fox News and its ilk. Ask an american to look at the 50 million people who voted for the other side and tell me that they felt that they held an objective view rather than being brainwashed into the wrong choice by the media?
There is always a bias. I speak as someone who grew up in the UK which also has a free press and I'll quite happily admit that my upbringing has always biased me towards seeing the catholics in Northern Ireland as the aggressors. You see stories about the bombing on the mainland from their side but hear less about unionist killings and it's going to affect you.
If you have some sense you can rise above that but it's certainly not easy. Hearing that sort of thing since childhood makes it part of you and I very much doubt that the Israeli press gives half the column inches to the killing of palestinians that it does to latest suicide bombing simply because there is no news source that objective.
Originally posted by Sandwich
If you'd like a more personal account of how we get our fair share of both sides of the coin, we've had women from some sort of watch organization standing at the checkpoint my company's been manning for the past 22 days, keeping their eyes on the IDF soldiers and their treatment of the Palestinians. Somehow I don't think they'd be allowed to be there if we were all being subjected to the government propoganda machine concerning the Evil Palestinians. :rolleyes:
Did I say that it was government propaganda? I regard everything that the Daily Mail prints as propaganda. Does that mean that the government runs it? Are you trying to tell me that Israel doesn't have an equivalent to the Daily Mail?
Your outlook is coloured by the fact that you hear more of what your side is complaining about. That's not an objective view by any stretch of the imagination and to then tell everyone to shut up because they don't share the same blinkered view of the world and maybe can see things from a different angle than you can is what I really take exception to.
Originally posted by Sandwich
Many, many Israelis, myself included, are of the opinion that we should not give up Judea and Samaria - what the world calls the West Bank. Just like I don't think we should give up Gaza, either. My opinion, however, is based upon my religious beliefs, so if you want to criticise me for that, go right ahead.
Ah. More propaganda, yet again from a non governmental source. And yet you still tell me that you're more objective than I am?
The muslims can make just as much of a claim that God gave the land to them so the argument basically boils down to which religion is correct and we all know exactly how easy to resolve that argument is.
As Rictor said the jewish people have no legal claim on the occupied terratories. Plain and simple. If you're going to claim religion as an argument that by the same logic the suicide bombers have the right to do what they do because "Allah told them to". That's obviously nonsense just as it is when you try to justify your right to the West Bank and Gaza Strip.
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
Israel 'owns' that land, they concered it, took it, won it, stole it, what ever, by what ever means you may want to describe, through means ligitimate or not that have come into the posesion of the west bank Gaza and the Golen hights. so if they get rid of most of it, but not all, I fail to see how one can describe this act as grabbing land, as the land grab would have taken place many years ago.
You know, that argument really pisses me off when it's discussed hand in hand with biblical precedent for the existence of Israel in the first place. In simple terms, Israel ****ed with the Romans, and got *****slapped for it. Rome took full control over their lands, sent most of them packing, and effectively gave the land to the various empires that took over it in the ensuing centuries. And that was well over a thousand years ago. Back then, might made right and the only world super power sent the jews packing. So, Fast forward centuries, the jews claim a territorial connection to the land from said thousands of years ago, get hold of it, then end up taking over large parts of the surrounding land. This time, the local power of Israel is the one grabbing the land, but they refuse to accept the much, much more recent territorial claim of the palestineans and release what they stole.
-
[q]I regard everything that the Daily Mail prints as propaganda.[/q]
I assume you used "propaganda" to get around the swear filter? ;)
Anyway, this just takes us back to the now admitted fact that the only cause for this bloody war is religion. Well, rational men have no hope of stopping that kind of conflict. We cannot convince people they are wrong when their position is based on faith and not opinion.
Sandwich, go watch episode 3x12 of Enterprise "Chosen Realm". (You have scripture, I have scifi ideology)
You may get a glimpse of your future at the end of that episode.
-
If all of this was a century ago, Israel would just have steamrolled the Palestinians, grabbed the land and that would have been the end of it. But might still makes right - that's the reality, and anything else is wishful thinking - so the only real mistake by Israel is not to apply enough force to end the matter once and for all. Their mistake, in effect, is to be too damn kind to their enemies.
Interestingly enough, I don't see any of you guys crying about the plight of the Palestinians saying anything about any of the many hotspots in Africa, where much greater attrocities are being commited on a daily basis.
It's those eeeevil Jews! :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by vyper
Anyway, this just takes us back to the now admitted fact that the only cause for this bloody war is religion. Well, rational men have no hope of stopping that kind of conflict. We cannot convince people they are wrong when their position is based on faith and not opinion.
Sadly very true.
-
A fair point, Styxx, but I'd say that the Middle East is the focus of the world's attention because the events there have a significant bearing on the rest of the world, far more so than the (disgraceful) state that much of Africa is in. After all, the September 11th attacks were carried out because of the US's support for Israel. Much of the anti-Western rhetoric in places like Iran ("Death to America! Death to the UK! Death to France!" etc.) can be attributed to this as well. The occupation is taken as an insult against Islam by much of the Islamic world, and people who support it are viewed as enemies. So although the conflict itself is rather small, involving only a handful of millions of people directly, it has an effect on a vast number of people around the world. Hence the vast coverage and high passions on all sides. While Africa is in fact a much bigger problem, none of the countries are terribly powerful/have the unwavering support of a power like the US or major European country, so people tend to ignore it.
-
You fail to make the distinction between "is" and "should be" Styxx. If no one had got it through their heads that there is indeed something to be said for the rule of law, we'de still be going around beating each other over the head with clubs and trying to defend our lives any property from whichever asshole happens to have a bigger club than you.
International law exists for a reason, now the only problem is getting the UN to actually enforce it.
-
Originally posted by Rictor
You fail to make the distinction between "is" and "should be" Styxx. If no one had got it through their heads that there is indeed something to be said for the rule of law, we'de still be going around beating each other over the head with clubs and trying to defend our lives any property from whichever asshole happens to have a bigger club than you.
International law exists for a reason, now the only problem is getting the UN to actually enforce it.
If international law could be properly enforced, then yes, this wouldn't be happening. Nor would the Iraq occupation have happened, nor the massacres at Rwanda and East Timor.
But it can't, not currently, not in the foreseeable future. It's all fine and dandy to talk about the way things should be but it is, as I said, wishful thinking. Now, crying for the application of international law on one particular case and simply ignoring all other, and potentially much worse, cases is plain and simple hypocrisy.
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
My personal belief is that both sides are at fault, but I think that (IMO) - as a stable democracy and the regional superpower - Israel is the side best placed to make the first gesture of compromise or reconciliation.
So what do you consider the Gaza pullout to be? Masterminded by one who used to get slandered all over the media as a right-wing hard-liner, and who now is being called traitorous by his own political party, the Gaza pullout hasn't even been put on hold by the suicide bombing of a few days ago!
Originally posted by karajorma
So? America also has a free press but you hear both sides complaining about the other side distorting the truth....
There is always a bias....
If you have some sense you can rise above that but it's certainly not easy. Hearing that sort of thing since childhood makes it part of you and I very much doubt that the Israeli press gives half the column inches to the killing of palestinians that it does to latest suicide bombing simply because there is no news source that objective.
You manage to miss the point. You said: "Similarly when you live in a county where you're constantly bombarded with propaganda about why your side is correct and the other side is evil incarnate you can't form an objective view either." That is simply not true; we have many many newspaper columns and TV whatevers from the left-wing POV - heck, most of the papers here are central-left. Israel is not a unified people when it comes to political leanings - far from it. Our goverment has see-sawed back and forth between left and right wing majorities for a while now, and the media here reflects that split.
Originally posted by karajorma
Did I say that it was government propaganda? I regard everything that the Daily Mail prints as propaganda. Does that mean that the government runs it? Are you trying to tell me that Israel doesn't have an equivalent to the Daily Mail?
Now it's my turn to miss your point. :confused:
Originally posted by karajorma
Ah. More propaganda, yet again from a non governmental source. And yet you still tell me that you're more objective than I am?
Propaganda? Unless you are calling my religious beliefs "propaganda", I fail to see what in that statement you were referring to.
That aside, you seem to have a mistaken idea of the meaning of the word "objectivity". Objectivity does not mean that both sides of a disagreement are equally right or equally wrong; if that were the case, then objective jury members would never be able to reach a consensus. Objectivity means that one is judging a situation based solely upon the facts, without regard to personal ideology or opinion. It is perfectly viable to have an objective view of a situation and arrive at the conclusion that one side is "in the right", and the other "in the wrong".
With that in mind, yes, I am in a position to be more objective than you are. Everything you know or think you know about the situation comes from what the media lets filter through. I have both those sources of information, as well as my personal observation of the things I see with my own eyes.
You seem to think that Israelis are biased to some drastic extent. Yes, there is bias (also known as patriotism), but it is tempered by having both sides of the coin presented. While I have not seen it with my own eyes, I highly doubt that the Palestinians are being presented with an equally unbiased point of view through their media.
Originally posted by vyper
Well, rational men have no hope of stopping that kind of conflict.
I agree wholeheartedly, with the slight aside that irrational men have as little chance as the rational ones do. :p
And I remember that episode... it did seem to parallel the situation here to a certain degree, didn't it?
-
Originally posted by pyro-manic
After all, the September 11th attacks were carried out because of the US's support for Israel.
Nonsense. From what I hear (and no, I haven't asked him personally to confirm this :rolleyes: ), Bin-Laden never said anything about the Palestinians until after the attacks. He doesn't care about the Palestinians any more that you do.
And, on that note, the Palestinians are the most looked-down upon group of Arabs that exist. No Arab goverment wants them in their country.
Originally posted by pyro-manic
The occupation is taken as an insult against Islam by much of the Islamic world, and people who support it are viewed as enemies.
Inaccurate. The existance of the Jewish state is taken as an insult, especially the repeated military victories the Jewish state has had over the forces of Islam. It "proves" that the God of the Jews is stronger than the god of the Muslims in their eyes.
I actually can't blame them - I'd be pissed too.
-
Originally posted by Sandwich
So what do you consider the Gaza pullout to be? Masterminded by one who used to get slandered all over the media as a right-wing hard-liner, and who now is being called traitorous by his own political party, the Gaza pullout hasn't even been put on hold by the suicide bombing of a few days ago!
I think the multifarious criticisms over the Gaza pullout have been mentioned in depth in a lot of other threads, anyways. IIRC in brief they are (might not be all);
1/ unnegotiated / dictated withdrawal conditions; i.e. not a tangible reward for negotiations and concessions, and unlikely to encourage either
2/ IIRC the settlers being removed will be allowed to resettle in the West Bank, which has been criticised as simply moving the problem; or as a deliberate ploy to strengthen Israeli claims on the West Bank by creating (or rather enlarging) settlements.... In fact, I think that's the main criticism - that it's a trade off of Gaza for 'legitimacy' in the West Bank
3/ Israel still maintains control of Gazas borders (except possibly the border with Egypt IIRC), and also the airport/airspace and port. (NB: according the UN this means Israel is still considered an occupying power with responsibility for security... how the hell that can work out, I don't know)
4/ I think the October 2004 incursions into Gaza also created a sense of suspicion over how 'withdrawn' the Israeli army would really be; would it really be a withdrawal or a besieging (i.e. Israeli units station around the border ready to launch combat patrols or even 're-invade')?
5/ There is no guarentee there will be any further negotiations or peace efforts after the withdrawal... in fact, I think it was suggested that the purpose of the plan was to make a 'concession', and then use that prevent any further discussion over the borders of Israel or the right-to-return of refugees.
NB: does a/the barrier enclose Gaza, and encroach into the 'Green line'? I know there's criticism of the (newly rerouted) West Bank barrier enclosing 6-8% of West Bank land, is there a similar situation in Gaza?
My view is that it's hard to view it as a compromise or reconciliatory measure, because those entail some form of communication with the other side and willingness to recognise previous mistakes in the past.... it's at best a dictated compromise; and as such I find it hard to see how it would be accepted by the Palestinians as a genuine gesture.
I think there has been some suggestion that, with Abbas now in charge, there might be some form of co-operation and negotiations in order to actually organize the withdrawal so some form of Palestinian security force can begin to fill the power vacuum (in terms of law and order at least); that would probably be a positive move in terms of making it a more meaningful gesture. But I think at the moment it's perceived as a political gesture, a sacrifice being made for later gain elsewhere.
Just because hard-liners criticise a decision, doesn't automatically mean it's 'soft' or not done in self interest.
Although I will admit I may have been somewhat harsh, because I forgot about the release of 500 Palestinian prisoners is a positive move in that direction, if a small one. But hopefully it can lead somewhere.
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
1/ unnegotiated / dictated withdrawal conditions; i.e. not a tangible reward for negotiations and concessions, and unlikely to encourage either
I don't get it. We demand that the Pallies stop the terrorism before we do anything, and we get criticized. So Sharon decides on a unilateral pullout of all Israeli presence from the Gaza strip, and we get criticized because we deidn't negotiate the terms of the withdrawal? Tell me I'm missing something, cuz from my POV, the only thing this is a reward for is terrorism!
Originally posted by aldo_14
2/ IIRC the settlers being removed will be allowed to resettle in the West Bank, which has been criticised as simply moving the problem; or as a deliberate ploy to strengthen Israeli claims on the West Bank by creating (or rather enlarging) settlements.... In fact, I think that's the main criticism - that it's a trade off of Gaza for 'legitimacy' in the West Bank
I saw one map showing that the destination of the population of one of the settlements at the northern end of the Gaza strip will be to a small town a few kilometers further north. OTOH, I know there has been talk about the relocation from Gaza to Judea and Samaria, so I don't know. I think it's probably both; I'll try to get my hands on a newspaper and see what it says.
Originally posted by aldo_14
3/ Israel still maintains control of Gazas borders (except possibly the border with Egypt IIRC), and also the airport/airspace and port. (NB: according the UN this means Israel is still considered an occupying power with responsibility for security... how the hell that can work out, I don't know)
This point has me completely confused. The ONLY borders Gaza has aside from the south-west border with Egypt are with Israel - of course we'd maintain our own borders!
As for the airstrip stuff, I haven't heard a thing.
Originally posted by aldo_14
4/ I think the October 2004 incursions into Gaza also created a sense of suspicion over how 'withdrawn' the Israeli army would really be; would it really be a withdrawal or a besieging (i.e. Israeli units station around the border ready to launch combat patrols or even 're-invade')?
You know, I've often thought that one extreme solution would be to completely comply with the Palestinian desires, give them a state, Jerusalem, and everything they want. Have internationally recognized borders between Palestine and Israel, with all the responsibility that comes with such.
First shot fired across the border, first mortar shell launched into Israeli space, first Palestinian terrorist crosses the border and blows him/herself up, Israel takes it as an act of war, invades Palestine, and completely takes over. Anyone not welcoming us with open arms is forcibly made into refugees - let one of the multitude of Arab states around us deal with 'em. They had their chance, and they blew it.
Now, granted, this is definitely one of the more extreme situations, but I hope it serves to underscore a point: Our very reasonable demand from the Palestinians is that they stop the terrorism - at the very least act against it. The withdrawal from Gaza does not, AFAIK, hinge on that, but I think it's a very reasonble demand to make - heck, it was the #1 term of the roadmap.
Originally posted by aldo_14
5/ There is no guarentee there will be any further negotiations or peace efforts after the withdrawal... in fact, I think it was suggested that the purpose of the plan was to make a 'concession', and then use that prevent any further discussion over the borders of Israel or the right-to-return of refugees.
That could be, although I doubt it. Only time will tell.
Originally posted by aldo_14
NB: does a/the barrier enclose Gaza, and encroach into the 'Green line'? I know there's criticism of the (newly rerouted) West Bank barrier enclosing 6-8% of West Bank land, is there a similar situation in Gaza?
The (in)famous Security Fence? It's a West Bank only thing - Gaza has its own fence.
-
Originally posted by Sandwich
I don't get it. We demand that the Pallies stop the terrorism before we do anything, and we get criticized. So Sharon decides on a unilateral pullout of all Israeli presence from the Gaza strip, and we get criticized because we deidn't negotiate the terms of the withdrawal? Tell me I'm missing something, cuz from my POV, the only thing this is a reward for is terrorism!
Actually, that's partly the point.
I saw one map showing that the destination of the population of one of the settlements at the northern end of the Gaza strip will be to a small town a few kilometers further north. OTOH, I know there has been talk about the relocation from Gaza to Judea and Samaria, so I don't know. I think it's probably both; I'll try to get my hands on a newspaper and see what it says.
IIRC there were no barriers put to prevent settlers moving to the West Bank settlements, and I believe there was talk of consolidating existing WB settlebanks into larger more secure ones. I'll need to check for exact details, though.
EDIt; whoops, forgot to actually write something.....
EDIT2; dammit, I think I read it in the newspaper not the net.
This point has me completely confused. The ONLY borders Gaza has aside from the south-west border with Egypt are with Israel - of course we'd maintain our own borders!
As for the airstrip stuff, I haven't heard a thing.
Sorry, that was a bit badly worded, I guess. Partly due to geographical confusion, I'll admit; however, Israel definately will keep control over the airspace and sea. The latter would, i'll imagine, particularly effect trade.
You know, I've often thought that one extreme solution would be to completely comply with the Palestinian desires, give them a state, Jerusalem, and everything they want. Have internationally recognized borders between Palestine and Israel, with all the responsibility that comes with such.
How about just complying with the UN resolutions asking for withdrawal? I can't remember whether they cover Jerusalem or not; perhaps that could be made into a 'free' or neutrally administired city due to its spiritual significance....
First shot fired across the border, first mortar shell launched into Israeli space, first Palestinian terrorist crosses the border and blows him/herself up, Israel takes it as an act of war, invades Palestine, and completely takes over. Anyone not welcoming us with open arms is forcibly made into refugees - let one of the multitude of Arab states around us deal with 'em. They had their chance, and they blew it.
I don't believe the UK ever invaded Eire on the basis of republican terrorism, it would be very hard to make a legal case for war on the basis of specific terrorist incidents unless you could prove tacit support (itself extremely difficult to prove) at the highest level of government.... albeit is this scenario all that different from the last 10 years or so?
On the other side, if Mossad launches an operation abroad (or even a plain old military operation), does that give that country fair justification to declare war on Israel? Or, in the most extreme imaginary case, if an Israeli civillian assasinated a (for example) Egyptian cabinet minister, would that give Egypt cassus belli to attack Israel as a nation?
Now, granted, this is definitely one of the more extreme situations, but I hope it serves to underscore a point: Our very reasonable demand from the Palestinians is that they stop the terrorism - at the very least act against it. The withdrawal from Gaza does not, AFAIK, hinge on that, but I think it's a very reasonable demand to make - heck, it was the #1 term of the roadmap.
I'm not saying it's unreasonable. In fact I think it's essential as well.
But I also think there is (or seems to be) a tendency to tar all Palestinians with the terrorist brush, so to speak; unfortunately you're always going to have the odd nutcase or ten giving into hatred, and history has shown you can't always find these people.
So I'd expect there to be attacks for some years even after a compromise solution was reached, in the same way as we had the Real IRA and ETA (for example) launching attacks after a degree of equnaimity was reached.... this conflict is far bitterer and depper rooted, so I think it's inevitable you'd need to wait a while to know that was true.
The problem is that I can't see support for terrorism diminishing without some tangible reward, and I don't think Israel would offer one without knowing for certain there would be no more attacks.
Classic catch 22, I realise.
That could be, although I doubt it. Only time will tell.
Yup; intentional inertia and simple stalemate are hard to distinguish at the best of times anyways.
The (in)famous Security Fence? It's a West Bank only thing - Gaza has its own fence.
So it follows the green line? This is just wondering if the 'land grab' arguement would be used here in the same way as it is against the WB barrier.
-
Originally posted by Sandwich
I agree wholeheartedly, with the slight aside that irrational men have as little chance as the rational ones do. :p
And I remember that episode... it did seem to parallel the situation here to a certain degree, didn't it?
It was very close, and I hope you learned something from it. :)
-
Originally posted by Styxx
Interestingly enough, I don't see any of you guys crying about the plight of the Palestinians saying anything about any of the many hotspots in Africa, where much greater attrocities are being commited on a daily basis.
Find me one person who says that the Rwandan Holocaust was okay. Find me one person who doesn't conceed that all the greater attrocities committed in Africa aren't necessary and I'd conceed you might have a point.
Israel remains such a bone of contention precisely because there are people who will try to argue that what the Israeli people are doing is justified. A debate on Rwanda would go something like this
A: That Rwanda thing was horrible
B: Yeah. They should be strung up
C: Agreed
D: Agreed
E: Agreed
A: Agreed
F: Agreed
Not much of a debate is it?
In addition while dreadful things do go on in the third world and should be stopped, Israel is not a third world nation. We demand it should be held to a higher standard, just like we insist that the USA and Europe should be.
Originally posted by Sandwich
You manage to miss the point. You said: "Similarly when you live in a county where you're constantly bombarded with propaganda about why your side is correct and the other side is evil incarnate you can't form an objective view either." That is simply not true; we have many many newspaper columns and TV whatevers from the left-wing POV - heck, most of the papers here are central-left. Israel is not a unified people when it comes to political leanings - far from it. Our goverment has see-sawed back and forth between left and right wing majorities for a while now, and the media here reflects that split.
Are you seriously telling me that there isn't a single media source in Israel that is constantly banging on about how the Palestinians are the problem and harder measures need to be taken against them? Somehow I find that very hard to believe. In fact I find it very hard to believe there aren't several.
Did I say that you only hear propaganda? Did I say that the government and all the media are all right wing? No. What I'm saying is that every time there is another bombing in Israel everyone yet again blames all the Palestinians which makes it easier to continue to oppress them. I don't hear much feeling for the palestinians in your posts. I hear comments about how come one suicide bomber should be treated as representative of the whole palestinian people.
Originally posted by Sandwich
Now it's my turn to miss your point. :confused:
Propaganda
1 The systematic propagation of a doctrine or cause or of information reflecting the views and interests of those advocating such a doctrine or cause.
2 Material disseminated by the advocates or opponents of a doctrine or cause: wartime propaganda.
Notice that nowhere in that does it say that propaganda has to come from the government.
The Daily Mail is a british rag (I refuse to call it a newspaper) that is constantly spewing rhetoric about asylum seekers and single mothers. It's not government run but it constantly seeks to demonise certain groups for the actions of certain individuals within that group.
Sound familiar? Are you seriously telling me that no one in Israel is doing the same?
Originally posted by Sandwich
Propaganda? Unless you are calling my religious beliefs "propaganda", I fail to see what in that statement you were referring to.
Propaganda can also come from a religious source. Just because it's your belief doesn't make it exempt. Just exactly how did you arrive at the belief that Israel was the rightful property of the Jews?
Originally posted by Sandwich
That aside, you seem to have a mistaken idea of the meaning of the word "objectivity". Objectivity does not mean that both sides of a disagreement are equally right or equally wrong; if that were the case, then objective jury members would never be able to reach a consensus. Objectivity means that one is judging a situation based solely upon the facts, without regard to personal ideology or opinion.
And that's where you've hung yourself with your own argument. How is your view objective if it derives from your ideology that Israel belongs to the Jews? You've basically shut out every single rational argument in favour of your religious "God gave it to me" ones. That's not objective
Originally posted by Sandwich
With that in mind, yes, I am in a position to be more objective than you are. Everything you know or think you know about the situation comes from what the media lets filter through. I have both those sources of information, as well as my personal observation of the things I see with my own eyes.
Your objectivity has however been tainted by your religious belief. You didn't arrive at that through anything you observed. Your argument is like saying a judge who has recieved a bribe is still objective. There is an overriding factor which completely cancels out your objectivity in this matter.
Even if you didn't have that belief I'd still argue against your objectivity. I don't think anyone who is being shot at, or having suicide bombers attack their country can be at all objective. The human need to turn everything into a them vs us situation prevents that.
Originally posted by Sandwich
You seem to think that Israelis are biased to some drastic extent. Yes, there is bias (also known as patriotism), but it is tempered by having both sides of the coin presented. While I have not seen it with my own eyes, I highly doubt that the Palestinians are being presented with an equally unbiased point of view through their media.
You seem to be labouring under the delusion that what the palestinians are able to hear or not hear is in any any way relevent to my argument. It might be if I was trying to claim that they were more objective than the Israeli people but if you look closely I've said nothing of the sort. Of course the Palestinians are less objective. They don't have anywhere near the kind of resources needed to be even slightly objective.
-
Originally posted by vyper
It was very close, and I hope you learned something from it. :)
I was hoping the Palestinian terrorists learned something from it; I'm not about to go blow myself or anyone else up because of what I believe in. Sure, I'll stand for what I believe in, but not to the point of enforcing my beliefs on others (all you here at HLP know what at least about me), not to mention actively causing harm!
EDIT: Kara, I didn't see your post before, probably because of the new page. I'm going off guard duty now, but I'll try to respond when I get back - probably in 4 or 6 hours. Just don't think I'm ignoring you, dude. :)
-
Originally posted by ShadowWolf_IH
gank you are again trying to get others to answer a question that you won't answer. This seems to be a modus operandi with you. personaly, you can keep talking about the middle east, i don't care. But do you even acknowledge the problems of your own country? how would you solve those? by avoiding any question directed at you?
Eh, this thread is about the middle east, stop trying to derail it, if you want my opinions on the north start another thread. Quite frankly given your displayed level of knowledge of the situation I think it would be pointless discussing anything about it with you.
Originally posted by Sandwich
You're being dense. Stop it. You're entitled to have your own opinion, but you have no right to think you have the full picture of the situation here when your only insight on the situation is filtered through the eyes of others! That's all I'm trying to say - is it really that hard to comprehend?
Again pathetic Sandy, In case you've forgotten btw, we have friends in jenin, the refugee camp you drove through lobbing tank shells through windows. Do I have the full picture, probably not, but I dont see how you think uyou can see it from the guardtower you're in.
Originally posted by Sandwich
Would you mind thinking about that statement for a second, especially in light of the recently-shattered cease-fire between Israelis and Palestinians?
It's like standing nose-to-nose with an adversary who's agreed to stop fighting with you. You then slap him, and then run whining to mommy when he punches you in the nose, complaining that he shouldn't hit you if he doesn't want to get hit. Utter idiocy.
How on earth does that affect it? You honestly think hes going to partake in the dispossession of a whole people because somebody blew themselves up. Does it not occour to you that Jesus isnt likely to take either side in the conflict, because neither Islamic Jihad nor the Likudniks love their neighbours as themselves.
-
you still haven't answered the question Gank. which by the way is the same one that you were trying to get sandwich to answer. Why is that?
-
Because you were pretty vague and I tend to just skip through what you say anyways, so I didnt really know what your question was. If its the what would jesus think of me one, I dont really see him having any major problems. Personally I dont think hes going to be to bothered what church you went too, or even if you acknowledge his existence, I think hes going to be more interested in how you lived your life.
Btw its not the same question, I asked sandwich did he think Jesus was going to take Israels side against the palestinians not what he would think of him personally> I dont think Jesus would find too much fault with sandy, hes not a bad lad, just his beliefs are a bit clouded by vague prophecies which appear to be coming to pass.
-
thank you. now back to our other conversation. Hitler, Stalin, etc....you forgot some others...Washington, Churchill, Charlemagne. These were also people who beleived in what they were doing. Your examples were all fairly nefarious, which shows what you think of Sandwich. My big point in this is simple, he is following his convictions. Either he is more strongly convicted, or his heart is more free, or he simply has more courage to follow it, than you do. You enjoy sitting there telling him that he has no right to be there, if you feel that strongly, then follow his example, and do something with your convictions. if you are not willing to go to the great lengths that he is going to, then you obviously do not have the same degree of conviction or commitment to the ideals that you harbor.
in essence, it is my opinion that if you are not willing to be as convicted in your beliefs as someone that you are oposed to, then you have accepted what they are doing as "the way things are". if you are going to sit back and accept them and not try to change them, then you have no right or reason to *****. If you felt strongly enough about sandwich having no right to be there, or felt strongly enough that the Palestinians were being persecuted, you would take arms against him, and with them, respectively. but you won't, because you don't. it's easy to pass judgement from a cushy chair. Go fight for palestine. Do something with your convictions besides ***** about them on HLP. I wouldn't agree with what you did, but at least then i could respect you as a person who FOLLOWED HIS CONVICTIONS. As it is, i pretty much see you as a poser who likes to hear the sound of his own voice. By your reluctance to do what is necessary to remove Sandwich from Isaeli soil, or to help anyone remove the Israelis from the gaza and the West Bank, you are thereby accepting that they are there. You don't like it, but are not willing to do anything to change it. Yet somehow you find in there the right to ***** about it.
If you are not going to do anything to change what you don't like, then you have nothing to ***** about. it's like someone giving you a free lunch, and then *****ing that it was a hamburger instead of pizza. You don't have to accept things as they are, you can buy yourself a pizza instead. if you feel strongly enough, you can go and change things, or at least be strong enough in your convictions to try. All it takes is courage.
yeah i pretty much applaud sandy being there.
-
Oh, it's on now!
(http://www.kenmusgrave.com/Winter2001/MoCEO.jpg)
-
Originally posted by ShadowWolf_IH
thank you. now back to our other conversation. Hitler, Stalin, etc....you forgot some others...
thats not what you said, you said he had a right to do it because he belived in it, its complete and utter bull****, as is everything else you've said here. the fact that hes following his convictions does not excuse the fact that hes doing wrong.
If what you say is true, then obviously you respect the suicide bombers, who have so much conviction they blow themselves up, or whoever flew those planes into the wtc, because they must have been highly convicted. Your arguements bollocks.
You claim to be a christian then tell me I should go kill people because I dont agree with what they're doing, you're no christian, you dont even know what the man was preaching. Hypocrites like you make me sick.
-
Btw Shadowolf, I'm guessing by your continual demands I answer your questions you think what you have to say is important, I dont. Frankly I think you're a self important prick who thinks he alone can tell people what they can and cant talk about. I have way way more respect for Sandwich then the likes of you.
-
no, i'm telling you that until you have followed your convictions to the length that he is following his, you have no right to tell him not to. him doing wrong is your opinion, which you continually state as fact. anyone with an oposing opinion to yours is immediately considered wrong by you. your opinion is simply that, an opinion and not fact, and based on your opinion you have no right whatsoever to attack anyone, especially not sandwich, who is simply following his convictions and defending something that he believes in.
I'm not telling you to kill anyone, taking arms is a phrase, you have chosen to take it to mean pick up a gun, instead of simply fight for your beliefs. Only someone who feels themselves to be inferior would think that violence is the only way. There are many avenues, you could go and grow crops for the palestinians, and support the army that you aperantly believe to be right. how convicted are you in your beliefs?
what happens when you are growing said crops and they ask you to strap a bomb to your chest? do your convictions end there? sandwich is putting his life on the line for his beliefs, i dare you to do the same. You won't.
i said that sandwich was there followinf his convictions...you retorted with hitler and stalin. in essence comparing sandwich to them. People like you who have to sit and constantly whine about everything because they know that deep down inside they haven't the courage to attempt to change anything, let alone put the life that they hold above all others in jeopardy, are what really make me sick in this world. I don't agree with the palestinians, or the Iraqis. But at least, like sandwich, i can respect them as a being of courage. That's the difference between reality and arrogance, in reality i can disagree with my enemy and respect him. In arrogance, you can state your opinion as fact, as you have done repeatedly here at HLP.
in the end, i see violence as a sometimes necessary evil. You see it as a punchline. I would much prefer that things in Israel get settled, so that i no longer have to worry about a friend that i respect. If that ever happens, you will be like the comedians after the OJ simpson trial who were looking for new material. All you want to do is whine. Do something about it, instead of just whine about everything that you do not agree with.
I am not the only person who grows tired of your personal attacks whenever someone else has an oposing viewpoint.
-
Originally posted by ShadowWolf_IH
our opinion is simply that, an opinion and not fact,
And all this is your opinion, and you're stating it as fact. I've already told you what I think of your opinion.
Originally posted by ShadowWolf_IH
I am not the only person who grows tired of your personal attacks whenever someone else has an oposing viewpoint.
Maybe not, but you're probably the only person hypocritical enough to complain about them after throwing the first stone.
Originally posted by ShadowWolf_IH
As it is, i pretty much see you as a poser who likes to hear the sound of his own voice.
You make it sound so simple btw, go to palestine, pick up a gun, fight. Shows how much you know about the world. In the space of an hour, you've determined that I'm unwilling to fight for my convictions, despite the fact that you know nothing about me. What I do, what groups I'm involved with, who I work for, even what my name is. Yet you think I'm the arrogant one.
-
No Gank, i am the only person who will actually say something about it when you start. but let's end this with me explaining this entire conversation to you. you are far too easily baited, and i enjoy you for that. :lol:
-
Are you trying to sound clever now? Its not working.
-
thank you for proving that point.
have some more bait. :lol:
and as previously promised.....
http://pub12.ezboard.com/fpoliticalpalacefrm1 (http://pub12.ezboard.com/fpoliticalpalacefrm1)
-
You're still not sounding clever, just stupid.
-
:lol:
-
:rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by ShadowWolf_IH
no, i'm telling you that until you have followed your convictions to the length that he is following his, you have no right to tell him not to. him doing wrong is your opinion, which you continually state as fact. anyone with an oposing opinion to yours is immediately considered wrong by you. your opinion is simply that, an opinion and not fact, and based on your opinion you have no right whatsoever to attack anyone, especially not sandwich, who is simply following his convictions and defending something that he believes in.
Sorry Shadow Wolf but I seriously disagree with your logic here. Take the more extreme example of a serial killer at work in your area. By your logic we should either form a vigilante mob to hunt him down or just let him carry on and not say a word because we haven't got the conviction to take him down personally. After all the killer has a lot of conviction that he's right.
The worst thing the west can do is for the population to shut up and leave the Middle East alone while continuing to arm and fund the various factions in the area. People do need to mention what is going on because we live in democracies (well most of us do!) and the greatest weapon the electorate can hold is knowledge. An ignorant electorate is easily led.
I will agree that there's no need for name calling or insulting in the dicussion though.
-
Originally posted by Gank
Again pathetic Sandy, In case you've forgotten btw, we have friends in jenin, the refugee camp you drove through lobbing tank shells through windows. Do I have the full picture, probably not, but I dont see how you think uyou can see it from the guardtower you're in.
The way I see it is this: The mainstream media in Israel (ie Yediot Aharonot, Ma'ariv, Ha'Aretz, Jerusalem Post) doesn't always portray things in a middle-of-the-road manner, but it does generally give both "sides", both viewpoints a say.
For example, Yediot Aharonot has been running what seems to be a daily story, a sort of fact sheet on different families in the Gaza strip that are facing forced relocation. But they are also reporting interviews with Palestinian families in Gaza who will be affected by the pullout - Friday's extended edition paper had, IIRC, 3 full pages devoted to one such interview.
People here get full exposure to both sides, partially because the vast division in public opinion demands that the media "satisfy" both sides. From what I've seen when overseas, the reporting on the Israeli-Palestinian issue is strictly a middle-of-the-road kind of reporting. Granted, they cannot devote the same resources that the local media can in reporting on the situation... but that's precisley my point.
Originally posted by Gank
How on earth does that affect it? You honestly think hes going to partake in the dispossession of a whole people because somebody blew themselves up. Does it not occour to you that Jesus isnt likely to take either side in the conflict, because neither Islamic Jihad nor the Likudniks love their neighbours as themselves.
If you believe that Jesus exists (which, for argument's sake, you obviously do), then tell me this: what is your basis for guessing at what He would or would not do? The only account of Him we have is the Bible, right? Well, have you missed all the parts of that account where He makes it quite clear that Israel is His beloved?
I don't mean to offend people here by getting all religious, but you brought up the question of "What Would Jesus Do?" into all this, so here's your answer: According to the Bible, Israel is the "apple of God's eye." Do you take kindly to being poked in the eye?
Also, the Bible states that God's love in an unconditional love - you don't have to be good to be loved, you don't have to obey, go to church, sacrifice burnt offerings - zilch. God loves you, me, the Palestinians, the Israelis - fact. He grieves when we choose to reject and ignore Him, but that does not change His love for us.
So just because not many people around here follow the "Love your neighbor as yourself" commandment, doesn't mean that God will reject them because of it. Not at all.
-
And god has punished Israel many times for doing stuff he doesnt like. Your logic is flawed here, you're assuming because Israel is beloved it can do no wrong, the bible itself says otherwise. And iirc there were 12 tribes in Israel, no? How can Israel exist without the lost ten?
Btw I do read Israeli news, the online stuff anyways. just because I dont read what effect the gaza pullout is going to have on the Hassan family from Khan Younis doesnt mean I dont understand whats going on Sandwich, because at the end of the day whats happening to the Hassan family from Khan Younis isnt a very significent part of the big picture.
Btw I'd strongly disagree with the idea of jp giving anything approaching a middle of the road view, it puts fox to shame.
-
There is a huge difference between defending Israel (physically) and being a serial murderer. I don't think that i need to say anything else about that.
as far as everyone shutting up, well that doesn't need to happen. Certain people need to not make it personal.
-
Originally posted by Sandwich
I was hoping the Palestinian terrorists learned something from it; I'm not about to go blow myself or anyone else up because of what I believe in. Sure, I'll stand for what I believe in, but not to the point of enforcing my beliefs on others (all you here at HLP know what at least about me), not to mention actively causing harm!
EDIT: Kara, I didn't see your post before, probably because of the new page. I'm going off guard duty now, but I'll try to respond when I get back - probably in 4 or 6 hours. Just don't think I'm ignoring you, dude. :)
I think you missed my point and the episodes.
-
Ditch the personal attacks now or this thread goes the way of the Dodo.
-
Originally posted by ShadowWolf_IH
There is a huge difference between defending Israel (physically) and being a serial murderer. I don't think that i need to say anything else about that.
Which is why I said mine was an extreme example. The point was to show the logical fallacy of saying that unless you phyically fight something you can't say it's wrong.
-
you can say it's wrong, it's just your words are prety much worthless for the most part.
-
Worthless in what sense? In that they won't change anything? On their own yes. You need to get a very large group of people all saying the same thing before anyone will notice you.
Or you need to convince people on the other side of the argument that they are wrong so that support for their side falls away.
Which is pretty much what is going on here.
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
you can say it's wrong, it's just your words are prety much worthless for the most part.
That's not true. On a general principle, there's no reason why you have to 'be there' to be able to comment; in fact it can be considered a hindrance to neutrality. I wouldn't imagine there are many people if any who have experienced both sides of the conflict (in this specific arguement), so perhaps the best position to be in when making objective judgement is the neutral, 'aloof' one.
It's worth remembering that in all cases the perception of bias does not entail something is actually biased. When it comes to, for example, the media the same story will be viewed in different ways depending on peoples individual experiences. The source of the story might appear more or less biased depending on the simple juxtaposition of other stories, or independent current events that in some way parallel.
Either way, I don't think it's fair to say you have experience something to understand it. Sometimes being there to experience something, changes what that 'it' actually is (it's a principle of - IIRC - subatomic physics but I think you can extend it to human perception in general).
-
Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle to be precise.
-
Kara.....
as a man of intellect i would have thought that you would be among the first to acknowledge that one does not need to fight physically in order to fight. There are many many ways to fight, we all know this. Sandwich has chosen his way. But someone who is behind the lines and attempting to keep logistics, is just as much in the fight. "Take arms" were the words i used, and to put them in context of my thoughts at the time, "or to take arms 'gainst a sea of troubles, and by oposing end them?" Hamlet. He was the guy who used his brain and only used his sword when it was supposed to be for sport....or when he found a man hiding in his mother's bedroom. The point is, take arms, does not necessarily mean to fight physically. However, so many people still cannot get past being physical, that it is the only way that they know of when someone says fight. I think that the worst part, is that alot of the times, it's like a man who is trying to physically fight a problem in the marriage. knowing that it only makes it worse, but refusing to stop nonetheless. I digress.
The point is, most fights aren't physical, take arms is simply my way of saying fight if your convictions are that strong. Hope that explains it a bit more :)
-
In which case though trying to argue with Sandwich and convince him that he is wrong is taking arms against him :)
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
Either way, I don't think it's fair to say you have experience something to understand it. Sometimes being there to experience something, changes what that 'it' actually is (it's a principle of - IIRC - subatomic physics but I think you can extend it to human perception in general).
Quite right... I'm not saying that your perception, or Kara's perception, of events here, if you were to be here firsthand to witness them, would be the same as mine. Not at all; there are plenty of Israelis who do witness the same events as I do, and yet still have vastly different political leanings.
However, by "witnessing" only those events that the media shows, and then only through the eyes of the media themselves, any conclusions you may reach on any given event are tainted by being filtered theough the eyes of the media. Additionally, the media here is hardly a mere "observer" - the fact that there are cameras pointing this way and that in any given case affects the behaviour of both sides - another principle of physics, if I'm not mistaken (you cannot observe something without affecting it).
Originally posted by karajorma
Are you seriously telling me that there isn't a single media source in Israel that is constantly banging on about how the Palestinians are the problem and harder measures need to be taken against them? Somehow I find that very hard to believe. In fact I find it very hard to believe there aren't several.
Of course they are. They aren't anywhere near mainstream, however - not unlike your Daily Mail. Yes, people can get news from there - if they want news reported by an agency that has openly taken sides in what it reports on.
Originally posted by karajorma
What I'm saying is that every time there is another bombing in Israel everyone yet again blames all the Palestinians which makes it easier to continue to oppress them.
If I've come across that way, I apologize.... a.k.a. Don't put words in my mouth. I have made a concious effort to differentiate between Palestinians, Palestinian terrorists, and terrorists.
Perhaps that's the impression you get through the media's reporting on Israel's reaction to bombings and such, hmm? Tell me, if you don't read the Jerusalem Post, what Israeli news sources do you read? As far as I know, neither Yediot Aharonot nor Ma'ariv have English language news sites. As for Ha'Aretz, it's distribution is very small here - I'd guess even smaller than the Jerusalem Post.
Originally posted by karajorma
I don't hear much feeling for the palestinians in your posts.
I generally don't need to post about how sorry I feel for the Palestinians, as others here tend to fill that role quite sufficiently. However, I'm not a cold-hearted bastard; and it just so happens that I did post about their wretched situation a few pages back:
Originally posted by Sandwich
Unless you have been here, seen with your own eyes the wretched living conditions of the Palestinians, seen their suffering at the eternal lines of the checkpoints...
I do feel for them, don't think that I don't. But the difference between me and (many of) you is that I don't see Israel as being the root of their problems. Palestinian terrorists are.
Israel has the right to defend herself. Palestinian terrorists perform acts of violence against Israeli targets, both military (which is fine / legal / whatever), and civilian (hence the term "terrorists"). They then hide out among the Palestinian civillians. Therefore, when Israel acts against the terrorists, both the terrorists and the civillians suffer.
Originally posted by karajorma
I hear comments about how come one suicide bomber should be treated as representative of the whole palestinian people.
You imply that you hear those comments from me. I resent that implication, challenge you to prove your accusation, and demand that you retract your slanderous statement if you cannot prove it.
Originally posted by karajorma
The Daily Mail is a british rag (I refuse to call it a newspaper) that is constantly spewing rhetoric about asylum seekers and single mothers. It's not government run but it constantly seeks to demonise certain groups for the actions of certain individuals within that group.
Sound familiar? Are you seriously telling me that no one in Israel is doing the same?
See the first paragraph in this post.
Originally posted by karajorma
Propaganda can also come from a religious source. Just because it's your belief doesn't make it exempt. Just exactly how did you arrive at the belief that Israel was the rightful property of the Jews?
Through my faith in the Bible and the One who inspired it. Not exactly a reasoning that I would expect anyone else to have, mind you, but you asked about me. :)
Originally posted by karajorma
And that's where you've hung yourself with your own argument. How is your view objective if it derives from your ideology that Israel belongs to the Jews? You've basically shut out every single rational argument in favour of your religious "God gave it to me" ones. That's not objective
No, it isn't - I don't think I ever claimed to be completely objective. As far as I recall, I stated that I was in a position to be more objective than people who get all their information filtered through non-local media.
Originally posted by karajorma
Even if you didn't have that belief I'd still argue against your objectivity. I don't think anyone who is being shot at, or having suicide bombers attack their country can be at all objective.
Gee, y'think?
However, that's an off-the-cuff response. Your statement agains shows that you have confused "objective" with both sides being equally right or equally wrong.
Look at it this way (note that this is not supposed to be a parallel of the Israeli-Palestinian sitation, but an example of the difference between objectivity and equally-right/wrong):
A murders B in cold blood, for no reason whatsoever. C is B's brother, and sees the murder take place. D is a random passer-by, who has never before met A, B, or C, but who also sees the murder take place.
Now, C is not an objective observer. D is an objective observer. However, they will both concude the same thing: A was in the wrong.
Being objective does not mean you cannot reach a conclusion one way or another, does not mean you cannot tell right from wrong.
Originally posted by karajorma
You seem to be labouring under the delusion that what the palestinians are able to hear or not hear is in any any way relevent to my argument. It might be if I was trying to claim that they were more objective than the Israeli people but if you look closely I've said nothing of the sort. Of course the Palestinians are less objective. They don't have anywhere near the kind of resources needed to be even slightly objective.
The copmment on the Palestinian media bias was not the point of the portion of my post you quoted. The point was that, contrary to what you seemed to think, the Israeli public is presented with arguments and observations from both sides of the coin.
-
Originally posted by Sandwich
Quite right... I'm not saying that your perception, or Kara's perception, of events here, if you were to be here firsthand to witness them, would be the same as mine. Not at all; there are plenty of Israelis who do witness the same events as I do, and yet still have vastly different political leanings.
However, by "witnessing" only those events that the media shows, and then only through the eyes of the media themselves, any conclusions you may reach on any given event are tainted by being filtered theough the eyes of the media. Additionally, the media here is hardly a mere "observer" - the fact that there are cameras pointing this way and that in any given case affects the behaviour of both sides - another principle of physics, if I'm not mistaken (you cannot observe something without affecting it).
Yes. Your media isn't an observer. They are in the country themselves which means that they may have their own agenda. I'll come back to this further down.
Originally posted by Sandwich
Of course they are. They aren't anywhere near mainstream, however - not unlike your Daily Mail. Yes, people can get news from there - if they want news reported by an agency that has openly taken sides in what it reports on.
Sadly the Daily Mail is pretty mainstream. :rolleyes: No matter how much I may wish it wasn't.
Originally posted by Sandwich
If I've come across that way, I apologize.... a.k.a. Don't put words in my mouth. I have made a concious effort to differentiate between Palestinians, Palestinian terrorists, and terrorists.
I've never said you did. I said your country as a whole does. The fact that they vote for people like Sharon proves it. Even if you don't think he's a hardliner that's because you're comparing him to the bigger ******s in the right.
Originally posted by Sandwich
Perhaps that's the impression you get through the media's reporting on Israel's reaction to bombings and such, hmm? Tell me, if you don't read the Jerusalem Post, what Israeli news sources do you read? As far as I know, neither Yediot Aharonot nor Ma'ariv have English language news sites. As for Ha'Aretz, it's distribution is very small here - I'd guess even smaller than the Jerusalem Post.
I stick to the BBC. As objective as news gets. World renouned for that in fact.
Originally posted by Sandwich
I do feel for them, don't think that I don't. But the difference between me and (many of) you is that I don't see Israel as being the root of their problems. Palestinian terrorists are.
I know that they have problems other than Israel but you're really not helping are you? Israel has constantly interfered to keep the government of Palestine weak. The Palestinians may have problems but do you really think that putting their leader under house arrest for three years helped them any regardless of what reasons you had for doing it to help Israel?
Originally posted by Sandwich
Israel has the right to defend herself. Palestinian terrorists perform acts of violence against Israeli targets, both military (which is fine / legal / whatever), and civilian (hence the term "terrorists"). They then hide out among the Palestinian civillians. Therefore, when Israel acts against the terrorists, both the terrorists and the civillians suffer.
Would the Israeli's have taken it so well if the British response to their terrorism had been the same as what Israel is doing now? I guess it's pretty fortunate that following WWII the British didn't have the resources to do the same thing isn't it?
Regardless of that the fact is that only a fool can't see that every Israeli attempt to defend herself simply triggers more attempts by Palestine to defend herself and on and on. Without committing your own holocaust there is no way for either side to end the problem down this path.
So do what Northern Ireland did and try talking instead of killing each other.
Originally posted by Sandwich
You imply that you hear those comments from me. I resent that implication, challenge you to prove your accusation, and demand that you retract your slanderous statement if you cannot prove it.
ummmmm. How about this comment from this very thread. I don't care if it's an extreme example. It pretty much fits what I said in my statement.
Originally posted by Sandwich
You know, I've often thought that one extreme solution would be to completely comply with the Palestinian desires, give them a state, Jerusalem, and everything they want. Have internationally recognized borders between Palestine and Israel, with all the responsibility that comes with such.
First shot fired across the border, first mortar shell launched into Israeli space, first Palestinian terrorist crosses the border and blows him/herself up, Israel takes it as an act of war, invades Palestine, and completely takes over. Anyone not welcoming us with open arms is forcibly made into refugees - let one of the multitude of Arab states around us deal with 'em. They had their chance, and they blew it.
Originally posted by Sandwich
Through my faith in the Bible and the One who inspired it. Not exactly a reasoning that I would expect anyone else to have, mind you, but you asked about me. :)
If you'd gotten the idea from reading a pamphlet saying "The Settlements belong to us" and listing reasons why you'd have called that propaganda right? Okay the bible itself may or may not be propaganda depending on if you believe it or not but lets try to stick to something more concrete.
It wasn't just the book was it? You didn't read the bible in isolation and arrive at the opinion that the Gaza Strip belongs to you did you?. You listened to the opinions of others who used that interpretation of the bible. You heard that interpretation on the news and agreed with it. etc. Even if the bible is true what you're surely doing is putting one interpretation on what it says. Do you have any concrete evidence that you're supposed to throw people out?
Even if the bible is true and God does want you to have that land maybe he means for you to convert the people already there rather than evict them or displace them with other Jews.
If I'm wrong feel free to point out where the bible say that you should drive people out when recreating the state of Israel. I don't want a vague prophecy open to interpretation though. I want an actual statement saying that a second Israel will arise by casting out the people there at the time. Anything else would be open to doing it by conversion.
Originally posted by Sandwich
No, it isn't - I don't think I ever claimed to be completely objective. As far as I recall, I stated that I was in a position to be more objective than people who get all their information filtered through non-local media.
And that's where I disagree with you. I think your faith and the fact that you're too close to the situation makes you less objective. Which is why objected to your whole "you have no right" rant in the first place.
Originally posted by Sandwich
However, that's an off-the-cuff response. Your statement agains shows that you have confused "objective" with both sides being equally right or equally wrong.
Nope. The whole argument is about whether someone who is distant can be more objective than someone close up. I'm not arguing who is wrong and who is right for the most part cause I think that both sides are bloody idiots (in both senses of the word) and that neither side is right.
Your entire rant was that someone who isn't there can't be objective and therefore should shut up. My entire point is that someone who is there sees a smaller part of the story and therefore is less objective than someone who isn't. Nothing in that rant was about who was right and who was wrong. It's not me who is confused Sandwich.
Originally posted by Sandwich
Look at it this way (note that this is not supposed to be a parallel of the Israeli-Palestinian sitation, but an example of the difference between objectivity and equally-right/wrong):
A murders B in cold blood, for no reason whatsoever. C is B's brother, and sees the murder take place. D is a random passer-by, who has never before met A, B, or C, but who also sees the murder take place.
Now, C is not an objective observer. D is an objective observer. However, they will both concude the same thing: A was in the wrong.
There you go. You're now claiming that the person closer to the story is less objective. That was my entire point.
So unless your whole "you don't have the right" rant was really about "I'm right so shut up" you're pretty much proving my point with your story.
When the case went to trial D's statements would be taken a more important than C's precisely because of the objectivity he has in the matter.
Your entire rant was about objectivity not who is correct.
Originally posted by Sandwich
Being objective does not mean you cannot reach a conclusion one way or another, does not mean you cannot tell right from wrong.
Once again I'm not arguing right and wrong. I'm arguing that you're less objective than I am.
Things that make you less objective
- You're in a country that is being bombed by the other side which tends to encourage a them vs us situation.
- Your faith makes you believe the settlers land is rightfully Israel's and blinds you to any arguments against that or that it was therefore wrong to throw the Palestinians out and take their land.
- Most of your information comes from news sources that may/may not be biased/have an agenda or from speaking to people that may/may not be biased/have an agenda.
- You are constantly exposed to the media spin on events that you yourself may have witnessed/taken part of.
Things that make me less objective
- All of my information comes from news sources that may/may not be biased/have an agenda or from speaking to people that may/may not be biased/have an agenda.
The important matter here is whether the fact that my only point starts with all rather than most out balances all the other points on your list. Quite frankly I don't believe it does.
Originally posted by Sandwich
The copmment on the Palestinian media bias was not the point of the portion of my post you quoted. The point was that, contrary to what you seemed to think, the Israeli public is presented with arguments and observations from both sides of the coin.
Some how I doubt that the condemnation of Israeli attrocities ever equals that of the condemnation of Palestinian attrocities. You could never have elected a war criminal convicted by your own courts if it had.