[vyper]

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.

[vyper]

[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.

[Sandwich]

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.

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!

[aldo_14]

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.

[Ghostavo]

Originally posted by aldo_14
Hoboy.  I'm not touching this thread with a 10 foot clown pole.........

...30 foot clown pole...

[karajorma]

Originally posted by Sandwich
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.

[Gank]

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?

[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.  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?

[vyper]

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...

[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.

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.

[Gank]

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?

[Sandwich]

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.

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.

[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?

just answer the questions.  and stop being a hater.

[Corsair]

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.

[Sandwich]

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.

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.

[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.

[Sandwich]

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.

[Rictor]

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.

[ShadowWolf_IH]

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.

[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.

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...