[aldo_14]

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)

[karajorma]

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.

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.

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.

[Black Wolf]

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.

[vyper]

[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.

[Styxx]

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!

[pyro-manic]

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.

[pyro-manic]

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.

[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.

[Styxx]

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.

[Sandwich]

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.

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.

And I remember that episode... it did seem to parallel the situation here to a certain degree, didn't it?

[Sandwich]

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 ), 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.

[aldo_14]

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.

[Sandwich]

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.

[aldo_14]

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.  

[vyper]

Originally posted by Sandwich






I agree wholeheartedly, with the slight aside that irrational men have as little chance as the rational ones do.

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.

[karajorma]

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.

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.

[Sandwich]

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.

[Gank]

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.

[ShadowWolf_IH]

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?

[Gank]

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.