DM's Beatles forums

Other forums => Current Affairs => Topic started by: Swine on December 29, 2008, 12:32:31 PM

Title: Israel vs The Rest
Post by: Swine on December 29, 2008, 12:32:31 PM
does israel have a right to excist? or are they founding their rights on an ancient book?
Title: Re: Israel vs The Rest
Post by: BlueMeanie on December 29, 2008, 12:38:14 PM
You're really going to open up a can of worms here.
Title: Re: Israel vs The Rest
Post by: Swine on December 29, 2008, 12:52:37 PM
am I? but it is a current affair isnt it. as a matter of fact its been a current affair for at least 60 years.
Title: Re: Israel vs The Rest
Post by: alexis on December 29, 2008, 02:14:37 PM
Quote from: 1789
does israel have a right to excist? or are they founding their rights on an ancient book?

Why wouldn't they?

P.S. What happened to your post #s ... new sig/avatar? ... ah, I see, you are maybe not "The Swine", rather just "Swine"?
Title: Re: Israel vs The Rest
Post by: Bobber on December 29, 2008, 09:42:17 PM
Quote from: 568

Why wouldn't they?


Why would they? Just because the Israeli's share a religion? I've met quite a few Israeli's travelling around the globe. Whenever I tried to discuss the matter to them, I was stroke by their stubborness and determination. There seemed to be no room for discussion. Because, as they said, it was written in the Thora/Old Testament that the land was theirs. I always found that a bit narrow reasoned to be honest.
Title: Re: Israel vs The Rest
Post by: on December 29, 2008, 10:31:45 PM
I don't usually write on this board but I just had to respond on this.
ISRAEL EXISTS. End of story, whether it has the right to is a different question. Yes, it was partially founded on the Old Testament, but it's also undeniable that there has been Jewish population in Israel throughout history. due to the situation after WWII it was clear Jews need their own state, and Israel was the natural choice. There was vote and the rest of the world decided on Israel's foundation.
So yeah, we have the right to exist by law. and we exist. and there are people here, living souls with lives and families who have no other place but this teeny tiny country, who know no other home, and who are deeply offended by individuals such as you, swine (starting to live up to your name there, eh?), who think it's just fine to suggest that all Israelis need to maybe be wiped out, cause they're nothing but trouble to the rest of the world, right?

We are here to stay and nothing can be done about this now. Arabs need to face this, the rest of the world needs to face this. you can't just kick 7 million people out of their home all of a sudden.  

Hope that answers your question, dear.
Title: Re: Israel vs The Rest
Post by: Geoff on December 29, 2008, 10:36:01 PM
Quote from: 1810
who are deeply offended by individuals such as you, swine (starting to live up to your name there, eh?), who think it's just fine to suggest that all Israelis need to maybe be wiped out, cause they're nothing but trouble to the rest of the world, right?

Where did Swine say "all Israelis need to be wiped out" or that "they're nothing but trouble to the rest of the world?"
Title: Re: Israel vs The Rest
Post by: on December 29, 2008, 10:44:26 PM
Quote from: 1161

Where did Swine say "all Israelis need to be wiped out" or that "they're nothing but trouble to the rest of the world?"

How do you call questioning the existence of Israel? (although, take notice, I did put a "maybe" there. and these examples were brought because that's what I've been exactly hearing most of my life.)
I understand people don't get it, really, but these questions make you feel quite attacked.
Title: Re: Israel vs The Rest
Post by: Sondra on December 29, 2008, 10:55:19 PM
I see a pattern here with a couple of avatars. What's that about?
Title: Re: Israel vs The Rest
Post by: Geoff on December 29, 2008, 10:57:55 PM
Quote from: 1810
I understand people don't get it, really, but these questions make you feel quite attacked.

"Feeling" like you've been attacked is not the same thing as actually having been attacked. Properly made, statements have a logical meaning in them and that is what is to be responded to. The associated emotional responses such statements give rise to are a different matter. Swine is simply raising a discussion topic.  





Title: Re: Israel vs The Rest
Post by: aspinall_lover on December 30, 2008, 01:40:05 AM
I do not have a problem with Israel.  Hey!!!!  These guys have been "dumped on" for centuries.  I am Catholic and I make no side remarks or such.  All I got to say is.............let Israel send their version on the FBI/CIA.....what's it called, the "Masab"......correct my spelling please.........but these "soldiers" would put anyone in their place.  This is just my opinion........
Title: Re: Israel vs The Rest
Post by: Octie on December 30, 2008, 02:27:34 AM
The way I see it, every country has the right to exist...
Title: Re: Israel vs The Rest
Post by: BlueMeanie on December 30, 2008, 10:20:47 AM
Quote from: 1810
who are deeply offended by individuals such as you, swine (starting to live up to your name there, eh?), who think it's just fine to suggest that all Israelis need to maybe be wiped out, cause they're nothing but trouble to the rest of the world, right?

This over the top reaction just goes to illustrate Bobber's comment when trying discuss this topic with an Israeli he was stonewalled.

This is a discussion forum. Sometimes we talk Beatles, and sometimes we talk serious stuff. If you cared to stick around for long enough you'd also discover that some of us possess a modicum of intelligence.

As an Israeli it would be great to have your input in the 'discussion'. Nobody has offended you. In fact you have just offended all of us by suggesting that mearly having this conversation means that we want the jews wiped out.

Shame on you StarDust.
Title: Re: Israel vs The Rest
Post by: BlueMeanie on December 30, 2008, 10:30:29 AM
Quote from: 216
I see a pattern here with a couple of avatars. What's that about?

Solidarity comrade. 94beatlesrthebest called The Swine a communist.
Title: Re: Israel vs The Rest
Post by: Bobber on December 30, 2008, 12:42:16 PM
Quote from: 610
The way I see it, every country has the right to exist...

Palestina?
Title: Re: Israel vs The Rest
Post by: alexis on December 30, 2008, 06:48:35 PM
Quote from: 63

Why would they? Just because the Israeli's share a religion? I've met quite a few Israeli's travelling around the globe. Whenever I tried to discuss the matter to them, I was stroke by their stubborness and determination. There seemed to be no room for discussion. Because, as they said, it was written in the Thora/Old Testament that the land was theirs. I always found that a bit narrow reasoned to be honest.

IMO, narrow reasoning by a group of Israelis doesn't mean that Israel shouldn't exist. Even if the whole country were filled with unpleasant, narrow minded dogmatic Torah spouters, whether Israel has a right to exist would be determined independently of that.

As far as I see, the reasoning given for invalidity of Israel's claim to exist are that 1) We were here first (Palestinians), 2) It's a false country, set up by political partition, ignoring native and cultural issues on the ground at the time.

Either or both may or may not be true, but if they are used as grounds to deny Israel's existence, then I can't think offhand of any country that  is exempt from similar claims of invalid political existence. Native Americans, Druid Dudes of the British Isles, (Irish Catholics in Northern Ireland? ... claiming ignorance here as to whether that is even a good example), Aborigines down under ... they may all have as legitimate a claim to the lands that were once theirs, and were taken by force and usually pretty ugly behavior besides.

There may be good reasons for Israel to not exist, and other countries too ("Imagine ..."), but I guess that probably wasn't the thought behind the original question!

Just my 2c/p/shekels - thanks!
Title: Re: Israel vs The Rest
Post by: Jane on December 30, 2008, 09:11:46 PM
Everybody has the right to exist. Israel included, no question.
Title: Re: Israel vs The Rest
Post by: Bobber on December 30, 2008, 09:16:53 PM
Quote from: 1393
Everybody has the right to exist. Israel included, no question.

Palestina? (Again...)
Title: Re: Israel vs The Rest
Post by: BlueMeanie on December 31, 2008, 12:34:56 AM
Quote from: 1393
Everybody has the right to exist. Israel included, no question.

That's a very, very wild statement, that needs backing up. You can't just say that and walk away.
Title: Re: Israel vs The Rest
Post by: Sondra on December 31, 2008, 01:29:29 AM
Quote from: 483

Solidarity comrade. 94beatlesrthebest called The Swine a communist.


Ah. I knew I was missing something. (http://freesmileyface.net/smiley/Flags/china-flag-16.gif)
Title: Re: Israel vs The Rest
Post by: pc31 on December 31, 2008, 03:27:23 AM
i respect the right of a mass to rally to a flag....clanism is the hobby of man....wisdom is desired....freedom taken for granted....i also think only concerned parties should be concerned.....to the deciders go the decsions....from the voters come the votes...and to all come desires...our commonality should bind us as a species but it will never happen unless individualism is destroyed,we've come too far to stumble back so why do we???
Title: Re: Israel vs The Rest
Post by: blackmath on December 31, 2008, 06:52:04 AM
I don't care if they have the right to exist or not. I mean of course everybody in the world has the right to exist. BUT the thing is they are killing innocent people and people around the world are protesting. I really hope some of you just think about what's happening in Gaza, people are being killed for no reason, and it could've been you and your family, but no, you're the lucky kind. You can sit home celebrating christmas, getting presents. You're the chosen one, lucky you. Please do a research or watch the news please. It's not as simple as saying "Yes, they should exist, I don't see a reason why not". I'm not attacking someone in particular here btw. I like this forum and people in it but I couldn't just sit saying nothing. Have an open mind, please.
Or just think, what would John do. ;)
Title: Re: Israel vs The Rest
Post by: Bobber on December 31, 2008, 10:17:09 AM
^My point towards the Israeli's I've met in my life is that I wanted to discuss the thing with them. Just to see things from both sides. I think I CAN see things from both sides, but it was a disappointment to see people so stubborn.
Title: Re: Israel vs The Rest
Post by: Jane on December 31, 2008, 01:55:42 PM
Quote from: 610
The way I see it, every country has the right to exist...

The same statement as mine. I agree with the poster!  :)
Anyway, first, substantiate your position and we will follow suit, after all you`re the leader!  ;)
Title: Re: Israel vs The Rest
Post by: Wordno on January 01, 2009, 03:10:18 AM
Quote from: 1810
I
We are here to stay and nothing can be done about this now. Arabs need to face this, the rest of the world needs to face this. you can't just kick 7 million people out of their home all of a sudden.  

.

I had to laugh at this comment. It can be done. Just ask the Palestinian's who were there before you.

I hate to sound hateful but it's funny to see how pretentious Israelis are. It's like they erased the part in history where all those Palestinian's were kicked out of there homes and put into refugee camps. Israelis always act like the victims for everything. The reason why arabs and palestinian's hate you is because the people who lived in israel before you were kicked out of their homes for being at the wrong place at the wrong time. I work in a mall and at my mall there are Israelis who work at a kiosk selling lotion and while they're fairly nice people, they are still arrogant and pretentious beyond belief. Their opinions were all the same. "We're the victims, feel bad for us.".
Title: Re: Israel vs The Rest
Post by: alexis on January 01, 2009, 07:07:10 AM
I think people may be letting their experiences with individual Israelis color their judgment about what the original topic was about - does Israel have the right to exist.

All you who have written above about your unpleasant experiences with Israelis ... I'm wondering how you feel about whether Israel has a right to exist?
Title: Re: Israel vs The Rest
Post by: blackmath on January 01, 2009, 08:42:03 AM
Alexis: I've never known an Israeli. Never. And you seem to be only paying attention to the second part of Wordno's post. I have to quote

Quote
The reason why arabs and palestinian's hate you is because the people who lived in israel before you were kicked out of their homes for being at the wrong place at the wrong time.


True story. And anyway, how could it be a coincidence all these people meeting stubborn Israelis? And I have to repeat, I don't care if they're stubborn or not, they kicked Palestinians out of their homes long ago and are still torturing them, killing all those innocent people. Disgusting. But I do have to admit that it's not like I dislike all of the Israelis. Only those who think what they did/do was/is right. Now that's disgusting.

http://peoplesgeography.files.wordpress.com/2006/11/gaza_swimming_pool-by-latuff.jpg
Duh?
Title: Re: Israel vs The Rest
Post by: python on January 01, 2009, 10:12:56 AM
The deaths of innocent people is what sticks in my throat.Awful.
Title: Re: Israel vs The Rest
Post by: Kaleidoscope_Eyes on January 01, 2009, 12:07:19 PM
"The Rest" have all voted for Israel's independence, so why question it?
Israel is existing, Palestine is existing. The problem is that the Arabs in Palestine want some of Israel because in old times that land belonged to them. And that's fact, no one disputes that. But we also had the British mandate and then vote and how long has passed? So really, every country has the right to exist , its just the problem with insane corrupted dictators.

I find it very hard to believe that people would actually, and seriously, ask whether Israel have the right to exist... but then again with the stuff they write in the papers....
Title: Re: Israel vs The Rest
Post by: Octie on January 01, 2009, 02:16:11 PM
Quote from: 63
Why would they? Just because the Israeli's share a religion?
... and a language, and culture... isn't that enough for people to exist as a country? It is sufficient for other countries in the world, as far as I know. In addition to which:
Quote from: 1810
There was vote and the rest of the world decided on Israel's foundation.
So yeah, we have the right to exist by law.
Exactly. Israel exists by law, not just due to "an ancient book". Is this not a valid right for existence?

Quote from: 63
Palestina?
It, too, exists. And as far as I can see no-one here questioned its right to do so.


Quote from: 1610
The deaths of innocent people is what sticks in my throat.Awful.
There have been deaths of innocent people on both sides, and yes, this is awful.


Quote from: 403
Israelis always act like the victims for everything. The reason why arabs and palestinian's hate you is because the people who lived in israel before you were kicked out of their homes for being at the wrong place at the wrong time. I work in a mall and at my mall there are Israelis who work at a kiosk selling lotion and while they're fairly nice people, they are still arrogant and pretentious beyond belief. Their opinions were all the same. "We're the victims, feel bad for us.".
Pretending to be victims... I'm sorry, but in my experience it's usually the other way around. At least down here, the newspaper tends to be quite one-sided about the situation. They tend to concentrate on the way Israel retailiates after being attacked, rather than on the fact that they were attacked first, and so had to defend themselves (and I beleive a contry has the right to defend itself when, for example, it is being bombed by missiles). Innocent Israeli citizens die too, but this tends to be ignored/talked down. For example, back when I lived in Israel there were suicide bombers blowing themselves up in shopping centres and buses, so Israeli citizens are also victims of this conflict.


As to who was there before whom... that is not such an easy question, depends how far into history you look. In addition to which, as Alexis said:
Quote from: 568
As far as I see, the reasoning given for invalidity of Israel's claim to exist are that 1) We were here first (Palestinians), 2) It's a false country, set up by political partition, ignoring native and cultural issues on the ground at the time.

Either or both may or may not be true, but if they are used as grounds to deny Israel's existence, then I can't think offhand of any country that  is exempt from similar claims of invalid political existence. Native Americans, Druid Dudes of the British Isles, (Irish Catholics in Northern Ireland? ... claiming ignorance here as to whether that is even a good example), Aborigines down under ... they may all have as legitimate a claim to the lands that were once theirs, and were taken by force and usually pretty ugly behavior besides.
I agree. Different countries/nations have been fighting and conquering each other in the past, and the result is the countries that we have now. I reckon at some point you've got to put a freeze on the "border re-drawing" activity.

I really hope the conflict gets resolved and that Israelis and Palestinians can coexist side by side.

Sorry about the long post you guys. No offence at all intended to any member.
Title: Re: Israel vs The Rest
Post by: BlueMeanie on January 01, 2009, 05:44:02 PM
Quote from: 610
Sorry about the long post you guys. No offence at all intended to any member.

No offence taken, I'm sure. Your personal experience is a valued contribution, and you put your points across well. How long were you and KE in Israel?
Title: Re: Israel vs The Rest
Post by: alexis on January 01, 2009, 06:47:12 PM
Quote from: 706
Alexis: I've never known an Israeli. Never. And you seem to be only paying attention to the second part of Wordno's post. I have to quote



True story. And anyway, how could it be a coincidence all these people meeting stubborn Israelis? And I have to repeat, I don't care if they're stubborn or not, they kicked Palestinians out of their homes long ago and are still torturing them, killing all those innocent people. Disgusting. But I do have to admit that it's not like I dislike all of the Israelis. Only those who think what they did/do was/is right. Now that's disgusting.

[url]http://peoplesgeography.files.wordpress.com/2006/11/gaza_swimming_pool-by-latuff.jpg[/url]
Duh?


But ... couldn't the same sort of thing be said about the countries each of us hail from? And to be honest, I don't think the atrocities are as 1-sided as they sound in your post; thoughts of Palestinian suicide bombers in malls, beaches, and schools come to mind. Not to mention Katusha rockets being fired into Israeli cities from civilian zones.

It's pointless, I believe, to try proceed as if there were one right party, with the other being wrong. I think the only way to solve these things is to have both parties be willing to sit with each other and say something like "For the lives of our children and grandchildren we will give up something which we have previously sworn to never give up - if you will do the same". Or something like that ...
Title: Re: Israel vs The Rest
Post by: Kevin on January 02, 2009, 01:49:11 PM
Re "stubborn Isrealis" - I met quite a few while travelling (especially India) and did find them particularly hard to get along with. I have the same experience with pre Mandella South Africans, and put it down to the fact that these people had grown up in what is practically a seige culture - no wonder they appear insular and arrogant. It's a trait they need to survive.
Title: Re: Israel vs The Rest
Post by: Bobber on January 02, 2009, 07:33:04 PM
Quote from: 610
... and a language, and culture... isn't that enough for people to exist as a country? It is sufficient for other countries in the world, as far as I know. In addition to which:
It should be enough maybe. But there's enough nations that don't have that luxury.

Quote from: 610

It, too, exists. And as far as I can see no-one here questioned its right to do so.
You can hardly call that existing.

Quote from: 610
There have been deaths of innocent people on both sides, and yes, this is awful.


Pretending to be victims... I'm sorry, but in my experience it's usually the other way around. At least down here, the newspaper tends to be quite one-sided about the situation. They tend to concentrate on the way Israel retailiates after being attacked, rather than on the fact that they were attacked first, and so had to defend themselves (and I beleive a contry has the right to defend itself when, for example, it is being bombed by missiles). Innocent Israeli citizens die too, but this tends to be ignored/talked down. For example, back when I lived in Israel there were suicide bombers blowing themselves up in shopping centres and buses, so Israeli citizens are also victims of this conflict.
[/quote]

Well, maybe that's a matter of, what we call, the chicken and the egg. What was there first?
Quote from: 610
I really hope the conflict gets resolved and that Israelis and Palestinians can coexist side by side.
Amen to that!
Quote from: 610
Sorry about the long post you guys. No offence at all intended to any member.
No offence taken. Just a healthy discussion as far as I'm concerned.
Title: Re: Israel vs The Rest
Post by: Jane on January 02, 2009, 09:10:58 PM
I don`t think any solution would be found in the near future. Different politicians and leaders (Bill Clinton before his retirement) tried to resolve the situation but in vain. Unfortunately we have to wait for a new generation of leaders to come to power, for a new mind-set to be formed, maybe then...
Title: Re: Israel vs The Rest
Post by: Sondra on January 02, 2009, 11:03:10 PM
Most Americans seem to automatically take the Israeli's side. Is this brainwashing?
Title: Re: Israel vs The Rest
Post by: An Apple Beatle on January 03, 2009, 03:46:03 AM
I wouldn't know about that. It is portrayed over here (UK) that Israel and America are politically close.
Title: Re: Israel vs The Rest
Post by: Bobber on January 03, 2009, 08:35:04 AM
The country with the most Jews in the world is... the USA. Not Israel!
Title: Re: Israel vs The Rest
Post by: Sondra on January 03, 2009, 09:32:44 AM
Quote from: 63
The country with the most Jews in the world is... the USA. Not Israel!

Hmm, wonder why that is?  :X And yes, I suppose that has something to do with it!
Title: Re: Israel vs The Rest
Post by: Jane on January 03, 2009, 09:03:50 PM
Quote from: 15
I wouldn't know about that. It is portrayed over here (UK) that Israel and America are politically close.

Then it is portrayed like that everywhere, which means it is true.
Title: Re: Israel vs The Rest
Post by: blackmath on January 04, 2009, 02:15:51 PM
The site is Turkish but the video kinda speaks for itself.
http://www.internethaber.com/news_detail.php?id=173070
WARNING: Do not watch if blood makes you faint.
WARNING: 18+, I suppose.
I gave up watching after 30 seconds. I just couldn't stand it. This is the most disgusting thing I've ever seen. The Saw V? Are you kidding me?

I really don't know how someone could have good feeling towards Israel after seeing stuff like this unless of course if you don't have a heart.
Title: Re: Israel vs The Rest
Post by: DaveRam on January 04, 2009, 04:32:33 PM
Looks to me like this is an attack on Islam and its coming from outside and within this faith .
The Wests War on Terror , Israel and Islamicists are slowly destroying this religion , moderate people of all faith and none need to step up to the plate and end this Holy War ?
And learn to live in peace and respect each other .
Only a political solution can end this war ?
There also needs to be an end to all forms of religious fundamentalism , Jaw Jaw not War War .
Title: Re: Israel vs The Rest
Post by: An Apple Beatle on January 04, 2009, 07:14:38 PM
Like your style D. Spiritualism should replace religion imo.
Title: Re: Israel vs The Rest
Post by: Sondra on January 04, 2009, 09:49:39 PM
To be honest, I don't think most of us have a deep enough understanding or knowledge of this issue to effectively discuss it. But that's just my opinion.
Title: Re: Israel vs The Rest
Post by: An Apple Beatle on January 04, 2009, 10:08:40 PM
Quote from: 1393

Then it is portrayed like that everywhere, which means it is true.

I was just being very careful with my wording......this place does that to you after a while. lol
Title: Re: Israel vs The Rest
Post by: Sondra on January 04, 2009, 10:11:18 PM
Quote from: 15

I was just being very careful with my wording......this place does that to you after a while. lol

It's not like it's a secret. After all, they do call Israel the 52nd state. The UK being the 51st of course.  ;)
Title: Re: Israel vs The Rest
Post by: Jane on January 04, 2009, 10:55:50 PM
Quote from: 216

It's not like it's a secret. After all, they do call Israel the 52nd state. The UK being the 51st of course.  ;)

What concerns the UK, there`s an article called Better Off As 51st State by Larry Elliot published in the Guardian, June 3, 1996, which proves the same idea. Nobody is insisting on it, but as you see, clever people write about it.
Title: Re: Israel vs The Rest
Post by: Sondra on January 04, 2009, 11:21:33 PM
Quote from: 1393

What concerns the UK, there`s an article called Better Off As 51st State by Larry Elliot published in the Guardian, June 3, 1996, which proves the same idea. Nobody is insisting on it, but as you see, clever people write about it.

It's a joke.
Title: Re: Israel vs The Rest
Post by: Jane on January 04, 2009, 11:52:33 PM
Quote from: 216

It's a joke.

Don`t worry, Sandra, I know it.
Title: Re: Israel vs The Rest
Post by: alexis on January 05, 2009, 03:53:45 AM
Quote from: 216
Most Americans seem to automatically take the Israeli's side. Is this brainwashing?

Automatically? What information do you have to conclude most Americans' opinions in these issues are automatic, as opposed to well-considered?
Title: Re: Israel vs The Rest
Post by: Sondra on January 05, 2009, 05:16:43 AM
Quote from: 568

Automatically? What information do you have to conclude most Americans' opinions in these issues are automatic, as opposed to well-considered?

None. Semantics aside, I have no proof, just my own little observations which are both irrelevant and limited. It was just a thought.
Title: Re: Israel vs The Rest
Post by: Kevin on January 05, 2009, 10:39:39 AM
Quote from: 216
Most Americans seem to automatically take the Israeli's side. Is this brainwashing?

Munich, Leon Uris books in the seventies and Speilberg movie after pretty much insured most of us grew up feeling sorry for Isreal.
Title: Re: Israel vs The Rest
Post by: Kaleidoscope_Eyes on January 05, 2009, 11:19:38 PM
Quote from: 483
How long were you and KE in Israel?
10 years

Quote from: 185
Leon Uris books in the seventies
He writes very good books. And his most famous book "Exodus" gives a very good background to the conflict. I hear the movie was not very good though.
Title: Re: Israel vs The Rest
Post by: alexis on January 06, 2009, 03:02:37 AM
Quote from: 216

None. Semantics aside, I have no proof, just my own little observations which are both irrelevant and limited. It was just a thought.

Sorry, Sandra, I think I came across brusquely. I was tired, and didn't express my feelings well ...

Thanks - Alexis
Title: Re: Israel vs The Rest
Post by: Kevin on January 06, 2009, 06:52:03 PM
Quote from: 596
10 years


He writes very good books. And his most famous book "Exodus" gives a very good background to the conflict. I hear the movie was not very good though.

True, cracking good reads but really nothing more than propoganda. It does nothing more than back Israel's case.
Title: Re: Israel vs The Rest
Post by: Swine on January 07, 2009, 10:09:15 AM
Quote from: 1393

Then it is portrayed like that everywhere, which means it is true.

that is a debatable statement miss jane
Title: Re: Israel vs The Rest
Post by: Jane on January 08, 2009, 08:00:12 PM
Quote from: 1789

that is a debatable statement miss jane

that is a nice statement swine, so here you go: debate it
Title: Re: Israel vs The Rest
Post by: J_Moondog on January 09, 2009, 05:32:44 AM
I think it is crucial when discussing Israel's "right to exist" that it is understood what is meant by that when the question is asked.  First of all, the "right to exist" is not a legitimate term in international law.  In other words, no state demands the right to exist and no state's existence is recognized under international law.  In terms of peace proposals, Palestine has always been in favor of a settlement that would guarantee the existence of the state of Israel in exchange for mutual recognition - a proposal that is supported by practically every country in the world and historically rejected by the United States and Israel.  If one looks back at the diplomatic history, they will find that Israel shifted their position when the PLO and the Arab states supported the two-state settlement solution and that shift was characterized by the "right to exist", which meant that Palestinians would not only have to support a solution that would grant Israel statehood (since they already supported that) but, rather, have to acknowledge the legitimacy of the state that dispossessed them from the land.  I'm not sure who would support that, nor is there any reason to argue that Israel should be above the standards of international law.
Title: Re: Israel vs The Rest
Post by: Swine on January 09, 2009, 08:00:09 AM
Quote from: 1393

that is a nice statement swine, so here you go: debate it

its reported everywhere that all russians like vodka and that most of them are alcoholics, so it must be true.
Title: Re: Israel vs The Rest
Post by: Swine on January 09, 2009, 08:00:35 AM
Quote from: 1832
I think it is crucial when discussing Israel's "right to exist" that it is understood what is meant by that when the question is asked.  First of all, the "right to exist" is not a legitimate term in international law.  In other words, no state demands the right to exist and no state's existence is recognized under international law.  In terms of peace proposals, Palestine has always been in favor of a settlement that would guarantee the existence of the state of Israel in exchange for mutual recognition - a proposal that is supported by practically every country in the world and historically rejected by the United States and Israel.  If one looks back at the diplomatic history, they will find that Israel shifted their position when the PLO and the Arab states supported the two-state settlement solution and that shift was characterized by the "right to exist", which meant that Palestinians would not only have to support a solution that would grant Israel statehood (since they already supported that) but, rather, have to acknowledge the legitimacy of the state that dispossessed them from the land.  I'm not sure who would support that, nor is there any reason to argue that Israel should be above the standards of international law.

wonderful post
Title: Re: Israel vs The Rest
Post by: An Apple Beatle on January 09, 2009, 10:14:32 AM
So America abstained again this morning...the only country....Why?
Title: Re: Israel vs The Rest
Post by: Bobber on January 09, 2009, 11:35:58 AM
Because there's a strong jewish lobby in the US politics.
Title: Re: Israel vs The Rest
Post by: An Apple Beatle on January 09, 2009, 11:42:54 AM
I watched a bit of the UN meet before falling asleep and all seemed to be going so well. Even Condaleeza started off encouragingly. Close your eyes and look what happens!

Israel & US seem to be making the UN look pointless. That bodes bad for the future.
Title: Re: Israel vs The Rest
Post by: J_Moondog on January 09, 2009, 02:37:10 PM
Quote from: 63
Because there's a strong jewish lobby in the US politics.

I don't quite agree with this.  The United States has supported Israel long before there were significant Israel lobby groups in the country.  When the US supported Indonesia's ethnic cleansing of the East Timorese, it was not because of an Indonesian lobby.  When the US supported apartheid in South Africa, it was not because of a South African lobby.  Rather, it was recognized that supporting these insidious crimes would be beneficial to US economic interests in the region.  According to internal documents, Israel has been a crucial part of US foreign policy since 1947 and the Middle East was considered a valuable asset in the goal for global hegemony.  The history would take pages to explain, but to me, there is very little evidence that any of the support that has been given to Israel over the last 60+ years has had very much to do with lobby groups.
Title: Re: Israel vs The Rest
Post by: J_Moondog on January 09, 2009, 02:38:15 PM
Quote from: 15
Israel & US seem to be making the UN look pointless. That bodes bad for the future.

This has generally been the US strategy in all international affairs since the 1960s

Title: Re: Israel vs The Rest
Post by: An Apple Beatle on January 09, 2009, 03:22:57 PM
Quote from: 1832

This has generally been the US strategy in all international affairs since the 1960s


Sheer arrogance (US) but I guess your right really. Humanity loses out again.
Title: Re: Israel vs The Rest
Post by: alexis on January 09, 2009, 03:34:42 PM
Quote from: 15

Sheer arrogance (US) but I guess your right really. Humanity loses out again.

Don't feel quite so hopeless. IMO, what is going on there now is Israel trying to keep from getting their civilians rocketed, and not knowing what else to do, having tried many other options in the past. Hamas is shooting rockets from homes, schools, and hospitals. Who has committed the greater moral sin - the one who retaliates at those areas, with massive civilian casualties, or the one who launches military maneuvers from civilian areas in the first place? As far as I know, the rockets are still being fired from those areas ...

Remember, the US and Israel are not the only ones "posturing" at the UN. My impression is that most votes are not made on morale grounds, but rather political ones. "Let's stick it to the man", and "what's in it for us" have often been the voting credo of many countries over the past decades, right or wrong. The UN is definitely not the Altruism Society of the World.

Oh, as for sheer arrogance - why no similar feelings towards Hamas as well, who rejected the call for the cease fire also?

******************************************************************

January 10, 2009
Israel and Hamas Rebuff U.N. Cease-Fire Call
By ETHAN BRONNER

JERUSALEM
Title: Re: Israel vs The Rest
Post by: alexis on January 09, 2009, 04:07:24 PM
Quote from: 1832
I think it is crucial when discussing Israel's "right to exist" that it is understood what is meant by that when the question is asked.  First of all, the "right to exist" is not a legitimate term in international law. In other words, no state demands the right to exist and no state's existence is recognized under international law.  In terms of peace proposals, Palestine has always been in favor of a settlement that would guarantee the existence of the state of Israel in exchange for mutual recognition - a proposal that is supported by practically every country in the world and historically rejected by the United States and Israel.  If one looks back at the diplomatic history, they will find that Israel shifted their position when the PLO and the Arab states supported the two-state settlement solution and that shift was characterized by the "right to exist", which meant that Palestinians would not only have to support a solution that would grant Israel statehood (since they already supported that) but, rather, have to acknowledge the legitimacy of the state that dispossessed them from the land.  I'm not sure who would support that, nor is there any reason to argue that Israel should be above the standards of international law.

Not being a diplomat, but that just doesn't sound right to me. Doesn't international law recognize the right to exist in many ways, for example, the doctrines of non-interference in a country's internal affairs, a country's right to defend itself and secure its borders, etc.? I'm probably just being dense or something here, sorry for that J Moondog, but it sounds like you know what you are talking about ... please explain further - thanks!

Title: Re: Israel vs The Rest
Post by: An Apple Beatle on January 09, 2009, 05:02:04 PM
Quote from: 568


Oh, as for sheer arrogance - why no similar feelings towards Hamas as well, who rejected the call for the cease fire also?


Sure..I got that snippet on the news after my comment. It's good to be educated in these matters but the news polarity seems to shift.....According to Tony Benn, (ExMP) Isreal fired first whilst there was already a ceasefire in place and strangleheld the Gaza strip from receiving humanitarian aid these last few months....It's for more cpomplex I know for my sweeping generalisations. I really hope there can be a lasting solution. I also hoped the UN could provide a rational solution......All parties have to agree of course, it's just that I heard the rejection from Israel and US first.
Title: Re: Israel vs The Rest
Post by: alexis on January 09, 2009, 05:28:41 PM
Quote from: 15

Sure..I got that snippet on the news after my comment. It's good to be educated in these matters but the news polarity seems to shift.....According to Tony Benn, (ExMP) Isreal fired first whilst there was already a ceasefire in place and strangleheld the Gaza strip from receiving humanitarian aid these last few months....It's for more cpomplex I know for my sweeping generalisations. I really hope there can be a lasting solution. I also hoped the UN could provide a rational solution......All parties have to agree of course, it's just that I heard the rejection from Israel and US first.

None of us Beatle people will ever know the real truth of what happened first to whom, and really, when it comes down to it, the only important thing is the solution, not the blame. Like in a relationship, the main parties need to get past that stage to find true peace.

Jeesh, I wish I could put those words to work in my own marriage better, I do try, " ... as good as I can be"!

Title: Re: Israel vs The Rest
Post by: J_Moondog on January 09, 2009, 05:33:11 PM
Quote from: 568
Don't feel quite so hopeless. IMO, what is going on there now is Israel trying to keep from getting their civilians rocketed, and not knowing what else to do, having tried many other options in the past. [/i]



No serious person believes that Hamas should be firing rockets, but Israeli actions in the Gaza strip and the West Bank have been far more violent and destructive for years (well before the rockets were being fired).  I'm not sure what these "options" are that Israel has tried.  Currently, they are in violation of international law for illegal constructing settlements and development programs along the West Bank; they are in violation of the Geneva Convention for illegally occupying Gaza and its inhabitants; they are violating international humanitarian law by reducing fuel and electricity supplies in Gaza in order to put pressure on the elected Hamas government.  If the options are these grave violations of international law (much more severe than the ones carried out by Palestine), then one can only view this as an impediment to diplomacy in the region.
Title: Re: Israel vs The Rest
Post by: J_Moondog on January 09, 2009, 05:34:54 PM
Quote from: 568
Remember, the US and Israel are not the only ones "posturing" at the UN.

Since the beginning of the 1970s, the United States is by far in the lead for vetoes in UN security council resolutions.  No one else comes anywhere close (Britain is in second, and the US naturally tolerates that as they often take similar positions).  So, yes, the US is almost exclusively the only party that is attempting to undermine the UN.  In terms of voting alone, they have been the chief actor in vetoing middle east peace proposals.

Title: Re: Israel vs The Rest
Post by: J_Moondog on January 09, 2009, 05:44:48 PM
Quote from: 568

Not being a diplomat, but that just doesn't sound right to me. Doesn't international law recognize the right to exist in many ways, for example, the doctrines of non-interference in a country's internal affairs, a country's right to defend itself and secure its borders, etc.? I'm probably just being dense or something here, sorry for that J Moondog, but it sounds like you know what you are talking about ... please explain further - thanks!


International law does recognize "the doctrines of non-interference" and "a country's right to defend itself" but this has nothing to do with Israel and the question of "the right to exist".  When Israel first adopted the term, it was new to international diplomacy.  No country before (and no country since) had ever demanded recognition of their right to exist in international affairs.  Again, the PLO had already agreed to the international consensus of a two-state settlement that allowed for mutual recognition - meaning both state would have the very kinds of protections of international law that you noted above.  "The right to exist" goes beyond that - it is a demand for a recognition of legitimacy - in other words, that it is legitimate to dispossess people from their land.  Not only is this unheard of in terms of diplomacy, it is outright hypocritical as Israel historically has not recognized Palestine's right to exist (it still refuses to accept Palestinian nationalism even in the most recent election which plainly showed Israel's view: they may vote for whoever they want, but if it doesn't turn out the way we like, we will refuse to see the results as legitimate).  
Title: Re: Israel vs The Rest
Post by: An Apple Beatle on January 09, 2009, 05:46:24 PM
"One mans freedom fighter is another mans terrorist." is the saying I think.

Now if only DM's could have the master vote on the UN council. Thanks for the info guys. :)

oh and best of luck on the home front Alexis.
Title: Re: Israel vs The Rest
Post by: alexis on January 09, 2009, 05:46:39 PM
Quote from: 1832

Since the beginning of the 1970s, the United States is by far in the lead for vetoes in UN security council resolutions.  No one else comes anywhere close (Britain is in second, and the US naturally tolerates that as they often take similar positions).  So, yes, the US is almost exclusively the only party that is attempting to undermine the UN. In terms of voting alone, they have been the chief actor in vetoing middle east peace proposals.


I seem to remember an awful lot of obstructive voting/vetos by Russia and China in the '90s when the UN was trying to bring peace to Kosovo and that region ...? And even currently, isn't China obstructing peacekeeping efforts to put an end to the Genocide in Darfur/Sudan, mainly for economic reasons (keep markets for their goods open, and keep access to mineral rights in Africa)?

I'm sorry, I reread your post, I see you were limiting it to middle east peace proposals. I guess that one would need to know what exactly was being proposed before determining whether opposition was the right course or not. I agree with you about the settlements ... from what I know, they should be torn down, didn't Israel actually agree to do this at some point?

But really, that gets back to the blame game. "You fired rockets", ... "But you built settlements" ... "You launched suicide bombers" ... "But you kept us in poverty and sickness by locking the borders" ... etc., ad nauseum.

We Beatle people, reasonable all (most  ;)), say we believe in Peace and Love - how do we propose this thing get sorted out?

Title: Re: Israel vs The Rest
Post by: J_Moondog on January 09, 2009, 05:46:49 PM
Quote from: 568

Not being a diplomat, but that just doesn't sound right to me. Doesn't international law recognize the right to exist in many ways, for example, the doctrines of non-interference in a country's internal affairs, a country's right to defend itself and secure its borders, etc.? I'm probably just being dense or something here, sorry for that J Moondog, but it sounds like you know what you are talking about ... please explain further - thanks!


International law does recognize "the doctrines of non-interference" and "a country's right to defend itself" but this has nothing to do with Israel and the question of "the right to exist".  When Israel first adopted the term, it was new to international diplomacy.  No country before (and no country since) had ever demanded recognition of their right to exist in international affairs.  Again, the PLO had already agreed to the international consensus of a two-state settlement that allowed for mutual recognition - meaning both state would have the very kinds of protections of international law that you noted above.  "The right to exist" goes beyond that - it is a demand for a recognition of legitimacy - in other words, that it is legitimate to dispossess people from their land.  Not only is this unheard of in terms of diplomacy, it is outright hypocritical as Israel historically has not recognized Palestine's right to exist (it still refuses to accept Palestinian nationalism even in the most recent election which plainly showed Israel's view: they may vote for whoever they want, but if it doesn't turn out the way we like, we will refuse to see the results as legitimate).  
Title: Re: Israel vs The Rest
Post by: J_Moondog on January 09, 2009, 06:02:06 PM
Quote from: 568

I seem to remember an awful lot of obstructive voting/vetos by Russia and China in the '90s when the UN was trying to bring peace to Kosovo and that region ...? And even currently, isn't China obstructing peacekeeping efforts to put an end to the Genocide in Darfur/Sudan, mainly for economic reasons (keep markets for their goods open, and keep access to mineral rights in Africa)?


I only have statistics that go to 2004, but it has been fairly consistent since then, as far as my memory serves.  Between 1989 and 2004, Russia used their veto power 3 times (only once for Bosnia).  The United States in the same amount of time used their veto power 13 times (also, once for Bosnia) - so more than four times the amount of Russia.  China has only used their veto power five times total, versus the US's number of 76.  Keep in mind that some of these numbers probably should be inflated a bit for the missing four years.
Title: Re: Israel vs The Rest
Post by: J_Moondog on January 09, 2009, 06:07:37 PM
Quote from: 568

I'm sorry, I reread your post, I see you were limiting it to middle east peace proposals. I guess that one would need to know what exactly was being proposed before determining whether opposition was the right course or not. I agree with you about the settlements ... from what I know, they should be torn down, didn't Israel actually agree to do this at some point?

But really, that gets back to the blame game. "You fired rockets", ... "But you built settlements" ... "You launched suicide bombers" ... "But you kept us in poverty and sickness by locking the borders" ... etc., ad nauseum.




"I guess that one would need to know what exactly was being proposed before determining whether opposition was the right course or not"

The proposal has been the same since the 1970s - the international consensus of a two-state solution, with the pre-1967 borders, and mutual recognition for both sides.  It has the support of the entire international community with the exception of the United States.

"I agree with you about the settlements ... from what I know, they should be torn down, didn't Israel actually agree to do this at some point?"

No.  At one point a few years ago, they agreed to take some settlements down, whilst wildly expanding their illegal settlements elsewhere.

"But really, that gets back to the blame game. 'You fired rockets', ... 'But you built settlements' ... 'You launched suicide bombers' ... 'But you kept us in poverty and sickness by locking the borders' ... etc., ad nauseum"

But this is drastically missing the point.  The point is that the Palestinians have been under a brutal, harsh, military occupation since 1967 that has reduced the nation to an apartheid-state.  Regardless of what happens now and who does what first now, the primary concern is that the brutal occupation must end - and again, everyone agrees to this with the exception of the US.
Title: Re: Israel vs The Rest
Post by: alexis on January 10, 2009, 02:05:46 AM
Quote from: 1832


"I guess that one would need to know what exactly was being proposed before determining whether opposition was the right course or not"

The proposal has been the same since the 1970s - the international consensus of a two-state solution, with the pre-1967 borders, and mutual recognition for both sides.  It has the support of the entire international community with the exception of the United States.

"I agree with you about the settlements ... from what I know, they should be torn down, didn't Israel actually agree to do this at some point?"

No.  At one point a few years ago, they agreed to take some settlements down, whilst wildly expanding their illegal settlements elsewhere.

"But really, that gets back to the blame game. 'You fired rockets', ... 'But you built settlements' ... 'You launched suicide bombers' ... 'But you kept us in poverty and sickness by locking the borders' ... etc., ad nauseum"

But this is drastically missing the point.  The point is that the Palestinians have been under a brutal, harsh, military occupation since 1967 that has reduced the nation to an apartheid-state.  Regardless of what happens now and who does what first now, the primary concern is that the brutal occupation must end - and again, everyone agrees to this with the exception of the US.

But couldn't a reasonable person respond that that is drastically missing the point - that prior to 1967 Israel had nothing to do with Gaza, the Sinai, Golan Heights and the West Bank, but then it was invaded by the Arabs who had the declared intention of wiping Israel off the map? ... that Israel fought back, and pushed the Arabs back, conquering these lands in the process ... no 1967 invasion of Israel -- no occupation. Simplistic of course, but is it not true?  

 A reasonable reading of history might suggest that it wouldn't have ever occurred if Israel had not been attacked. And now with rockets fired into Israeli civilian areas from the Gaza strip by Hamas (who has sworn the destruction of Israel), I can see why Israeli policy makers might hesitate to set these areas free without an agreement for peace they can trust. It gave the Sinai back to Egypt in return for a peace treaty, so maybe there is hope ...

I agree with you strongly, the military occupation has been brutal and harsh. But (addressing your final point), I don't think the US is at all against the occupation ending, they just want it to end like the one of the Sinai did (peace with Egypt, lasting 20 years or more now), not leaving a situation where Israel's security is mortally threatened. Just my opinion, of course ...

By the way J_Moondog, thank you for engaging me and educating me about this. My source of information is generally the mainstream media here in the States, and I don't get the chance to talk to people with other points of view very often.

Respectfully -

Alexis
Title: Re: Israel vs The Rest
Post by: Swine on January 12, 2009, 10:01:27 AM
Quote from: 1789

its reported everywhere that all russians like vodka and that most of them are alcoholics, so it must be true.

i am sorry, you are obviously right about your statement.
Title: Re: Israel vs The Rest
Post by: J_Moondog on January 12, 2009, 11:25:53 PM
Quote from: 568

But couldn't a reasonable person respond that that is drastically missing the point - that prior to 1967 Israel had nothing to do with Gaza, the Sinai, Golan Heights and the West Bank, but then it was invaded by the Arabs who had the declared intention of wiping Israel off the map? ... that Israel fought back, and pushed the Arabs back, conquering these lands in the process ... no 1967 invasion of Israel -- no occupation. Simplistic of course, but is it not true?  

 

As far as I understand history, no, it is not true.  There was no 1967 invasion of Israel.  There were some attacks on Israel from Palestinian guerillas in Syria, but this was not considered an act of war by anyone - if it were Israel would have attacked Syria rather than Egypt.  Israel's attack on Egypt (and, consequently, Jordon, who had signed a mutual defense treaty with Egypt) was pre-emptive and therefore illegal and not a response to an invasion because, as far as I know, none occurred.  Egypt was not interesting in "wiping Israel off the map".  On the contrary, they were protecting their own resources from the West's favourite Middle East client state after being attacked previously by the British, French and Israel in 1957.  
Title: Re: Israel vs The Rest
Post by: J_Moondog on January 12, 2009, 11:32:11 PM
Quote from: 568
I agree with you strongly, the military occupation has been brutal and harsh. But (addressing your final point), I don't think the US is at all against the occupation ending, they just want it to end like the one of the Sinai did (peace with Egypt, lasting 20 years or more now), not leaving a situation where Israel's security is mortally threatened. Just my opinion, of course ...


But there is no indication that Israeli security is "mortally threatened".  In fact, Palestinians as a species have been mortally threatened for forty years - to the point where it was looking, for a while, that the species might just evaporate under US-Israeli power.  If the US was concerned at all about peaceful resolutions and the security of people, they would not have allowed that to continue.  Furthermore, they would not have been the only country in the world to reject the international consensus.  

Israel's concern in the settlement is not security and you can find that out by looking Israeli government planning and records from cabinet meetings.  The primary concern is not security (which is rarely mentioned) but access to water - as it is a main economic resource.  The fact is that Israel is much more insecure in their endeavour to control a hostile and marginialized population inside of it than they would be if they accepted political settlement with mutual recognition that is fair.
Title: Re: Israel vs The Rest
Post by: adamzero on January 12, 2009, 11:51:31 PM
What's going on in Israel is a direct product of geopolitics.  Israel has nukes, is anti-Iran, and anti-Syria.  It is the joker in the US Gov't's foreign policy deck.  Even Russia and China don't want to mess with them.

The Palestinians, unfortunately, have never had a historic state (unless you want to talk about city-states as ancient as the Philistines) to make a case for "law of reclaim" like Israel's (however mythic/historic that might be).  The Arab states have never been big fans of the Palestinians' cause (or Palestianians--none of the Arab States have been willing to take in the refugees).  "Transjordan" (now Jordan) only took them in unwillingly after the initial partition.  

The Arab States fear jihadists in their own countries (especially Saudi Arabia and Egypt) far more than Israel.  The Arab States must appear to support the Palestianians but I suspect that (like the US in its "terror wars" in which the idea became "fight the terrorists anywhere else but here") would rather see Hamas and other jihad groups pointing their weapons at Israel rather than undermining their own regimes.  

Israel serves an important purpose for the Arab States.  It is the lynchpin holding the middle east together.  If not for it, the various Islamic factions and nation-states would be at each other's throats.  

It's sad, but that's realpolitik.  
Title: Re: Israel vs The Rest
Post by: J_Moondog on January 13, 2009, 12:42:09 AM
Quote from: 9
The Arab states have never been big fans of the Palestinians' cause (or Palestianians--none of the Arab States have been willing to take in the refugees).  "Transjordan" (now Jordan) only took them in unwillingly after the initial partition.  

What, then, do you make of the peace initiative put forth by the Arab League?
Title: Re: Israel vs The Rest
Post by: adamzero on January 13, 2009, 02:56:51 AM
From Wiki (re. the PI):

"However, within Palestine itself the Sunni Islamist political party Hamas, the elected government of the Palestinian territories, is deeply divided, with its officials making both highly supportive and highly negative statements.[2][1] Shiite political party Hezbollah rejects the initiative.[1] Members of the Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades, Hamas' military wing, committed the Passover Massacre on March 27, 2002 to sabotage the Beirut Summit.[3][4] The bombing as well as other attacks lead to a deeper escalation of the al-Aqsa Intifada[5] and, as of 2009, the initiative has remained dormant with Palestinian and Israeli leaders unable to move further."

And this:

"The Arab League issued instructions barring the Arab states from granting citizenship to Palestinian Arab refugees (or their descendants) "to avoid dissolution of their identity and protect their right to return to their homeland".[25]

Syrian Prime Minister, Khalid al-Azm, wrote in his 1973 memoirs:

    Since 1948 it is we who demanded the return of the refugees [...] while it is we who made them leave. [...] We brought disaster upon [...] Arab refugees, by inviting them and bringing pressure to bear upon them to leave. [...] We have rendered them dispossessed. [...] We have accustomed them to begging. [...] We have participated in lowering their moral and social level. [...] Then we exploited them in executing crimes of murder, arson, and throwing bombs upon [...] men, women and children-all this in the service of political purposes.

Jordan is the only Arab country which uniformly gave citizenship rights to Palestinian refugees present on its soil. Other countries, especially Lebanon, gave citizenship to a fraction of the refugees.[citation needed] However, there remain a huge number of refugees living in camps in Jordan, and in fact it has the largest such population with over one million Palestinian refugees.[26]"

Now you can take Wikipedia or leave it.  But there seem to be two points: 1) an unresolvable political situation between the Arab parties (including Palestinians) and 2) a historical refusal by the Arab States (Jordan excepted) to help defuse the Gaza population time-bomb.  The average woman in Gaza gives birth to five children in the one of the most densely populated areas in the world.  

I don't mean to absolve Israel of its complicity in this horrific situation, but this situation is much more complex than a simple Arab/Jew dichotomy.
Title: Re: Israel vs The Rest
Post by: J_Moondog on January 13, 2009, 03:26:39 AM
I agree with your final statement but I am fairly skeptical about the rest.  According to your own evidence, the Arab League (whether you agree with their position or not) is not accepting Palestinian refugees not because they don't care about their cause but because they do not wish for them to be dispossessed from their land by Israel.  The evidence that you give does not show that "The Arab states have never been big fans of the Palestinians' cause" - this is your interpretation and, in my opinion (again, based on your own quotations) quite an incorrect one.  In fact, the strong desire to keep Palestinians in Israel seems to be the driving force behind this decision - and the desire for a peaceful settlement for both Palestinians and Israeli has been shown in practice, with their repeated peace proposals for the region.  So, it seems to me, that the Palestinian plight seems to be an issues that weighs fairly heavily for the Arab states.
Title: Re: Israel vs The Rest
Post by: J_Moondog on January 13, 2009, 03:43:30 AM
Quote from: 568
By the way J_Moondog, thank you for engaging me and educating me about this.

Just saw this and would like to say that the feeling is mutual.

Title: Re: Israel vs The Rest
Post by: alexis on January 13, 2009, 04:45:06 AM
An essay describing the Isreali point of view, which sounds quite reasonable. I'd be surprised if there weren't similar articles out there from the Palestinian point of view.

But still, in my mind, the point is that both sides can make reasonable claims to a moral high ground. Focusing on past grievances is almost guaranteed to ensure failure of any process that might bring true lasting peace.

**************************************************************************************************

New York Times on line http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/13/world/middleeast/13israel.html?hp=&pagewanted=print
January 13, 2009
Israelis United on War as Censure Rises Abroad
By ETHAN BRONNER

JERUSALEM
Title: Re: Israel vs The Rest
Post by: Bobber on January 13, 2009, 01:21:34 PM
Quote from: 1832

Just saw this and would like to say that the feeling is mutual.


Thank you for keeping this discussion respectful from both sides.  :)
Title: Re: Israel vs The Rest
Post by: adamzero on January 14, 2009, 02:46:33 AM
Interesting thoughts from Mickey Rourke (aka Randy "The Ram" Robinson).

http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/79536/Rourke-Bush-was-in-the-wrong-place-at-the-wrong-time

I'd like to add to the conversation and all involved that I appreciate the tenor of the dialog.  I am by no means a one-sided supporter of Israel and more than the Palestinians.  A simple solution would be to return the 1967 borders--but with Islamic groups and state-sponsored Iranian terrorism involved (and Israel's current hardline position of "enough is enough")--I don't think that will be achieved any time soon.  You can definitely see Israel's unwillingness to give up the Golan Heights if they're getting missiles lobbed at them from the lowland Gaza.  

You can blame so many empires and states for the current mess--going back millenia. But I'd say that the British and French division of the Middle East protectorates after WWI (and Israeli terrorism between the wars) did as much as anything to engender the present situation and dispossess the Palestinians.  (The same "partition" mentality also produced "Iraq"--another state built with internal divisions.)   Also, I believe that the implosion of the Pan-Arab movement left the Palestinians out in the cold (without much of a place at the bargaining table--unlike larger Arab States.


Title: Re: Israel vs The Rest
Post by: An Apple Beatle on January 15, 2009, 08:04:26 PM
So it's a UN shelter blown up today....unbelievable. Is America waiting for Obama to get in the ring? I don't get it.
Title: Re: Israel vs The Rest
Post by: blackmath on January 16, 2009, 08:34:45 AM
They bomb hospitals.
Schools.
Even kindergartens.
"Protecting ourselves" MY A**.

I can't even call those soldiers humans. They're not even animals. God didn't give animals the ability to choose or think. But wait, do they have those?
UGH.
The worst thing is not being able to do anything.
Title: Re: Israel vs The Rest
Post by: Kevin on January 16, 2009, 11:29:00 AM
Quote from: 706
They bomb hospitals.
Schools.
Even kindergartens.
"Protecting ourselves" MY A**.

I can't even call those soldiers humans. They're not even animals. God didn't give animals the ability to choose or think. But wait, do they have those?
UGH.
The worst thing is not being able to do anything.

Exactly what the US/UK are accused of doing. (remember us taking out the Chinese embassy in Serbia, or the hotel full of journalists in Iraq. God knows how many wedding parties). People die in war, and in the fog of conflict men under extreme stress make mistakes. To single out the Israelis is ridiculous. It is the nature of war. How many tens of thousands of German and Japanese children were deliberately slaughtered by the "good guys" in WW2 by bombing.
And how about all the allegations of Turkish atrocities against the Armenians and Kurds?  Animals still??? No country that engages in war is innocent.
Title: Re: Israel vs The Rest
Post by: An Apple Beatle on January 16, 2009, 11:42:04 AM
Yes Kevin but bombing the UN...surely in Geneva convention talk UN is 'sanctuary?'  

Maybe I'm a bit idealistic but if the UN cannot intervene when there is high civilian death tolls because countries with agenda's are vetoing peace, then we may aswell press the big red button. Wasn't UN formed after the war to help prevent civilian attrocities such as these? It's no wonder Iran want to build some sort of nuclear defence with that kind of madness going on in the region.
Title: Re: Israel vs The Rest
Post by: blackmath on January 16, 2009, 12:29:06 PM
Quote from: 185
Exactly what the US/UK are accused of doing. (remember us taking out the Chinese embassy in Serbia, or the hotel full of journalists in Iraq. God knows how many wedding parties). People die in war, and in the fog of conflict men under extreme stress make mistakes. To single out the Israelis is ridiculous. It is the nature of war. How many tens of thousands of German and Japanese children were deliberately slaughtered by the "good guys" in WW2 by bombing.
And how about all the allegations of Turkish atrocities against the Armenians and Kurds?  Animals still??? No country that engages in war is innocent.


Excuse me about talking about a "CURRENT affair". I'm talking about what is happening now, we see it everyday on TV, on internet and in newspaper. I just can't close my eyes to this, and I don't want to.
IT'S NOT A WAR. It's genocide.
Bombs vs stones.
(http://www.ifamericansknew.org/images/net-fig10.gif)
WW2 is the past. My mom wasn't born back then. It's weird comparing these.
Armenians: Turkish people deny that. I don't know if it's true or not and seriously, I DON'T CARE. It's the past and I've got more important things to do.
Just because I'm Turkish doesn't mean I'm responsible for what they did or didn't. And yes animals still. I'm not racist. If Turkish people killed innocent people for pleasure [AGAIN: Stones vs bombs] yes, they were. Kurds: Kurds are living in certain parts of Turkey and I've got Kurd friends. Normal people don't care about anyone's race. BTW it's really easy to talk about what you know nothing about. Do you know what PKK is? Please do a research.
GEEZ.
Title: Re: Israel vs The Rest
Post by: DaveRam on January 16, 2009, 02:37:58 PM
It's past events that have turned Israel into this killing machine , WW2 seems to have changed there psyche and it's looking like they will fight anyway and at what ever cost to defend themselves as they see it .
And while they have the arms to wage war , i can't see there will be peace in the region .
I hope Obama can bring about a two state solution , but it's looking further off to me , maybe a few war crime inditements will curb Isreal's killing zeal , i don't think they should be above the law ?
Title: Re: Israel vs The Rest
Post by: Geoff on January 16, 2009, 04:44:44 PM
Quote from: 971
I hope Obama can bring about a two state solution

I don't see how you can have peace over there until both sides are seriously committed to reaching some sort of accommodation and have leaderships in place that are capable of and determined to carry out (ie enforce) the terms of a peace settlement. We're a long way from that and what we're seeing now is just the latest flare up in a war that's being going on for decades and which could easily continue for decades more.
Title: Re: Israel vs The Rest
Post by: alexis on January 17, 2009, 04:45:58 AM
Quote from: 15
Yes Kevin but bombing the UN...surely in Geneva convention talk UN is 'sanctuary?'  

Maybe I'm a bit idealistic but if the UN cannot intervene when there is high civilian death tolls because countries with agenda's are vetoing peace, then we may aswell press the big red button. Wasn't UN formed after the war to help prevent civilian attrocities such as these? It's no wonder Iran want to build some sort of nuclear defence with that kind of madness going on in the region.

This (bombing of the UN) was unavoidable, and entirely predictable.

1) Rockets launched by Hamas from civilian areas into Israeli civilian areas.
2) Israel bombs these civilian areas to rid themselves of the rockets.
3) UN building in civilian area.
4) Error in bomb targeting by Israelis, UN building hit.

Sad that it happened? Yes, very. Surprised? Not in the least. This will continue until people move their war activities out of the civilian areas.

 :B
Title: Re: Israel vs The Rest
Post by: alexis on January 17, 2009, 04:48:50 AM
Quote from: 706

Excuse me about talking about a "CURRENT affair". I'm talking about what is happening now, we see it everyday on TV, on internet and in newspaper. I just can't close my eyes to this, and I don't want to.
IT'S NOT A WAR. It's genocide.
Bombs vs stones.
([url]http://www.ifamericansknew.org/images/net-fig10.gif[/url])
WW2 is the past. My mom wasn't born back then. It's weird comparing these.
Armenians: Turkish people deny that. I don't know if it's true or not and seriously, I DON'T CARE. It's the past and I've got more important things to do.
Just because I'm Turkish doesn't mean I'm responsible for what they did or didn't. And yes animals still. I'm not racist. If Turkish people killed innocent people for pleasure [AGAIN: Stones vs bombs] yes, they were. Kurds: Kurds are living in certain parts of Turkey and I've got Kurd friends. Normal people don't care about anyone's race. BTW it's really easy to talk about what you know nothing about. Do you know what PKK is? Please do a research.
GEEZ.


So, things have to occur in your lifetime, or at least in your mom's, to have relevance?

I think bringing up these historical accounts is important, what's that thing about those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it, or at least to listen to Boy George or something?
Title: Re: Israel vs The Rest
Post by: blackmath on January 17, 2009, 08:49:23 AM
I didn't mean to say such thing. What I meant to say was that people died in WW2, yes, but they're dead and gone and even if they didn't die back then they'd probably be dead now. People are dying, right now, innocent people, children, people my age. Of course the past is important. But Hitler killed the jews. Not the Palestinian people. Some people actually are starting to feel sympathy for Hitler because of what Israelis are doing. No, I'm not one of these people but I don't think Hitler was any worse than Israeli soldiers. Both killing the innocent.
I read an interview with a jewish musician and he said they killed his grandmother in WW2 in a cruel way, then he said, how can I support Israel killing Palestinians? That makes sense to me.
I really have no idea why these things need to be said. I mean some things are too obvious.
Title: Re: Israel vs The Rest
Post by: Kevin on January 17, 2009, 11:39:29 AM
Hi Blackmath. Do you want to do a similar graph showing number of westerners killed v iraqi/afghans in the War On Terror? The picture will be no more even or pretty. How are we less guilty than the Isrealis? (or the Russians in Chechna, the Chinese in Tibet, the Indians in Kashmir.....). I'm not saying killing civilians (I'll hold out on calling everyone not in uniform "innocent") is good, just that everyone does it if it is deemed necessary, and it is unfair to pick out the Isrealis as animals. My dad was part of an organisation that killed hundreds of thousands of civilians, deliberately. He was a nice guy.
As a Turk you have a natural abhorence for the PKK. I understand that. But isn't that exactly how Isreal view Hamas? (branded a terroist organisation by many nations). One man's terrorist is another mans freedom fighter. What would Turkey do if the PKK launched rocket attacks (over a period of years) from built up areas?
I'm no friend of Isreal. But the world is not divided into black and white or right and wrong.
And sorry, normal people do care about race (right or wrong), and your claim that Isreal is killing for fun is just ridiculously preposterous, and denying the Armenian genocide doesn't mean this didn't happen. By your standards your great/grandad was an animal. Surely not, no more than my dad was.
Title: Re: Israel vs The Rest
Post by: An Apple Beatle on January 17, 2009, 11:41:43 AM
Quote from: 568

This (bombing of the UN) was unavoidable, and entirely predictable.

1) Rockets launched by Hamas from civilian areas into Israeli civilian areas.
2) Israel bombs these civilian areas to rid themselves of the rockets.
3) UN building in civilian area.
4) Error in bomb targeting by Israelis, UN building hit.

Sad that it happened? Yes, very. Surprised? Not in the least. This will continue until people move their war activities out of the civilian areas.

 :B

Thanks for the info Alexis but it's more reason for intervention imo. Israelie weapons are the West's hand me downs. Not surprised they didn't hit the target. If UN forces were in there, surely they could also help prevent rockets being fired from the area. (Specifically UN buildings and civilian shelters.)
Title: Re: Israel vs The Rest
Post by: Kevin on January 17, 2009, 11:48:44 AM
Quote from: 15

Thanks for the info Alexis but it's more reason for intervention imo. Israelie weapons are the West's hand me downs. Not surprised they didn't hit the target. If UN forces were in there, surely they could also prevent rockets being fired from the area. (Specifically UN buildings and civilian shelters.)

Difficult though isn't it. I think Hamas would see UN forces as an Isreali occupation by proxy. And the UN, unless the troops come from somewhere with a decent military (ie US/UK) are notoriously ineffective. (Pakistani or Nigerian troops anyone?) Plus the UN has a policy of keeping peace, not making it (Korea saw to that.)
Idon't know the answer. Maybe there isn't one.
Title: Re: Israel vs The Rest
Post by: An Apple Beatle on January 17, 2009, 12:27:22 PM
Hi Kevin, I always enjoy your explanations and I agree, of course it is difficult but in today's big-brother society, with the the fact that more people (through the internet) are aware in greater detail than ever previous in history, would make a rational person think that there is more hope now than there was ever before to form a lasting solution.

Yes UN does need a shake-up but we all know why that won't happen. 70 odd vetoes shows why. lol


It's an age old problem that if solved could really restore some stability to the region, heaven forbid it might even set an example of modern thinking. I blame the BBC for my anger as they are perceived to be the most balanced of news and all I see are Palestinians suffering and Israel parading their military superiority with an assured arrogance.

To quote Egypt's (Trying to broker a peace agreement) foreign minister just today, "Israel are the main obstacle for a ceasefire in the region."

Israel always bring up these Hamas tactics endangering their people but if they just agree to a ceasefire for now and let either Hamas upkeep a ceasefire or show that they are incapable, then they would at least be more justified. Israel have ignored world pleas to stop. The main issue for the public outrage is the weight of retaliation....Some heavy artillery.

As Mr. Moondog said, it has always been Israel that refuse to acknowledge Palestinians, not the other way round...That alone speaks volumes.



Title: Re: Israel vs The Rest
Post by: alexis on January 17, 2009, 02:13:48 PM
Quote from: 15
Hi Kevin, I always enjoy your explanations and I agree, of course it is difficult but in today's big-brother society, with the the fact that more people (through the internet) are aware in greater detail than ever previous in history, would make a rational person think that there is more hope now than there was ever before to form a lasting solution.

Yes UN does need a shake-up but we all know why that won't happen. 70 odd vetoes shows why. lol


It's an age old problem that if solved could really restore some stability to the region, heaven forbid it might even set an example of modern thinking. I blame the BBC for my anger as they are perceived to be the most balanced of news and all I see are Palestinians suffering and Israel parading their military superiority with an assured arrogance.

To quote Egypt's (Trying to broker a peace agreement) foreign minister just today, "Israel are the main obstacle for a ceasefire in the region."

Israel always bring up these Hamas tactics endangering their people but if they just agree to a ceasefire for now and let either Hamas upkeep a ceasefire or show that they are incapable, then they would at least be more justified.
Israel have ignored world pleas to stop. The main issue for the public outrage is the weight of retaliation....Some heavy artillery.

As Mr. Moondog said, it has always been Israel that refuse to acknowledge Palestinians, not the other way round...That alone speaks volumes.







Hi Apple Beatle -

I share your hope, I also believe that the internet will one day be a key component of changing how governments "rule" their people. Maybe dreamy John was right when he wrote Imagine (politically at least  ;) )

Here's the latest in a series of what I consider to be slightly Israeli-tilted articles in the NY Times. A couple of things stood out in my mind. The first is that it doesn't seem as simple as if Israel would just declare a cease-fire, all would be well. Declare a cease-fire with whom? Hamas Gaza that says maybe they'll do a peace agreement, maybe not? Hamas leadership at that  Qatar rally that said they will never have a cease fire? No matter how much we wish there would be a cease-fire there, it's hard to negotiate under these circumstances.

The second thing that caught my eye was the J_Moondog phrase you quoted. I think Hamas has sworn to not recognize Israel. Since the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip have elected Hamas as their government, it might reasonably be said therefore that the Palestinians don't either. So, maybe the "I'll pretend you don't exist" game isn't as one-sided as some might say.

Anyway, thanks for your thoughts and comments. I agree with you about people rising up and demanding peace, but "...You could say that I'm a dreamer ...".


*****************************************************************************************************
January 17, 2009 http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/17/world/middleeast/17mideast.html?_r=1&hp=&pagewanted=print
Israeli Cabinet Appears Ready to Declare a Gaza Cease-Fire
By ETHAN BRONNER and MARK LANDLER

JERUSALEM
Title: Re: Israel vs The Rest
Post by: An Apple Beatle on January 17, 2009, 03:19:31 PM
Thanks Alexis, all read and digested. Too drained to comment right now tho I'll raise a glass to safeness for families and innocents.. ;)
Title: Re: Israel vs The Rest
Post by: blackmath on January 17, 2009, 05:43:01 PM
"just that everyone does it if it is deemed necessary"
Is it really necessary? That's the real question.

"As a Turk you have a natural abhorence for the PKK. I understand that. But isn't that exactly how Isreal view Hamas"
No, nothing like it. Turkish soldiers don't kill kurds randomly, just because they live in a certain place. They don't bomb hospitals nor the schools. A lot of Kurds live in Turkey and in peace. Just because PKK exists doesn't mean that our soldiers would kill innocent people. PKK kills our soldiers. Our soldiers kill them. Sad, really sad. But at least no civilians die. And no kids are involved. And BTW, Palestinians have every right to live there in peace because it used to be their country. They were kicked out of their homes. They've been forced to live in a small small area named Gaza and still can't be in peace.

"And sorry, normal people do care about race (right or wrong)"
Which means your normal and my normal are different.

"and your claim that Isreal is killing for fun is just ridiculously preposterous"
What are they doing then? Why are they killing innocent people who can defend themselves only by throwing stones, if they haven't lost their hands of course?

"and denying the Armenian genocide doesn't mean this didn't happen."
And it doesn't mean that it happened. We deny it. They say it happened. What I want to know is how you can be so sure that it happened?

"By your standards your great/grandad was an animal. Surely not, no more than my dad was."
My grandad didn't kill a civilian, that I'm sure of.

This has to stop somewhere BTW. I really am bored with this.
Title: Re: Israel vs The Rest
Post by: An Apple Beatle on January 17, 2009, 09:04:11 PM
Ceasefire! At last! I thank all for contributions, I stand a bit wiser on the matter, I hope they can.
Title: Re: Israel vs The Rest
Post by: alexis on January 18, 2009, 01:42:13 AM
Quote from: 15
Ceasefire! At last! I thank all for contributions, I stand a bit wiser on the matter, I hope they can.


Ceasefire? Alas! It doesn't look like it was meant to be ... Israel apparently declaring a unilateral cease-fire, Hamas saying it will "fight" on until the last Israeli troop leaves, the blockades are lifted, and the crossings are open. ("Fight" in quotes here because, although this is apparently how war is waged now, I just can't get my mind around the concept of shooting missiles into civilian-populated areas as "fighting").

But I will raise a glass too, Apple Beatle, to peace, and because I can use a drink right about now!
***************************************************************************************************

The New York Times  http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/18/world/middleeast/18mideast.html?hp=&pagewanted=print

January 18, 2009
Israel Declares Cease-Fire; Hamas Says It Will Fight On
By STEVEN ERLANGER

JERUSALEM
Title: Re: Israel vs The Rest
Post by: adamzero on January 18, 2009, 04:18:21 AM
I thought of a quote from Bob Dylan: "Democracy don't rule the world, You'd better get that in your head; This world is ruled by violence, But I guess that's better left unsaid."
Title: Re: Israel vs The Rest
Post by: alexis on January 18, 2009, 04:57:26 AM
Quote from: 9
I thought of a quote from Bob Dylan: "Democracy don't rule the world, You'd better get that in your head; This world is ruled by violence, But I guess that's better left unsaid."

Monday being Martin Luther King, Jr. day here in the States, I will counter with another quote: "I have a dream ..."
Title: Re: Israel vs The Rest
Post by: An Apple Beatle on January 18, 2009, 12:56:53 PM
Nice quotes gents.....we grow up with so much hope, then the penny drops....then you hope some more for the children.
Title: Re: Israel vs The Rest
Post by: Sondra on January 18, 2009, 07:53:17 PM
Quote from: 568

Monday being Martin Luther King, Jr. day here in the States, I will counter with another quote: "I have a dream ..."

How about:

"Nonviolence is the answer to the crucial political and moral questions of our time; the need for mankind to overcome oppression and violence without resorting to oppression and violence. Mankind must evolve for all human conflict a method which rejects revenge, aggression, and retaliation. The foundation of such a method is love."

Or simply:

"Our loyalties must transcend our race, our tribe, our class, and our nation; and this means we must develop a world perspective."
Title: Re: Israel vs The Rest
Post by: alexis on January 18, 2009, 10:34:07 PM
Quote from: 216

How about:

"Nonviolence is the answer to the crucial political and moral questions of our time; the need for mankind to overcome oppression and violence without resorting to oppression and violence. Mankind must evolve for all human conflict a method which rejects revenge, aggression, and retaliation. The foundation of such a method is love."

Or simply:

"Our loyalties must transcend our race, our tribe, our class, and our nation; and this means we must develop a world perspective."

Nice ones. Are they also MLK, Jr.? I wouldn't be surprised if the first one was MLK, Ghandi, John Lennon if he hadn't taken acid.
Title: Re: Israel vs The Rest
Post by: Sondra on January 19, 2009, 01:09:13 AM
Quote from: 568

Nice ones. Are they also MLK, Jr.? I wouldn't be surprised if the first one was MLK, Ghandi, John Lennon if he hadn't taken acid.

They're both Martin's. But Gandhi was a big hero of his, so I'm sure a lot of what he spoke about was directly inspired by him.
Title: Re: Israel vs The Rest
Post by: alexis on January 22, 2009, 08:09:26 PM
Editorial by, of all people, Mohammar Quadafi, today's NY Times.



*******************************************************************************
The New York Times  http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/22/opinion/22qaddafi.html?em

January 22, 2009
Op-Ed Contributor
The One-State Solution
By MUAMMAR QADDAFI

Tripoli, Libya

THE shocking level of the last wave of Israeli-Palestinian violence, which ended with this weekend
Title: Re: Israel vs The Rest
Post by: adamzero on January 23, 2009, 02:43:27 AM
A truly democratic Isratine would quickly become a Palestinian state because of the burgeoning Palestinian population growth compared to the Israeli.  I think Qaddafi is calling Israel's bluff that it is a truly democratic state.  I like what he has to say about the extremists--he tried to accommodate them and got burned.  

I'm sure an Israeli would say they'd be glad to form Isratine the day Libya becomes a truly democratic nation.
Title: Re: Israel vs The Rest
Post by: Kevin on February 17, 2009, 10:51:28 AM
There was a news item the other day about a dramatic inctrease in anti-semitism here in the UK. (one attack and loads of grafitti). The grafitti that got the most attention read "Jihad 4 Israel." This bugs me, and the press shouldn't fall for it. Condemning protest against the actions of the Isreali government as being anti-semetic does no one any favours.
Title: Re: Israel vs The Rest
Post by: alexis on February 17, 2009, 07:02:44 PM
Quote from: 185
There was a news item the other day about a dramatic inctrease in anti-semitism here in the UK. (one attack and loads of grafitti). The grafitti that got the most attention read "Jihad 4 Israel." This bugs me, and the press shouldn't fall for it. Condemning protest against the actions of the Isreali government as being anti-semetic does no one any favours.

You know, this is very true, but it made me think about a viewpoint I've heard recently, relating to politics here in the States, that might be applicable here.

The question here was, why did it take economic and political Armageddon for a Democrat to get elected here? Surely any reasonable discourse would show that the Republicans are devoid of any governing policy except to make the rich richer, at the expense of all else (including the survival of the middle class).

So this guy points out that the answer to the question is in the fact that it was even asked. WTF does that mean?????? Well, what he was saying is that while Democrats are sitting around searching for reasonable policies that can be justified with clear headed analysis of the data, the Republicans are out stirring up tribal hatred to get votes. So, in the extreme, you have some egghead Democratic policy wonk on TV saying something like "And so, in the final analysis, though there are merits to the opposing point of view, we feel that this course of action should be pursued instead ... on a trial basis of course, with revision and modification as may become necessary".

And on the other channel, the studly (or leggy) Republican is saying - "You know why life sucks? Because THEY did this to you! Yes, the liberal elites that want to take YOUR hard-earned money and give it to welfare queens and illegal immigrants!! Wasn't life better when you were growing up? Vote for US, let's get rid of THEM, and everything will be good again!!!".

And so there's no way level-headed policy analysis can compete with rabble rousing.

So, yes, you're right that it's not justifiable to tar those who want to have a reasonable discussion about Israel's faults with the brush of antisemitism. But while one side slaps itself honorably for not playing according to the Rules of Hoyle, the other side is building pipe bombs to blow up airports and subways with.

Who's going to win that one?
Title: Re: Israel vs The Rest
Post by: The Swine on March 24, 2010, 09:16:32 AM
it looks as if the us are coming to their senses as well