Now, I am usually a supporter of Israel. They are, besides the coming Iraqi government, the only democracy in a region of hostile, despotic governments.
But WHAT is the point of Israel giving the Palestinians a state if they are going to strangle any chance of the Palestinians creating a viable economy? The surrounding Arab countries already are very biased against the refugees, and many do not allow them citizenship or employment. Trade and employment with Israel would be a necessary component to any forthcoming Palestinian state. Israel is also somewhat responsible for some of the peaceful Palestinians' slum conditions. Do they really believe a fence will solve their problems? Look how well the Berlin wall worked. The last thing we need to do is alienate a slowly reforming Palesitnian people. They are gradually becoming a democracy, and Arafat is losing power bit by bit. Israel needs to help the coming fledgling Palestinian nation not only to help the people themselves, but to ensure a peaceful relationship and a gesture of the nature of democracy that Israel stands for.
A fence with prosperous Israeli neighborhoods on one side, and Palesitnian slums on the other will just spark more hatred and swell groups like Hamas and Islamic Jihad.
[ July 29, 2003, 06:11 PM: Message edited by: Duragon C. Mikado ]
Posted by Raia (Member # 4700) on :
Duragon, I don't think that's the first thing they've come up with. They have been trying to solve this conflict for the last 50 years. I think it's kind of a last resort.
Besides, if I remember correctly, Barak was prepared to give the Palestinians almost everything they wanted, and Arafat refused. That doesn't sound like a dumb move on the part of the Israelis to me.
I understand what you're saying, I think both sides are being equally obstinate, but I think the Israelis are, to some extent, trying.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Arafat hasn't spoken for the Palestinians for years.
I'm somewhat mixed on the fence idea. Mainly because I think it will be used to prevent almost all travel, instead of merely being a way to enforce security checks.
Of course, I think the big travesty is how much aid we give the Israeli government. They have nuclear weaponry, an superb armed forces, and one of the best intelligence organizations in the world. I see no reason to send aid, just as I see no reason to send aid to places like Canada, France, and England.
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
Once the Palestinians have there own state Israel's miniscule control over the West Bank and the Gaza Strip will no,longer exist at all. That means that groups like Hamas and Islamic Jihad, whose declared goal is not a Palestinian state but the elimination of Israel, will be able to operate even more freely with more devasting results. This means that Israel needs more protection for its citizens and the way to do this is to cut off its borders from the terrorists. Israel has tried other methods with results like condemnation from the international community and increased terrorist activity, now they need to try something else. The Israeli people are desperate for solutions and this one might actually work. This is not a "Berlin Wall" although it might be called that by the Arab World, because there is only separation from Israel and Palestine is not being made into an island. Berlin was a democratic island in a Soviet sea, Israel is the island here.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
was just listening to TV (while staring at my computer) and was amazed at the incongruence of this quote.
quote: When asked why they are building a fence between the West Bank and Isreal, Ariel Sharon said "Good fences make good neighbors."
Well I guess English isn't his first language but whatever poetry teachers he had sucked!
AJ
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
Actually it makes perfect sense. I think its just going over your head.
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
So, AJ, you don't like Robert Frost??
Posted by GradStudent (Member # 5088) on :
It's Israeli's fault that the surrounding Arab nations won't trade with Palestine?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
I still haven't decided how I feel about the fence. Few of the Israelis I have asked about it think it will be particularly effective. And the expense is astronomical, iirc.
However, I would say that the Frost quote is very apropos. So is this one, from the same poem: "Something there is that does not love a wall."
They are our cousins! We should not be killing each other. How sad it is that the fondest wish of so many of our cousins, is to push us into the sea.
quote: That means that groups like Hamas and Islamic Jihad, whose declared goal is not a Palestinian state but the elimination of Israel
It is not only them. The official Palestinian constitution STILL does not acknowledge the existence of an Israeli state.
When Palestinian leaders speak in their native tongue, they do not speak words of peace, they speak venomous words of hate and destruction. Sometimes, they even do so in English. It is very difficult to negotiate with people who train their children to kill you.
Of course, not all Palestinians feel this way! Unfortunately, the power seems to lie primarily in the hands of those who do. Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
Extremism is politically correct in Palestine.
Posted by Duragon C. Mikado (Member # 2815) on :
Now there certainly is no good reason for the few Palesitnian extremist groups to do what they do, but you guys are making some heinous remarks. You seriously think the majority of the Palestinian people want to destroy Israel?
Rivka, you are wrong, the PA's constitution was amended over a decade ago to recognize Israel and to stop calling for its destruction. Even the PLO's charter made these changes.
How easy it is for all you of to take the few groups that not only plague the Israelis, but any dissenting Palestinians. Do you even realize that the PA has even taken its boldest step ever in publicly outlawing Hamas? Not only do Palestinian citizens live in fear of Israeli military reprisals for the work of a small group of terrorists, but they fear the terrorists living among them who they cannot immediately rid themselves of.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote: You seriously think the majority of the Palestinian people want to destroy Israel?
I truly hope not. But I don't know. I see footage of so many celebrating suicide bombings. The official PA school textbooks teach children to hate, to kill, to die.
Do we not see the Palestinians who don't want to wipe out Israel on the news much because they are afraid to speak? Or because they really are the minority? I don't know.
And then there are articles like this one.
Posted by Duragon C. Mikado (Member # 2815) on :
You think the PA has textbooks which preach official hatred and willingness to kill for the destruction of Israel. Just how much baseless propaganda do you believe?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
No, I do not think. I know. I have seen stacks of them. I have spoken with people who I know and trust who have seen them being used in schools.
Just how much baseless propaganda do you believe?
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
I was taught that the whole point of the Frost poem was exactly the opposite of the statment "good fences make good neighbors". The point being made in that poem is that walls divide and separate people with artifical divisons. There is an entire dialouge on one of the episodes West Wing about that exact point.
[ July 30, 2003, 06:54 PM: Message edited by: BannaOj ]
Posted by Potemkyn (Member # 5465) on :
But apparently the security fence Israel has around the Gaza strip really does help keep attacks to a minimum. If it works there, why not in the West Bank?
Posted by Duragon C. Mikado (Member # 2815) on :
Rivka, I do know this, I grew up next to refugees from Palestine, and they had no problem with the right to Israel existing. In fact, they thought it was a good thing due to all the corrupt Arab governments in the area and the corruptness of the PLO. They had quite different things to say about the PA, however, and they said that basically all the normal Palestinian civilians feared both Israeli military reprisals and the Palestinian terrorists who caused those reprisals. According to them the average Palestinian did not love Israel, but they hated the chaos that groups like Hamas caused more.
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
First, just because the PA "outlaws" Hamas doesn't mean they take any action against Hamas. Second, the textbooks that Palestinian children read do depict maps without Israel, do claim that children should beware of the Israelis, and do claim that Sharon wants to kidnap them and suck their blood. However, it should be noted that these aren't "PA" textbooks, just books provided by the schools.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote: the average Palestinian did not love Israel, but they hated the chaos that groups like Hamas caused more
I absolutely, 100% believe that this was true until about 10 or 15 years ago. I really, really hope that it is still true today. But it seems that many of the PTB in the West Bank and Gaza are trying very hard to change this attitude.
And all too often, it looks like they are succeeding.
quote: However, it should be noted that these aren't "PA" textbooks, just books provided by the schools.
Assuming, for the moment, that this is true, why would that be better?!
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
If they believe them its not better but I'm trying to convince Duragon C. Mikado by providing more believable, more accurate data.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
This thread reminded me of some standup I heard about Israeli treatment of Palestinians. The comic said they should build huge plexiglass tunnels connecting all the occupied territories, like hamster habitrails. And teachers could take their kids down and say "Look! Palestinians!" Hmmm, not as funny in print. While I don't agree that Israeli's are acting like Nazi's, as was said by Durago in the Israeli-Palestinian marriage law thread, they are getting there by systematically dehumanizing Palestinians. Of course, they were provoked by Pale. terrorists. Neither side has clean hands. Posted by Duragon C. Mikado (Member # 2815) on :
Morbo: the problem here is that there are more than two sides. The Palestinian terrorists cannot be equated with the vast civilian population of the refugees, or with the PA government. The Palestinian civilians largely DO have clean hands, and the Israeli government unfortunately often takes its revenge out indiscriminately across the three different groups.
Remember, Israel does not allow the Palestinians to create a government powerful enough to even police their own splinter terrorist groups. One has to wonder why Israel does this.
[ July 31, 2003, 05:02 PM: Message edited by: Duragon C. Mikado ]
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
If the Isreali government tried to win over the Palestenian people, the terrorists would slowly diminish.
But slowly is a long word for politics.
If the Palestenian terrorists stopped bombing Isreali civilians and pleaded their case on humanitarian grounds, the world and the US would force Isreal to treat them better, or face economic ruin.
But pleading and peace do not make Palestenian heroes nor keep the people under your command in line. It is unmannly.
Besides, there are other governments paying good money to keep your people poor and your martyrs fresh.
With Isreal beating the defenseless Palestenians who cares about the brutality of other arab governments.
Peace needs to be brought in, by the people who are willing to ignore the walls.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
If only Arafat and the PLO had accepted the Oslo accords! The deal seemed to give them 90%+ of what they could possibly get.
Posted by Duragon C. Mikado (Member # 2815) on :
Morbo, Arafat DID for the most part accept Oslo I and most of Oslo II, with the Israeli PM later declaring that he thought the Palestinians weren't serious about peace and breaking off the sense of calm those agreements brought. Oslo I was merely something that said the two groups recognized each other and their corresponding rights to exist. The second one didn't really call for a specific allotment of territory, just some guidelines that would have lead to that.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
My bad. I'm not too up to date on the conflict, too depressing. I thought Arafat had taken most of the heat in the media for the failures of the accord, though.
Posted by Duragon C. Mikado (Member # 2815) on :
Well of course the PLO takes all the heat in the media, Israel is our ally. Just look at the breakdown in 2000 when internal strife within the Israeli chain of command pre-empted Sharon's little display on the Temple Mount, causing the current intifada and the Arab pullout of Camp David 2.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
Yes, I thought Sharon was too far right to be PM. I would've supported his opponent Barak(?), also ex-Army but he seemed a lot more reasonable.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
>> I would've supported his opponent Barak(?), also ex-Army but he seemed a lot more reasonable. <<
Unfortunately, Barak's own peace proposal, the one hailed as "generous," was nothing of the kind in actual fact. It would have divided Palestinian territory into glorified reservations and left them wholly economically dependent on Israel.
But the Western media ate it up, and vilified Arafat for rejecting Barak's proposal.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
To tell the truth I've limited myself on news of the conflicts and interfada's in Israel for many years. It's just too depressing. And both sides seem to be escalating in recent years. For a little background, I used to live with a communist named Susan. Man, was she bummed when the USSR and the entire Warsaw Pact crumbled like a fallen souflee. I was probably insufferably smug about the whole thing. Anyhoo, she was a nice Jewish girl but so leftist she was pro-Palestinian, dating back over 20 years I bet. I was more pro-Israeli back then, 80's and early 90's. You should have heard the arguments she would get into with her folks! Besides the Pales. thing, her dad was a garmet manufacturing executive, and so a capitalist pig oppressor.
[ July 31, 2003, 08:37 PM: Message edited by: Morbo ]
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
How was Barak's proposal not generous? The only thing that the Palestinians wouldn't have gotten was Jerusalem which has always been out of the question. I don't see how Palestine the independent country equals reservations. Also, Arafat and the Palestinians flatly rejected the Oslo Accords and Barak's deal which was what Morbo was really referring to, not the other way around.
Dan-Raven, if the Palestinians stopped bombing innocent Israeli citizens it wouldn't be necessary for them to get international support because Israel would stop its retaliation. That's the key word; retaliation. There were no checkpoints, military excursions, or walls before Arafat started the new Intifada.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Have you ever looked at a map of the Barak proposal? It divided Palestinian territory into five or six cantons, each separated by Israeli-controlled territory.
>> There were no checkpoints, military excursions, or walls before Arafat started the new Intifada. <<
1) There have been checkpoints for Israel's entire existence.
2) There have been military excursions for Israel's entire existence.
3) The claim that Arafat and Arafat alone "started" the new Intifada is utterly unprovable.
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
I have seen a map and there is no such division. Maybe, maybe it was temporary until Palestine was granted independence, but once Palestine was granted autonomy, which was the ultimate goal, there wouldn't be any zones nor would it be possible for Israel to enforce such zones.
Checkpoints were only in an existence similar to how Mexico and the US have checkpoints. Excursions were only necessary when violence started and incredibly rare before the Intifada. Arafat started the Intifada by urging the Palestinians to rise up to avenge Sharon's supposed desecration. Sure he had help, but that doesn't mean he isn't mostly responsible.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
>> Checkpoints were only in an existence similar to how Mexico and the US have checkpoints. <<
Funny, I remember things quite differently during the time I was there in 1987. I remember there being quite a lot of military checkpoints, not at all like the US-Mexico ones.
>> Excursions were only necessary when violence started and incredibly rare before the Intifada. <<
"Excursions" like, for instance, the invasion of Lebanon?
>> Arafat started the Intifada by urging the Palestinians to rise up to avenge Sharon's supposed desecration. Sure he had help, but that doesn't mean he isn't mostly responsible. <<
It wasn't so much the "desecration" as it was the decision to bring a thousand soldiers along for the visit.
You paint things in black and white. They are not nearly so clear-cut.
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
I went to Israel just before the Intifada started and even though we passed in and out of the West Bank there was only one check point and it was similar to how a US/Mexican border checkpoint would be.
The Israeli invasion of Lebanon was a military action designed to prevent Islamic militants from murdering Israeli farmers as well as to prevent terrorist attacks in general. Furtheremore, that's only one example making Israeli excursions outside of Intifadas rare.
A thousand soldiers is a bit of an exageration for one, and two you ignored my point.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
I take it by your silence on the map issue that you're conceedng that point. The roads quite clearly dissect Palestinian territory.
>> I went to Israel just before the Intifada started and even though we passed in and out of the West Bank there was only one check point and it was similar to how a US/Mexican border checkpoint would be. <<
Strangely enough, the checkpoints are for Palestinians. I was travelling with Palestinians. Most notably, my mother. And other relatives. She was strip-searched at the border. This was well before the first intifada. Your claim that checkpoints are a post-second Intifada development is out-and-out wrong.
>> The Israeli invasion of Lebanon was a military action designed to prevent Islamic militants from murdering Israeli farmers as well as to prevent terrorist attacks in general. Furtheremore, that's only one example making Israeli excursions outside of Intifadas rare. <<
Hm, now that I see how you frame it I agree that conventional military excursions – artillery, helicopter gunships, and so on – are comparitively rare when there isn't a war or major conflict on. There were, however, plenty of excursions by soldiers and bulldozers rather than soldiers an artillery, well before the intifada in the 80s, let alone this one.
>> A thousand soldiers is a bit of an exageration for one, and two you ignored my point. <<
I did not ignore your point. I responded to it with a point of my own: That Ariel Sharon is every bit as responsible for the current intifada as Yasser Arafat is.
It is also not an exaggeration. That particular source, by the way, is Jewish and pro-Israeli:
>> Temple Mount, Jerusalem - At 7:30 a.m., Israeli Knesset Member Ariel Sharon visited the Temple Mount with a six member Likud Knesset delegation. Responding to intelligence reports, the group was escorted by 1,000 police officers. Sharon did not enter the mosques. <<
Edit:
There was recently an excellent discussion on the Israel-Palestine issue over at Ornery...
Ah! here it is. I think both sides are put forward exceedingly well in that thread by Weeder and seagull. This one isn't bad either. Ornery is an excellent place for precisely this kind of discussion. Are you registered there? You might want to think about it.
[ August 01, 2003, 12:08 AM: Message edited by: twinky ]
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
I'm sure this statement isn't politically correct but I don't really care. I wonder why the checkpoints are for Palestinians. Maybe its because every terrorist that has attacked Israel has been an Arab. Common sense here people.
Do you realize what was before the Intifada during the '80s? There were wars between Israel and its neighbors. That chaos more than justified those excursions.
Alright, so according to your source Sharon and six other Knesset members visited the Temple Mount and were escorted by police officers, not soldiers, and they did not enter the mosques. Wow, what a horrible act. So when I, as a Jew, entered the Temple Mount I must have been just as responsible as Sharon for the ensuing violence, because what was I doing there. Or maybe such a visit does not justify Arafat virtually declaring a Jihad against Israel. Sharon didn't say he was going to tear down the mosques, he didn't take a crap on the sidewalk, he didn't even enter any of the mosques, he just visited the Temple Mount which is no more holier to Islam than it is to Judaism. Somehow this justifies the death of hundreds of innocent Israeli citizens.
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
OK, I finally, saw your map and I can safely say that your original claim was a lie. So there are roads, what's your point? The only thing the roads gave Israel was the ability to enable the settlements not be turned into mini West Berlins. Considering that the Palestinian government would have had complete soveriegnty over Palestine you'd think it wouldn't matter much. However, the real reason why the peace plan was rejected was because they weren't going to get Jerusalem and Israel would still exist.
Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
Wait, you're saying Yigal Amir was an Arab? Posted by Duragon C. Mikado (Member # 2815) on :
Or the Israeli who assassinated Rabin?
I suppose you could make another grossly offensive statement like a requirement for being a terrorist in that region os that you must be Arab. That seems to be the only way to remain ethical to the logic you present.
No, NFL, you are clearly BSing nearly all of your statements, and when proven wrong you are resorting to calling people liers with any shred of doubt you can cast.
As to the checkpoints, perhaps you should read up on the history of Israel: they have been there since prior to the 6 day war.
[ August 01, 2003, 02:22 AM: Message edited by: Duragon C. Mikado ]
Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
He was the Israli that killed Rabin.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
All right, I'm going to spell my position out for you as clearly as possible so that I can't be misunderstood.
Barak's Proposal
The Israeli roads that dissect Palestinian territory are for Israelis only and there are checkpoints at each place Palestinians are permitted to cross them. This is hardly "sovereignty." Israel would have complete economic control over the Palestinian "state" under Barak's proposal. It wouldn't really be a state at all. The map corroborates this.
Sharon at the Temple Mount
During Sharon's visit, moslems were not permitted to visit their mosques. The 1,000 police officers were there to prevent this; either that or Sharon is the most paranoid man I've ever heard of. If he didn't think it would be perceived as a slight he isn't a very bright man, but I happen to think he's fairly intelligent. He could easily have made his visit in such a way that almost no Palestinians would have taken offence, but instead he went out of his way to ensure that they would.
Israeli "excursions
>> Do you realize what was before the Intifada during the '80s? That chaos more than justified those excursions. <<
In your opinion, if you please. The "who did what to whom first" question doesn't really have an easy resolution like you're suggesting it does. Stop oversimplifying the situation.
Obviously I do not agree with your statement of opinion. Do you really want to get into the history? Because if you do we're going to have to go right back to 1948, or maybe even 1897. And since we're probably going to contradict each other the whole way, we'll spend the next few weeks Googling for links to suppourt things we've read or seen offline. There's also obviously no way either of us is going to convince the other one; I assume your views are based on your own research, and my views are most certainly based on research I've done.
*shrug*
To be totally honest, that doesn't sound like a whole lot of fun to me. I've made my position as clear as I can, and if you want to post some sort of rebuttal, go right ahead. But I don't think I'm going to continue this discussion, there's no point. Normally there are two points to having a discussion: 1) to persuade the other person, and 2) to learn a thing or two.
Since our views are polar opposites and I assume we're both well-informed, there's no point in continuing.
[ August 01, 2003, 09:13 AM: Message edited by: twinky ]
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
He was not a terrorist, he was an assasin, big difference. A terrorist wants to terrorize people, an assasin wants to eliminate an individual he doesn't like. An assasin is not any better but he is not equivalent easier.
Duragon, I'm not BSing anyting. Name one terrorist that wasn't Arab that attacked Israel. You can't because thy don't exist. So according to you the logical thing would be to search everyone, therefore actually making it twice as worse for the Palestinians as well and wasting time, seeing as how there haven't been any Jewish Israelis exploding themselves in shops or shooting babies in the head.
Checkpoints existed, but not as how they do today.
The point is that Palestine would have existed and the roads would not have cut off Pa;estine from itself. OK, you have to go through a checkpoint, because you're crossing Israeli land, too bad.
The answer to the who did what to whom question is simple. Israel wanted a country. The UN agreed and gave Israel the right to exist and gave Palestine the right to exist. However, the Arabs believed they could defeat Israel and therefore have the best of two worlds. Too bad it didn't work and the violence since then has been a direct result of the Arabs' poor decision.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
If you persist in oversimplifying everything I'll have to revise my initial assumption that you're well-informed. Though I suppose it doesn't really matter since I won't be arguing. Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
No it really, is that simple, or at least it should be, but I guess if you insist that it isn't that simple then you make it complicated when it doesn't have to be. It should just be Israel and Palestine coexist peacefully next to each other and even share Jerusalem with each other and the rest of the world, but when people insist that other people can't get along, and things can't be shared then those things become true as people believe them. So what happens? Those who oppose peace decide to attack those who do; we have terrorists. Then the attacked retaliate against the terrorists. The group that the terrorists claim to represent then claim that the retaliation was against them as a whole. More people become terrorists to retaliate for the retaliation by attacking innocents completely removed from the whole situation, ie infants. The situation then quickly deteriorates into a virtual war all because people insist on making things more complicated than they actually are.
Posted by Cavalier (Member # 3918) on :
quote: The answer to the who did what to whom question is simple. Israel wanted a country. The UN agreed and gave Israel the right to exist and gave Palestine the right to exist. However, the Arabs believed they could defeat Israel and therefore have the best of two worlds. Too bad it didn't work and the violence since then has been a direct result of the Arabs' poor decision.
That's a bit of a sugar coating don't you think? First of all, who says the UN has the right to give anyone the right to exist? It wasn't as if this was some kind of agreement. The Israelis went along with it because, obviously, they would get a country out of the deal. The Arabs (palestinians if you prefer) hated it and completely disagreed with it. It was viewed by them as basically stealing their land out from underneath them. I can't say I blame them, I'd view it like that too.
Call it a poor decision if you like, I think it was the only decision. You can't expect them (the Palestinians) to just roll over and accept that half of their country was just handed over to what amounts to a band of foreign invaders.
Just because Israel begs for a country and the UN throws them a bone doesn't make it right. Especially if their motivation was a holocaust guilt trip. It also isn't right to make a group of Palestinians pay for the crimes of Europeans.
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
Land couldn't have been stolen from them because they didn't have the land before the UN decision, it was the Brithish's. Why would the Palestinians have any more right to any of the land than the Israelis anyways?
Posted by Cavalier (Member # 3918) on :
quote: Land couldn't have been stolen from them because they didn't have the land before the UN decision, it was the Brithish's. Why would the Palestinians have any more right to any of the land than the Israelis anyways?
As if having a mandate made the British the legal owners. If you want to buy into that, fine. I'm not very big on imperialism for the most part. Especially of the self-serving variety like the British. You can go on about how the British drew up some pieces of paper giving themselves half the world and saying that's justified.
Maybe I'm biased because I'm Irish. Despite their claims the Brits had no legitimate ownership over my island. Similarly, I don't believe they had any true claim to Palestine. Just because some stuffy old men in the House of Lords decided they wanted to ink a map full of red doesn't change the fact that the land belongs to the people who live there.
Why do Palestinians have more right to the land? Simply because the Israelis (the majority of them) had been gone for 2,000 years. What right do refugees from Europe have to claim that land after all that time? Because they feel like having a state? Because a big old book says so? If we start going down the road of calling in old cliams to territory we'd have Germany controlling Italy and most of Poland and parts of France, England clamped down on India and numerous islands around the globe, Spain owning South America...it'd be madness. These are bizarre examples, but only to highlight the absurdity of the fact that the Israeli people think they can just move in after more than a thousand year absence and just plop themselves down.
But the question isn't really valid anyway. The Palestinians don't need a reason to claim the land. They were already on it and had already been on it. The burden lies (lied) on the Israelis to provide some good reasoning as to why they had to split up a pefectly good country into 2 separte countries, mainly along religous lines. Some may argue that the Arabs didn't have to leave, but why would they want to live under an Israeli majority?
Edits: For typos. It's late.
[ August 02, 2003, 12:40 AM: Message edited by: Cavalier ]
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
I don't support imperialism either, but the Palestinians never had control of the land, ever. Jews have always occupied Israel. That big book is also believed by the Palestinians. I also think you don't realize how it is that most of the Jews left Israel. They were forcibly removed by the Romans. They were also continuously murdered when they remained, so of course there were few Jews in Israel during those 2000 years.
How about this example. Let's say along with being your homeland, Ireland was also the heart of your religion. Then let's say the British removed your ancestors forcibly from their land, the Irish are scattered throughout the globe for over a thousand years, constantly migrating from country to country where they are never welcomed, always persecuted, and never permanent residents. Keep in mind that during this entire time your ancestors always say a prayer every year; next year in Ireland. Eventually, one group decides that Irish are inferior and deserve to be exterminated. That group invades Europe in search of Irish to exterminate. Somehow despite the fact that there were only 18 million Irish in existence before the war and now there are 6 million less and even more displaced, there homes stolen, their families murdered, etc, your people survive and manage to maintain some feeling of unity. So what do you want? You want what you have wanted for over a thousand years; your homeland back, but wait now the British have control over Ireland and don't want you in. Despite all of this you manage to gain enough pity that the UN supports you and you are given a home in Ireland and the British who already lived there are given the oppurtunity to either live side by side peacefully or have their own separate bordering country and equal control of the most important city in Ireland. However, this doesn't satisfy the British and instead they attack with their allies outnumbering you several times to one with the intent to drive your people into the sea. Yet again you survive. However, for the next 50 years your people are terrorized and murdered by the British who now demand to have their own country in Ireland and sole control of that most important city. If you can truly imagine that situation then you can truly understand why the Jews need a homeland in Israel and why they have an equal if not a greater right than the Palestinians to that land.
Posted by Cavalier (Member # 3918) on :
NFL, you have no idea how close to the truth your theoretical situation is.
Let's say along with being your homeland, Ireland was also the heart of your religion.
I can't really say much to that because in reality we have the same heart of our religions. The holy cities in Israel. (Roman Catholicism and Judaism)
Then let's say the British removed your ancestors forcibly from their land, the Irish are scattered throughout the globe for over a thousand years, constantly migrating from country to country where they are never welcomed, always persecuted, and never permanent residents.
Uh, my ancestors were forcibly removed from their land. First they had all their land seized from them by protestant landlords sent over by guess who...the British. Then they were terrorized out of their country (Black & Tans) and starved out of their country (The Potato Famine). You might claim that the potato famine was a natural event, which it was. But that had nothing to do with fact that the English prohibited the sale of other grains to Ireland because of its effect on the markets. Let the micks starve, so long as it keeps the tea drinking jerks rich. Also, during the famine, protestant owners sent their "tenants" (quoted because they were closer to feudal vassals or slaves) to America because it was cheaper to dump them in America than to feed them. Edit to add: They started killing us at first but they stopped that whole practice because it was getting them bad press, not cause they cared about poor Paddy. Edit to add: As to not being accepted, we weren't. America despised the sons of Eire except when it came to getting some expendable workers to build a canal railroad, or fight a Civil war for the natives. We didn't get accpeted in mainstream society until JFK got elected. I don't even believe we've been that accepted, you'd still ahve trouble getting an Irish-Catholic president elected today.
Eventually, one group decides that Irish are inferior and deserve to be exterminated. That group invades Europe in search of Irish to exterminate.
They were called the English and they only invaded our island. Sorry if that isn't a grand enough scale for you. They tried for years to exterminatethe Irish. I have no doubt that if they had the capacity they would have been content to put us in concentration camps and kill us all. They had to settle for things like prima nocta (See Braveheart?) and just shooting us in the street, in addition to the aforementioned starving and deportation. In addition they suppressed all forms of Irih nationalism including our language, games, customs, but most importantly our religion. They would've killed every priest they could find if they didn't think the Pope would have had the more powerful Catholic countries intervene on our behalf.
Somehow despite the fact that there were only 18 million Irish in existence before the war and now there are 6 million less and even more displaced, there homes stolen, their families murdered, etc, your people survive and manage to maintain some feeling of unity.
I'm not even going to try to tabulate how many people were killed during the oh... 700 year occupation . Or how many homes were stolen or how many had their families murdered. Believe this or not, we have maintained our sense of unity. I'm living proof of that (An Irish-Amrican who identifies themself as one). We have our own diaspora...spread across the US (tons of us), Australia (also lots of us), Germany (some of us), and numerous other countries. You want Irish unity? Just take a look at the Boston or New York St. Patrick's day parades. Not only do we maintain unity, we revel in it.
So what do you want? You want what you have wanted for over a thousand years; your homeland back, but wait now the British have control over Ireland and don't want you in.
You're right we did want that. And no, the British didn't want us in. But we stayed and fought. We didn't just hang our heads and take off for parts unknown (Not that the Jews did, just we didn't). Those who were forced (directly or indirectly) to go went and those who wanted to stayed and fought. We kept our fight up abroad too. Money and arms flowed from America to the IRA during their fight for independence. Eamon DeValera, one of the country's founding fathers, was an American who came back an fought for Irish freedom.
Despite all of this you manage to gain enough pity that the UN supports you and you are given a home in Ireland and the British who already lived there are given the oppurtunity to either live side by side peacefully or have their own separate bordering country and equal control of the most important city in Ireland.
This is where our opinions diverge. I personally would not accept a two country solution, it's idiotic. I wouldn't demand a Catholic controlled country next to a Protestant controlled country. People would be displaced all over and fighting would erupt between the radically different countries. If you can't read between the lines, that's exactly what goes on today, N. Ireland fighting the South over all manner of stupid things, just because they (the British) couldn't suck it up and just make it one country. They just had to show favor to the protestant north. let me reiterate, would I demand an Ireland that had to be dominated by Catholics and ruled by catholic law? No, it's not necesary. Nor do the Jews need their own little state, run entirely by Jewish people that is benevolent enough to include some Arabs they happened to move in on top of.
However, this doesn't satisfy the British and instead they attack with their allies outnumbering you several times to one with the intent to drive your people into the sea. Yet again you survive.
There were many irish revolutions, all but the last failed because the British attacked with their allies, both political and military. As for being pushed intot he sea, like I said, that went on for 700 years (quite literally pushed into the sea on boats).
However, for the next 50 years your people are terrorized and murdered by the British who now demand to have their own country in Ireland and sole control of that most important city.
It's called Northern Ireland my friend; the British Dominion that isn't. The brits terrorized the south for 700 years and they still do in the north. Just look at the thing the UVA, UVF, and British police do not only to Catholic protesters but Catholic school girls .
If you can truly imagine that situation then you can truly understand why the Jews need a homeland in Israel and why they have an equal if not a greater right than the Palestinians to that land.
I do understand the situation. It was and is our situation. I understand why the Irish Catholics displaced by the British needed a free homeland to return to. However, that does not give us the right to just trample any Irish protestant in our way. We don't displace people already there. we don't violate their right to slef-determination or any other right. We don't discriminate against them. And we do not have a greater right to Ireland. Whatever happened in the past, all the Irish (Catholic and Protestant) who live there now have a right to what they have.
This post is already obscenely long, but I'll continue with some anecdotal evidence as to just how important our country is to our people and how we were chased out of it.
You may pooh pooh me, saying that most of this is in the past. My grandparents were chased out of Ireland...in 1953 ! We had our independence and they were still harassed by Black & Tans (protestant militiamen of a sort) running around the countryside since their occupation in the 20's or infiltrating from the north. They blew off kneecaps, ripped out tongues, peeled off toenails, cut off limbs of Catholics where they could find them. They would outright kill many male Catholics to try to stamp out our religion and lineages. This is in 1953 remember. Not as bad as in the past but still present in some of the poorer counties. My grandad had to row out on a boat for 8 hours(Calrification: He rowed for about 20 minutes and then sat in the boat, he didn't row for 8 hrs., only hid) to escape them. My grandmother hid in hay bales when they came by. They terrorized us, while the vengeful economic policies of the UK deprived us of jobs.
So because of all this, I feel I can repudidate your claim to land. We've suffered plenty, and we don't feel the need to try to impress ourselves upon another people to make up for it and ratioalize it with some cosmic "payback" we should be getting for our suffring.
[ August 02, 2003, 02:07 AM: Message edited by: Cavalier ]
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
OK, so at what point can you say that the Jews don't also deserve a homeland in Israel?
And I did realize how similar the theoretical situation is to the truth, that's why I used it in an attempt to help you understand the Jewish situation. However, when I said removed from their land I meant as if they weren't kicked out of their homes, but as if they were kicked off the island. At least the Irish have had the benefit of finding America as a home while the Jews did not have that option for almost the entire Diaspora, but even if the Jews did it still wouldn't be the same because of the importance of Jerusalem.
Posted by Cavalier (Member # 3918) on :
I'm not sure what you're refering to as the difference to being kicked off the island and kicked out of our homes. The British starved us into leaving ths island. When they passed a law against starving the Irish to improve their PR, the landowners physically placed us on boats to America. That isn't being kicked out of your home, it's being deported from your own country. They contiuously tried to depopulate the island and/or exterminate the Irish people, we were just too much of pain and there were too many of us to get away with it.
There are lots of place important to us religously in Israel. You don't see us demanding a homeland there.
Also, Ireland has an extreme importance to Irish living abroad. Every member of my extended family except the very youngest has been back to Ireland, whether they were born there or not. It's almost a pilgrimage, just of a nationlist, not religous variety. there's a reaosn so many northeastern colleges have tons of study abroad programs in Ireland. People want to go back.
As for finding a home in America, we only have a home where there is an enormous number of us residing. I live in Boston so I feel generally accepted. There's plenty of us around here. Same for most of the northeast corridor. However, I've been to the deep south and some of the stuff I've heard said about Irish people and Catholics in general is just sheer stupidity. We just stuck around long enough that people had to deal with us. Why this didn't happen for the Jews, I don't know. I do know the Palestinians have nothing to do with it.
This is the point at which I can say the Jews don't deserve their own country . Although you interpret my story as a people suffering like you, there is another side to it. We were invaded by foreign occupiers and hated every minute of it. They tried to gloss it over with all sorts of monarchial jabber about how it was their "divine right" to "civilize" Ireland and all that rot and how thy had "real claim" to it. We knew the truth. We were here and that's where we were staying, despite their legal rationalizations. We had to fight a large, well-equipped nation with foreign support that was sending settlers in droves to try and take our island as their own and wipe us out in the process. The IRA fought by using assassination and bombings against British military and intelligence targets; the only tools available to weak freedom fighters. I thank God for the fact that they never attacked civilians (meaning the old IRA w/ Michael Collins and whatnot, not those idiots blowing up cars in the north). Attacking civillians isn't acceptable at all. However, the "G-men" and their military lackeys I have no such compassion for. Let God sort them out, the damn occupiers.
Now I pointedly italicized "their own country" because Israelis do need a homeland. I just don't approve of the, quite fankly, ridiculous manner they went about it. There was no need for an independent Israel and an independent Palestine. Why not just leave a democratic country of Palestine and tell them that the conditons for the British leaving the country are unrestricted immigration of Jews and a separation of church and state? Why not just leave them in one country together and let everyone have a vote instead of getting into a spat about it by dividing everything up? The British love to do this for some reason, whether it be Palestine, Kashmir, or Ireland; they enjoy leaving a mess behind them wherever they go.
In the interest of frankness, I'll also express another, more personal side to it. I'm not exactly nuts about letting a state so biased in its treatment of one religion control a country that happens to contain holy sites to my religion. That whole debacle with the Chruch of the Nativity was a mess. Especially if they're concurrently fighting a third religion and making the whole Holy Land unvisitable to anyone.
[ August 02, 2003, 03:29 AM: Message edited by: Cavalier ]
Posted by Cavalier (Member # 3918) on :
*bump to top* Oh no folks, I'm going to have this argument out...
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Cavalier, I don't know whether I agree with you(edit: because I don't really know much about the Irish conflict), but those are really interesting posts to read and certainly a first on the topic for Hatrack (I think). Kudos to you.
[ August 02, 2003, 12:55 PM: Message edited by: Storm Saxon ]
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
quote: This is the point at which I can say the Jews don't deserve their own country . Although you interpret my story as a people suffering like you, there is another side to it. We were invaded by foreign occupiers and hated every minute of it. They tried to gloss it over with all sorts of monarchial jabber about how it was their "divine right" to "civilize" Ireland and all that rot and how thy had "real claim" to it. We knew the truth. We were here and that's where we were staying, despite their legal rationalizations. We had to fight a large, well-equipped nation with foreign support that was sending settlers in droves to try and take our island as their own and wipe us out in the process. The IRA fought by using assassination and bombings against British military and intelligence targets; the only tools available to weak freedom fighters.
Israel was invaded multiple times by different empires like the Babylonians, the Philistines, Alexander the Great, the Romans, the Turks, the the Crusades and on and on and on. Most of the time they claimed a divine right, or a necessity to civilize the barbarians, or they just had a realer claim, and sometimes they just felt like killing some Jews. They were always larger and better equiped, and yet Israel always fought on. David defeated Goliath, the Jews won the right to rebuilt their temple from the Babylonians, the Maccabees defeated the remnants of Alexander's empire, and the Jews fought to the death against the Romans. Unfortunately, it was death the Jews mostly found against the Romans and Israel ceased to exist. During all this time Jews remained in Israel until too many revolts made the Romans decide the less Jews the better. They burned Jerusalem for the second time and sent the Jews packing from Israel. During this whole time Romans and Greeks and whoever flocked to dominate over the puny Israelites. Fast forward to 1900 and the first wave of Jewish immigration begins. The Ottoman government tollerates the Jews, but their neighbors don't. The Jews aren't allowed to live peacefully side by side with their Arab neighbors, and instead were attacked constantly. Another 30 years forward and another wave of Jewish immigration. This time the British control "Palestine" and like oil so what do they do? They restricted immigration to almost nil. Ever heard of the St. Louis ? Thousands of refugees from Nazi Germany were rejected from Israel's shores to be sent back to their deaths at the hands of the Nazis. After World War II the survivors of Hitler's death camps saw either oppurtunity to prosper in America or finally create a haven and a homeland in Israel. The British supported the Arabs during this time as well. They ignored Arab atrocities and sought out Israeli freedom fighters. Like the "good" Irish fighters, the Israeli groups did not attack civilians either. Eventually the violence drove the British out. Now to answer your question as to why Israel needs its own homeland in Israel. Palestinians and Israelis will simply not be able to get along. I won't blame this entirely on the Palestinians either. The differences have always been too great and unfortunately neither side would accept it. That means that each side needs its own country, separate from the other.
Despite the similarities you unfortunately still can't comprehend Israel's need for its own country entirely because you don't understand what its like for your homeland to also be the heart of your religion. Only if that place has both qualities can you understand.
Posted by Cavalier (Member # 3918) on :
Well it seems we've reached an impasse. Apparently I can't understand why there needs to be Jewish State. Apparently you can't understand why I view Israel as an encroachment on a people who were already living there, similar to our own situation in our homeland. I don't really care if I comprehend it though. I do know I don't want to be a party to it on either side. That includes the $8 bil. in foreign aid we throw at Israel every year. There's not much more to discuss, though I think this has been decent conversation.
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
Just one note more then. The $8 billion seems like a lot until you compare it with the billions Arab nations receive as well.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
But are those billions in aid? If so, do you have a source for that?
Posted by Duragon C. Mikado (Member # 2815) on :
Of course not, the most actual aid any Arab nation recieves from the US is Egypt, and that comes to 2 millions dollars a year. The rest is actual oil revenue.
I do not count the money Iraq is getting as aid, that is money we owe them for the havok we wrecked there.
[ August 02, 2003, 05:52 PM: Message edited by: Duragon C. Mikado ]
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
You should also correct your 2 million figure since it is actually 1000 times as much, in other words 2 billion and not oil revenue. Egypt is just one of many Arab countries that receive aid every year and the reason they receive the most is because they are the most democratic. Of course Israel is an even greater democracy as well as a steadfast ally. They make use of our money and just by helping themselves. Their military research benefits us as well considering they have now managed to vreated an even better version of the Patriot missile, the Arrow. Furthermore, their intelligence is trustworthy and decisive, with even a higher accuracy than the CIA. Israel earns every dollar they get from the U.S. and these are all reasons why they get more.
Posted by Duragon C. Mikado (Member # 2815) on :
You truly are slanderous and vicious. I, in fact, do not support terrorist groups. Your nastiness is not welcome here. How dare you claim I support murderers. If you had bothered to read the first post of this thread you'd realize I can appreciate Israel's presence in the region to help spread democracy. You seriously are just going out of your way to be offensive as possible. Hatrack has found its second Baldar.
[ August 02, 2003, 09:56 PM: Message edited by: Duragon C. Mikado ]
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
I think what you have said in this post demonstrates you have similar motives to those terrorist groups. If you don't believe me why don't look you examine what you have said and see what the purpose of groups like the Al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigade is.
Oh, and isn't ironic how you rebel at the idea of being a supporter of murderers while you accuse Israel of following in the footsteps of the Nazis.
Posted by Duragon C. Mikado (Member # 2815) on :
You really don't get it. I can critisize Israel for following in the wake of their former tormentors without claiming they are identical, or even wind up a fraction as bad. You resort things to absolutes to attempt to win arguments, but since you commit logical fallacies all throughout your rhetoric, you come off as a pure sophist. I will no longer respond to any of your posts, and if you try claiming I am a terrorist again or something as slanderous I will have to report you. Not because you hurt my feelings, but because I don't want prospective newcomers to think your ignorant slanders and viciousness are accepted here. Good bye to you sir/madam.
[ August 02, 2003, 10:53 PM: Message edited by: Duragon C. Mikado ]
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
I never said you were identical to terrorists either, I said you supported their motives and you have given me every reason to believe that is the case so far. The fact that you still don't get how offensive your remarks have been is what really should be reported.
Posted by Cavalier (Member # 3918) on :
I apologize, I'm not sure where I came up with that 8 billion figure. This site:
that equal 10 billion dollars over the course of the 90's. Maybe not 8 billion but it's enough to make me wonder why I'm spending my money on helping you fight a war that doesn't involve the US directly. I'd much rather pay my car insurance thanks.
As for the Arab nations, of course Arabs collectively will collect more aid, there are more of them. I think you can also agree that Arab nations need substantially more economic development aid than Israel does. In addition, you can't really count all Arab aid against Israel like that because I can't think of any Arab nations off the top of my head that are actively fighting an organized war against Israel. It's all under the table stuff.
Again, my apologies for the erroneous 8 billion figure.
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
Actually I've heard the 8 billion number several times although I too do not know where it came from, but I was willing to accept it. However that doesn't change the fact that Israel is far more deserving of money than say Egypt or the other Arab countries, many who don't even pretend to be a democracy, and of course as I have already mentioned, Israel does things with the money that benefit the US as well.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Personally, I'd put Egypt as more deserving of the money than Israel. Egypt has put huge amounts of effort into the peace process (the man closest to bringing peace to the Middle East was Saddat), and has severe problems related to population pressure.
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
First, I don't think the fact that one man was the closest to bringing peace makes the country he was from more desrving of aid, especially considering he failed. Second, Saddat was only capable of bringing peace between Egypt and Israel not peace throughout the entire Middle East. Third, the peace Saddat was capable of acheiving was just as dependent on the Israeli side. Fourth, Yitzrak Rabin made far greater strides toward a widespread peace and may have succeeded entirely if not for his untimely death. Fifth, Israel has also put a huge amount of money and effort into the peace process. Israel has always accepted a US negotiated ceasefire even when such a ceasefire has crippled Israeli interests. Israel has also returned conquered land from a war it did not start willingly, something no other country has ever done. Sixth, Israel has also made compromises despite "population pressure". Sharon accepted the US initiated peace plan this year despite outcries from many hardliners.
Again I must note the fact that Israel puts the money it receives into uses that no other country does except maybe Britian.
Posted by Duragon C. Mikado (Member # 2815) on :
fugu13, don't waste your time arguing. It doesn't matter to those already convinced otherwise that Egypt holds by far the largest portion of the Arab population, that Egypt has held a position of leadership amongst the Arab nations since the inception and failure of the United Arab Republic which brought Syria and Egypt together under Col. Nasser's control for 3 years in the late 50s to early 60s. It does not matter that Egypt accounts for over 60% of the commerce of the "Arab" nations. Those convinced otherwise will argue that the tiny country of Jordan is more involved in the Middle East peace issue than Egypt. Reality does not occur to them.
[ August 03, 2003, 03:21 AM: Message edited by: Duragon C. Mikado ]
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
quote: Israel has also returned conquered land from a war it did not start willingly, something no other country has ever done
NFL I am not enough of an historian to give a counterexample, but I'm sure this has occurred before in history. Treaty negotiations routinely involve land swaps. NFL, Duragon doesn't support terrorists just because he thinks a new Israeli law is wrong (the Israeli-Palestinian marriage law.) I agree and others do as well, including some Israelis. Ironically, the lawmakers who passed the bill could be said to support terrorist goals. It is a basic revolutionary and terrorist goal to incite repressive countermeasures in the governments they oppose. This makes injustices obvious to everyone, gets the government bad press, and sometimes garners sympathy for the "oppressed" population. The terrorists have also succeded in America. TIA and Patriot 1 and 2 seem to be repressive overreactions in the eyes of many Americans. Are we all siding with terrorists as well, because we are critical of ill-concieved control measures dreamed up by our government? Also, American military aid and weapons are being used to murder civilian Palestinians, something I as an American could do without. However, as I said in the Israel/grip thread, I don't know what I would do if I were in charge of Israel. It's not a position I would wish on anyone. Same with the presidency of the PA.
[ August 03, 2003, 08:16 AM: Message edited by: Morbo ]
Posted by Cavalier (Member # 3918) on :
Agh, here I go again...
NFL, you keep bringing up this issue of democracy. I'd just like to know, why do you think there is no democracy in the Arab countries? Is it because they hold some kind of loyalty to royal families established by Europeans? Not likely. Perhaps becuase of religous fundamentalism? Nope not that either, seeing as how Osama himself has called for the downfall of some Arab regimes. Could it be because the regimes are waving around some giant distraction?
*cough* Israeli-Palestinian conflict *cough*
Highly probable. The reason so many Arabs don't do anything about the ridiculous things that go on in their own countries is because they're too focused on what Israel and Palestine are doing. I'd cite that as one of the biggest reasons why no Arab democracy can get off the ground, there are too many fundamentalists running about, preying on the poor and vengeful for anything meaningful to be accomplished.
You also talk about who deserves the money most. if we (meaning Americans) gave that money to the people who deserve it most, it wouldn't be Israel, it'd be people working in America. Alas, this isn't how foreign aid works. You give money to who protects your interests most. That's the cut and dry of it, no matter how mean it might seem.
Nobody has ever explained to me how helping Israel is beneficial to the US (post-cold war speaking). It seems to me we're lavishly supporting a few million people that live in one country to earn the unmitigated hatred of the populaces of 5 or 6 other countries, totaling int he tens of milions of people. Those 5 or 6 countries happen to have oil under them, btw. What good in supporting some arguably socialistic democracy if it will cause the US to be attacked in its own homeland?
[ August 03, 2003, 02:08 PM: Message edited by: Cavalier ]
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
Cavalier, I believe you could reasonably argue that foreign aid money could be better spent on the homefront, I would still argue that spending money in foreign countries still has great benefits, but I can easily accept you disagreeing with my position on that. What I am complaining about is the fact that you think that Israel specifically, as opposed to say the whole Midlle East, is undeserving of the money.
The reason why democracy matters is because the money is being handed to the individual citizens but to the government itself. The same aid money that we give to Israel for them to built anti-ballistic missiles may go to Al-Queda if given to Saudi Arabia. Osama bin Laden has called on the downfall of certain Arab governments because they weren't extreme enough, however those are also dictatorships who oppress their citizens. As long as the US supports the existence of Israel Arab extremists will always hate us.
Duragon, if fugu13 meant a lot of people when he said population pressure then I was mistaken, I thought he meant that the government was taking political pressure from the "population". If I am wrong then I would contend that the US has never allocated aid based on population size. If it did enormous amounts of money would be poring into Pakistan, India, Indonesia, Brazil, etc.
Just because Egypt has a lot of people and more commerce than other Arab nations does not necessarily make it any more of a military threat. Syria was the closest to eliminating Israel from the map during the Yom Kippur War. Egypt has never attacked Israel alone. One country does not ensure peace. I don't see how just because Egypt and Syria tried to combine themselves into an Arab superpower and failed makes Egypt a leader among the Arab world. If they are such a leader then why are Egypt and Jordan the only Arab countries that actually maintain embassies in Israel, whouldn't others also follow their example?
Posted by Cavalier (Member # 3918) on :
NFL, I think you're missing my point. Let me try to articulate this better.
First, let me reaffirm my position that I, as US citizen want to cease giving foreign aid to Israel .
However, I also do not support dumping money into Arab countries as much as we currently do. I'd like foreign aid to the Arabs to take a more economic based approach, such as encouraging American investment there, than just say, writing the Saud family a check.
Now, let's get down to brass tacks...
quote: The reason why democracy matters is because the money is being handed to the individual citizens but to the government itself. The same aid money that we give to Israel for them to built anti-ballistic missiles may go to Al-Queda if given to Saudi Arabia.
Well, thank goodness I gave my money to the Israelis, who will use it to blow down an entire block of aprtments because one idiot lived there. If I had given it to one of the suicide bombers that might have ruined people's lives...
I don't think either side has much claim to my money. They both certainly don't have a big enough moral reason to merit it. On to American self-interest. You keep talking about this Arrow missile system...who cares? Why do I even need a missile system? The only country America has fought in the last 20 years with missiles to defend against was Iraq. The primary reason we bothered setting up any missile defense was to protect Israel . We didn't need them launching some stupid war and turning wars that lasted a few weeks into regional conflagarations. Also, why bother giving the Israelis money to develop it? Are you trying to say, America, with one of (if not the) the largest military-industrial complexes in the world couldn't come up with something along those lines if the need arose? That's assuming the need arose. Plus, it'd keep jobs at home.
quote: Osama bin Laden has called on the downfall of certain Arab governments because they weren't extreme enough, however those are also dictatorships who oppress their citizens.
Okay...does this make a difference? I was bringing up the point to highlight that Arab regimes don't receive support from the religous groups...for anything. At best they have a state of detente between them.
quote: As long as the US supports the existence of Israel Arab extremists will always hate us.
Yes, so why should I, as an American, support Israel? I personally don't want Arab extremists to hate me, since I don't really care what happens to Israel one way or the other. I'm not a Jew or Moslem and I don't want to get caught in your flippin' crossfire. This isn't my fight or many other Americans. And don't cop out by saying "they're our ally" because that's just a acknowledging it's a long-term mistake.
Posted by Chaeron (Member # 744) on :
Cavalier, while the topic of this thread has since moved on, I want to comment on your comparison of Ireland and Israel and focus on your challenge to Israel's right to exist.
Imagine if the British had been successful in driving out the Irish, and for centuries, the remaining Irish were a minority in their own homeland. Those who were exiled formed the majority of the Irish population, scattered across the world in small, isolated groups, feared and hated almost wherever they went. Imagine that most of them went not to the United States and Canada, but rather to continental Europe. Now imagine that the US had a mandate over Britian following WWI, and endorsed the efforts of American and European Irish to return to Ireland, where the indigenous population had dropped to only a few tens of thousands. Upon their return, the English, instead of welcoming the Irish back to their homeland, percieve a threat, and attempt to drive them back into the sea. After Nazi Germany begins it's rule in 1933, the persecuted Irish-German population begins to migrate to Ireland en masse. This provokes the British living in Ireland, who have been there for centuries, and now consider it their home, to attack the Irish settlers. After WWII, and a genocide resulting in a halving of the population of Continental Irish, Immigration to Ireland intensifies. The population of Irish explodes, until they compose half the population of the south of Ireland, where virtually all of the Immigration has been to. In 1948, the southern half of Ireland declares independance, two states are created in Ireland, with the north entirely English and the south a mix of English and Irish. The same day as Southern Ireland is declared a state, Northern Ireland, England, Wales and Scotland (all independant states ruled by dictators), attack the South in an attempt to eradicate the Irish, and drive them out of the English "homeland" of Ireland. The Irish defeat the combined forces of their Protestant enemies, and take a large portion of northern Ireland as the war progresses. After ceasefire is declared, Northern Ireland is placed under English rule. Ireland is invaded repeatedly, each time, it prevails, eventually leading to the present situation, with Ireland occupying Northern Ireland.
If this was the case, would Ireland not have a right to exist? Should they just leave Ireland to the English? Why should the Irish be denied statehood?
I am not claiming that Israel is blameless, or that settlements in the West Bank are right, or that the occupation is somehow desirable. I am merely saying that Israel has a right to exist, and a right to defend itself.
Posted by Chaeron (Member # 744) on :
Cavalier, you do realise that there are plenty of Arabs living in Israel who enjoy full voting rights, yes? Israel is not some monolithic entity of evil Jewry intent of killing Palestinian children. Israel is a model for the whole middle east. It is far from perfect, yes. And it should be a secular state, but it is still the closest thing to secular in the region, and by far the most democratic. Compared to Arab states, Israel is a paragon of religious tolerance, democracy and freedom.
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
First, the missile system is just an example of something Israel does for America. Jobs wouldn't have been created if it were created here because it was only the design and prototype the Israelis created. Why would the Arrow be helpful to the United States? Because as long as America fights wars, regardless of whether or not you think they are justified, there is a good probability that our enemies will have missiles. If were to fight North Korea and they do have nukes, (I don't think they do I'm just saying hypothetically), we would need the most advanced anti-ballistic missile system there is. Why did Israel and not America create the Arrow? Because believ it or not America couldn't. You think this something that we come up with when the "need" arises? It doesn't work that way, these types of systems take years to make.
Also Israel doesn't destroy an "entire block of apartments because one idiot lived there". They destroy the one house where an suicide bomber lived and they do it because it deters suicide bombers from attacking. When entire families are whiped out in a flash of shrapnel I think that's a bit more than some lives being "ruined".
quote: We didn't need them launching some stupid war and turning wars that lasted a few weeks into regional conflagarations.
I don't know who you mean by "them" so I can't respond.
Posted by Cavalier (Member # 3918) on :
Okay Chaeron...let's clear the air here
First, I can't answer your analogy. The situations are far too different to compare. The history, cultures, relations, religions are so vastly dissimilar that to make modifications to them would make the comparison worthless. You've basically gerrymandered the history to the point that you might as well ask "What would you do as a jew?". It wasn't the intention of my little "Intro to Irish History" to make a 1:1 comparison with Israel. It was merely to establish that the Irish have suffered through a somewhat similar ethnic ordeal and that I felt because of that I was qualified to give an opinion on the somewhat similar Israeli situation. Nothing more. It's main intent was to give some credibility.
Second, while I may challenge the current Israel's right to exist, I don't oppose the idea of Israelis living in the Holy Land. I oppose this "two-sate" "me vs. you" approach to it. The only way you can have two groups live together under equal law. To loosely reference Ireland again, you'll notice that the Protestants in the south get along fine with the Catholics...no trouble where previously there was rape and murder betweeen the classes. The only place this still goes on is in the north where Protestants receive preferential treament from an outside power (Britain). The whole concept of 2nd class citizens rankles them all beyond belief. I'd have no problem with a country that encompassed both current Israel and Palestine, guranteed no religous preference, and allowed the immigration of Jewish immigrants. (Edit to add: I realize I wrote a contradicition, the Palestinians/Arabs should be allowed free immigration under the auspices of no religous preference.) At least then if there are still bent out of hspe Arabs you can use the police to stop them rather than using repressive military tactics, some of which I'd say are legally shady (settlements, destruction of civilian homes for no real end, etc.).
Now more:
quote: Cavalier, you do realise that there are plenty of Arabs living in Israel who enjoy full voting rights, yes?
Yep, perfectly aware of that. I don't think I said otherwise. In fact, I don't think I've made any mention of Israeli internal matters at all, just their treatment of Palestine (we can quibble ove whether that's external/internal but im just going to say it's external for the sake of argument).
quote: Israel is not some monolithic entity of evil Jewry intent of killing Palestinian children.
I didn't say anything like that at all. I'm not sure where you even got that idea. I most certainly didn't say they're "a monolithic entity of evil Jewry". I don't think they're out just to kill Palestinian children either. obviously they're not. But, I think you can concede that it happens, intentional or no. Are Israelis bad people? Of course not! I have friends that are Jewish, Israeli, and both. Do I think that Israel is heavy-handed in the way it conducts business? Very much so. Do I think I should give them money to support a war that's not even my own, possibly bringing danger to my country and myself? No. Do I sympathize with the Palestinian who was just living on his farm, got displaced, and can't get home? Sure. Do I sympathize with the Israeli mother who's son got blown up riding to the mall? Yeah. Do I think what both sides do to each other is deplorable? Yes. I'm not trying to favor one side or the other, I'm trying to show the folly of the stand-offish situation that was originally caused by partioning the land. Later in the posts I'm also trying to say why I don't feel the US should really be involved.
quote: Israel is a model for the whole middle east. It is far from perfect, yes. And it should be a secular state, but it is still the closest thing to secular in the region, and by far the most democratic. Compared to Arab states, Israel is a paragon of religious tolerance, democracy and freedom.
I agree with most of that (I would have said Iraq was most secular up until the collapse of the governemnt...but thats a moot point.) My only question is how far Arab democracy movements would have gotten along without Israeli/Palestinain clashes like...oh...say...the 1967 war? Would there be more democracy if a Jewish homeland had been put together differently?
To close, I get the feeling you're trying to paint me as some kind of racist, hate-monger, nasty, Palestinian sympathizer, terrorist condoner. The only "terrorism" I've ever offically condoned was the old IRA fighting back in the early 1920's. And only them because they confined their activities to police and military units to free their country from occupation. I sincerely hope I'm just imagining this and that this wasn't your intention. As far as Israel discussion dialogues go, I think his has been a good one, if a little heated. I don't want it to devolve into some name calling contest like what happened earlier.
[ August 03, 2003, 05:18 PM: Message edited by: Cavalier ]
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
nfl: Israel bulldozes entire refugee camps, not just city blocks.
quote: I am merely saying that Israel has a right to exist, and a right to defend itself.
Yes, its called the right of conquest, the ultimate foundation of the rights of any nation to its territory.
quote:They destroy the one house where an suicide bomber lived and they do it because it deters suicide bombers from attacking.
NFL, I think Cavalier was talking about civilian casualties when Israeli forces kill terrorist leaders. I think there was a skirmish this year or last where a block of apartments was attacked by Apache (American!) helicopters and many civilians were casualties. The Israeli defense forces seem to have become increasingly blase about collateral damage in recent years. Also, blowing up bombers homes presupposes other family members knew of the attack, and has been condemned by human rights groups as attacking non-participants. I have mixed feelings about it and am reluctant to condemn this particular tactic. How do you fight suicidal bombers? I hope America never faces what Israel faces. 9/11 was bad enough. Posted by Cavalier (Member # 3918) on :
I'm sorry NFL, with the exception of N. Korea, I can't see the US fighting anything but 3rd rate countries without signifigant missile arsenals any time in the next 20 years. Even if there were a larger war, I'm trusting to Bush's missile defense to work. It's not economical or practical to try to set up one type of missile intercept system and hope it works against a missile it's never been actually used against (I'm going to assume nobody has lobbed up any ICBMs lately.) Obviously we didn't need the arrow back when we first started giving money to Israel fo it, because we haven't used it and have no forseeable situation in which we would use it besides to defend Israel. This is just banter though, it's not really important. Even if I were to palcate you and say that the Arrow system is fantastic and great, I'd give it up in a heartbeat to have the Arab nations and their fundamentalists leave my country alone (or more alone than they currently do). They're a far more tangible threat than some hypothetical war with a well equipped army and rocket force. I think it is unlikely you'll find some justification to support Israel that'll outweigh preserving the security of the US, but I'd like to see it if you do. I'm keeping an open mind on the matter.
Edit to add: Thank you Morbo, that was the incident I was referring to, though I'd heard (but not read) what fugu found.
[ August 03, 2003, 05:36 PM: Message edited by: Cavalier ]
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
Wow, the Guardian, thanks for using reliable news sources . Did you even read the article. Nowhere in it did it say that Israel was bulldozing entire refugee camps. It did say that Israel was bulldozing homes. Why? Because they were previously occupied by terrorists. I'm sure you also used that article to show that Israel is a country that intentionally murders peaceful protesters. However
quote: "We are dealing with a group of protesters who are acting very irresponsibly, putting everyone in danger - the Palestinians, themselves and our forces - by intentionally placing themselves in a combat zone," the army said.
. Its unfair to blame Israel for someone being a moron.
Posted by Cavalier (Member # 3918) on :
[ August 03, 2003, 05:54 PM: Message edited by: Cavalier ]
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
We haven't used the Arrow yet because the first prototype was just tested right before the Iraq War started, not because we don't need it. Back in the first Gulf War the worst casualties we sustained during the war was from Patriot malfunctions, including one incident where a Patriot bumped the SCUD sending it into an Army barracks. You don't have to lob up an ICBM to dtermine whether or not it can knock it down. Again though, its not just the Arrow. Its the intelligence they provide and have provided and its the fact that they are our ally. I don't mean its important because we owe them loyalty because they are our ally but because they are our only ally in a sea countries that used to be funded by the Soviet Union. I can't describe how important this is.
In response to the new articles the crops were destroyed because militants were using them to fire on civilians which has been a common tactic by militants and if the second one isn't biased I don't know what is. It makes it sound like the IDF intentionally goes after reporters and civilians which is blatantly not true. If anything this article should stress how stupid it is to go into the middle of a war zone, which of course it is.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
quote: Since September 2000, some 2,000 Palestinians have been killed by the Israeli Defence Forces, who routinely use F16 fighter jets, helicopter gunships and tanks to bomb and shell densely populated Palestinian residential areas. The victims include some 350 children.
from the Channel 4 link. It's easy to write off anything you disagree with as "biased reporting." It's also more than a little pathetic, NFL. While the article could be biased, many of the events it documents have been widely reported. But all of those reporters are biased too ,right? And yes, Israel was prevoked by the current interfadah and suicide bombings. That doesn't make the tactics the IDF takes any more defensible. They can still be called to task for every civilian killed, just as the US has been when its tactics go beyond the pale.
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
Their descriptions are biased as well as their personal accounts. I'm not disagreeing with numbers. I disagree with the idea that the IDF targets reporters or children. When Palestinian civilians are killed it is 99% of the time a result of a Palestinian action. For example, it claims that a reporter was shot by an Israeli sniper, but how would they know it was an Israeli sniper? Israeli snipers don't have a habit of making their presence known. It is far more likely that it was a Palestinian bullet seeing as how they have worse triaing and therefore skills and then often hit unintended targets. These incidents are then blamed on the IDF and the media never bothers to pick up on it.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
Granted, the article did seem to imply that journalists were targets.
Posted by Cavalier (Member # 3918) on :
All right, I'm not arguing about the bloody arrow system anymore, it's effectiveness is immaterial in my eyes, completely beside the point.
As for intelligence about the "sea" of former soviet influenced countries, you need to be more specific about whether you mean the Eastern Bloc or the middle East. I don't see any evidence of that intelligence either way. Never have. It's news to me. Though I doubt that what the intelligence is about really matters. I don't see how the intelligence from those countries could possibly be important enough to piss off the entire Arab world. And apparently you can't tell me how important this is.
As for the links, I don't think they ever mention the IDF intentionally targeting reporters or children. They just describe how their colleagues are shot by the armed forces of what is supposed to be a civilized country. Either the IDF is being completely careless or they have a much more sinister motive for trying to keep reporters away from their operations. You can talk about how the reporters shouldn't have been there (which is a load of crap, I want some oversight over what my money is doing ) but they still ended up dead at the hands of the IDF, with the *possible exception* of the sniper attack. If the US ever killed a reporter like that there'd be an enormous uproar over it.
Posted by Chaeron (Member # 744) on :
Wow, the Guardian, there's a relibable source on Israel. I certainly liked their fair reporting on the massacre at Jenin. .
Cavalier, it certainly sounded to me that you were questioning Israel's right to exist. If that isn't the case, then why spend so many posts trying to undermine it's legitimacy as a state?
While Ireland and Israel are certainly not parallels, I recall you using the English occupation of Ireland as some kind of comparison to Israel and the Palestinians. I just wanted to turn the tables a little. You mentioned a 700 year occupation of Ireland. Well, what about Israel's much longer occupation, much of it at the hands of Arabs, some benevolent and tolerant, and others who were dedicated to eradicating or expelling Jews in Palestine.
Yes, Israel certainly can be a bully, but this is out of necessity. If Israel did not dominate the region militarily, it would cease to exist. Palestine had a chance to coexist peacefully. Their children are now paying the price for the decision they made.
Posted by Cavalier (Member # 3918) on :
*bangs head against wall in frustration*
You've got to understand, in my view, that Israel as it is and a Jewish homeland are not necesarily one and the same. I can oppose one idea without opposing the other. The state of Israel as it is is completely illegitimate. It's an entirely artificial state that was just plopped down on the heads of the people living there. They (meaning a bunch of rich, white, European, old guys) drew up this country told the Arabs there to take off or basically be swamped by a voting majority of foreigners of a different religion. By virtue of drawing a line on a map they acted like they made a legitimate country. No consideration for the people having the border drawn around them was ever given. Their consent was never asked. I can't understand why they just didn't keep the country whole and completely avoid having people being caught in a region where they were underrepresented, de facto forcing them to relocate themselves. In short, I disagree with the method used to create Israel, not the goal.
quote: You mentioned a 700 year occupation of Ireland. Well, what about Israel's much longer occupation, much of it at the hands of Arabs, some benevolent and tolerant, and others who were dedicated to eradicating or expelling Jews in Palestine.
How could Palestine have been occupied (in the military sense) by Arabs? The Arabs lived there at the same time and have lived there since . How could they possibly be occupying a country they're native to? And as I remember it, the vast majority of Jews didn't leave because of Arabs, they left because of the Romans, but tell me if I'm wrong on that because I'm not sure.
quote: Yes, Israel certainly can be a bully, but this is out of necessity. If Israel did not dominate the region militarily, it would cease to exist. Palestine had a chance to coexist peacefully. Their children are now paying the price for the decision they made.
That's insane. You could just as easily say: "Yes, certainly Palestine can make somewhat poor decisions in the targets it attacks, but this is done out of necessity. If Palestine did not harass and attack Israel we would be forever dominated by the faux-state next to us. Israel had a chance to reject the unjust method of its creation. Their children are now paying for the decision they made."
No person should have to pay for decisions they didn't even make. It disgusts me that you'd even suggest it. The Israelis just move on in and nobody can question them because Israel is justified in putting a bullet in the head of anyone that opposes them apparently. You can know the fact that the Palestinians had no say in how Israel should be created or where it should be and you can still tell them to just roll over and die? Are you saying that by virtue of their race they shouldn't have been involved in a decision that would partition their country?
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
Cavalier, I don't think you realize how biased your sources are. Virtually none of their accounts are true, and the ones that do hold a shread of truth have been twisted. The sniper attack is just example of their outright lieing. To answer your question as to where the intelligence is gathered about, both. Israel has provided invaluable information about the Soviet bloc as well as the Middle East. If you don't think capturing a MiG-21 from Iraq intact when the US had fought for years in Vietnam without doing so isn't valuable intelligence I don't know what you value. Israel also obtained a copy of Kruschev's secret speech detailing Stalin's atrocities. The Mossad, Israel's intelligence agency, continues to share invaluable information with the CIA, information that of course you wouldn't have heard of because its classified. The only reason we know of the two previously mentioned incidents is because enough time has passed to declassify them.
You have to understand the Arabs never wanted to share a state with the Jews and the only reason why the might consider it now is because the have failed repeatedly at driving the Jews into the sea. The Arabs' consent was asked and they refused. The UN voted, which included not just Europeans but Arabs also. The Arabs did not want for the Jews to have a homeland. You think it is much simpler than it is. Just keep the country whole and everything will be all right. Back when the British still had a mandate the Arabs always opposed Jewish immigration because they didn't want to share land with the Jews. Actually, let me correct that. Some of them were perfectly satisfied to be neighbors within the same country, maybe even most. However, enough did not, enough that terrorist groups like Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and the Al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigade look tiny in comparison.
quote: How could Palestine have been occupied (in the military sense) by Arabs? The Arabs lived there at the same time and have lived there since . How could they possibly be occupying a country they're native to? And as I remember it, the vast majority of Jews didn't leave because of Arabs, they left because of the Romans, but tell me if I'm wrong on that because I'm not sure.
Palestine was occupied in a military sense by Arabs because Arabs were not native to Israel. Arab immigration didn't start until Muhammed died in Jerusalem. Considering that at that point Jews should have had the rightful rule of the land, the Romans ruled illegally. When the Roman empire collapsed the Jews remaining, there were still plenty of Jews remaining just not nearly as many as before, the Jews again should have rightfully ruled Israel again. However, the Arabs had considerably more power so that didn't happen. The reason why the Jewish population continued to shrink was because of the constant murder of Jews. During the Crusades both Christians and Muslims killed each other and Jews. Many Arabs even during the long laspe without Jewish rule still terrorized the Jews. As the third holiest city in the Muslim religion more and more Muslims migrated to Jerusalem. By 1900 Arabs outnumbered Jews 60-1.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Ummm, for several centuries of islamic rule they allowed total freedom of worship (provided you paid a small tax if you weren't islamic), including for jews, and didn't go around killing the jews or anybody else. It was pretty much the crusaders who did the big damage to the jews of israel, killing many and forcing many more to move, particularly the group the formed the "kingdom" of jerusalem.
The early islamic empire was remarkably peaceful (after its growth spurt).
Posted by Chaeron (Member # 744) on :
Cavalier, you clearly have little idea as to the history of Palestine and Israel. Do some reading.
Also, you might perhaps want to examine just how populated Palestine was during the settlement period. The population of Arabs exploded with the development the Jewish settlers brought, more than doubling in the period between 1900 and 1940. When Jews first started emigrating en masse to Palestine, there was less than 700,000 people living there. While it wasn't empty, there was more than enough room for everyone to coexist.
Posted by Chaeron (Member # 744) on :
Fugu, that's not exactly accurate. Islam was certainly more tolerant than Medieval Christianity, but that's like calling Hitler benevolent because Stalin was worse. Islam was spread at the point of a sword, and any historian will tell you so. The Jews and Christians in conquored Palestine were not treated kindly by their Arab rulers, nor by the Egyptians and Ottomans that succeeded the crusader period. Jews and Christians alike were massacred on more than a few occasions by Muslim rulers in Palestine.
Additionally, Cavalier, I'm not saying that modern palestinians deserve to suffer for the choices made by their parent's generation, but I am saying that it is the primary reason they suffer. If it wasn't for that generation's choice of Jihad against the Jews, then perhaps Palestine would still have its 1948 border and the toxic culture of martyrdom would not be destroying scores of innocent lives on both sides of the conflict. It seems likely that if it was not for the rise of Arab nationalism and extremist Islam, then this whole conflict could have been avoided.
Posted by Cavalier (Member # 3918) on :
quote: Cavalier, you clearly have little idea as to the history of Palestine and Israel. Do some reading.
I'll happily admit I have a cursory knowledge of Palestinian/Israeli history prior to 1900. I've got a decent grip on the history after that, particularly towards the end. However, I don't think it's terribly relevant. Obviously both groups have been there long enough to have some legitimate claims to the land and that's all that's pertinent to the here and now.
I don't even get why you put that link up, I haven't said anything to contradcit what's in it. I never mentioned any "golden age of Islam" or anything along those lines. What point are you trying to make?
quote: While it wasn't empty, there was more than enough room for everyone to coexist.
JESUS CHRIST MAN!!!! Have you been reading any of my posts!? Has this whole thing about a one state solution just been completely lost on you? I never said there wasn't enough room. I said the exact oppositte! Similarly, I have no clue why you quoted those population figures. I'm well aware of them and have not the faintest idea how they relate to anything I've said.
quote: It seems likely that if it was not for the rise of Arab nationalism and extremist Islam, then this whole conflict could have been avoided.
You want to tell me about history I don't clearly understand? Cause I know reams about Arab nationalism and extremism. Nationalism and extremism, while present, wasn't half as much of a problem as it was after the fact. The real hardcore pan-Arabists and extremists (Nasser, Saddam for a time, Khomieni, etc.) didn't come to power until after 1948...in fact they came to power because of 1948 or one of the later wars! Pan-Arabism was born in 1948, 1948 didn't happen because of it. Wahabbism and extremism among normal people skyrocketed after the 1967 war. The conflict caused the extremism, not the other way around. 1948, with its seizure of territory and occupation of Jerusalem, was like putting a brush fire out with a can of gasoline.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
>> Such-and-such was like putting a brush fire out with a can of gasoline. <<
Best. Similie. Ever.
(Edit: Wow, I misspelled 'similie.' How lame.)
[ August 05, 2003, 01:52 PM: Message edited by: twinky ]
Posted by Cavalier (Member # 3918) on :
Okay NFL, all of that about the mig-21 is fabulous...and the speech...yatta yatta. NOW NFL! NOW! I want to know why I should NOW support Israel! The US supported plenty of countries we wouldn't normally have anything to do with during the Cold War for information and assistance. I want to know why I should NOW have my country continue to be "allied" with an enormous liability!
quote: You have to understand the Arabs never wanted to share a state with the Jews and the only reason why the might consider it now is because the have failed repeatedly at driving the Jews into the sea. The Arabs' consent was asked and they refused. The UN voted, which included not just Europeans but Arabs also.
That disturbs me. "The Arabs' consent was asked and they refused." And that makes it okay? If a cop walks into to your house, asks for consent to search and you say no, can he just search anyway? And don't say, "if he had a warrant", because if he did he wouldn't bother asking in the first place. After all, you did have your chance to consent and you didn't...sucks for you. Asking for consent is pointless if you're just going to ignore it. As for the UN, what gives them jurisdiction over that situation? Who are they to say anything? That's like having a bunch of Russians voting on American missile defense, it's senseless. Tyranny of the majority is still tyranny, it doesn't make it right. You're just describing imperialism with an aura of legitimacy.
quote: You think it is much simpler than it is. Just keep the country whole and everything will be all right.
It might not be perfect, but could it be much worse than the crap that goes on now? At least by keeping one country you avoid displacing Palestinians that otherwise wouldn't have been politicized. It's better to have a few people made at the new neighbor that moved in than the whole neighborhood that's mad at the new neighbor for making them all move out. I highly doubt the military "push into the sea" (assuming you're talking about the 1948 war) would have occurred if the Jews had just quietly immigrated in instead of trying to establish a new state on top of the Holy Land of 3 major religions, as the the other Arab countries in the past never felt the need to invade Palestine during sporadic spurts of immigration (such as prior to the second world war from Germany).
quote: Palestine was occupied in a military sense by Arabs because Arabs were not native to Israel. Arab immigration didn't start until Muhammed died in Jerusalem. Considering that at that point Jews should have had the rightful rule of the land, the Romans ruled illegally.
NFL, how long do you have to live somewhere before you become a native to it? Hell, if you want to go back far enough we're all natives of Africa. Do native Americans have a right to tell everyone in the US to clear out because they were there first? or maybe they should go claim some of their land in Mongolia cause they were there too. I suppose France should own half of England too? or would it be vice-versa? Going back far enough you can justify almost anything. What isn't justified is displacing thousands of Palestinians whose families have been there for generations because your great x30 grandfather once lived there. No matter what they did to you in the past, you can't just expect them to make way for you and be happy about it. Though, similarly they shouldn't just try to wash every Jew into the sea. Also, along that same train of though, the Palestinians shouldn't agitate for right of return to the exact houses and land they left because people have lived there since.
[ August 05, 2003, 02:16 PM: Message edited by: Cavalier ]
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
>> You think it is much simpler than it is. Just keep the country whole and everything will be all right. << (nfl) _______________________________________________
>> No it really, is that simple, or at least it should be, but I guess if you insist that it isn't that simple then you make it complicated when it doesn't have to be. << (nfl)
Posted by Cavalier (Member # 3918) on :
Very true twinky. Edit to add: That really is some newly found logic, being able to completely contradict yourself in an argument and thinking it's okay.
[ August 05, 2003, 03:30 PM: Message edited by: Cavalier ]
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
quote: Okay NFL, all of that about the mig-21 is fabulous...and the speech...yatta yatta. NOW NFL! NOW! I want to know why I should NOW support Israel! The US supported plenty of countries we wouldn't normally have anything to do with during the Cold War for information and assistance. I want to know why I should NOW have my country continue to be "allied" with an enormous liability!
You didn't listen to me at all. We don't don't what they have for us recently intelligence wise because we can't know. Us knowing would mean the enemy knowing and the enemy knowing means they can take actions to prevent Israel from gaining future intelligence. Do I have hard proof that Israel still provides meaningful intelligence? No, that would be impossible for me to provide. However, I do have great reason to believe this is the case seeing as how Israel has had a long pattern of doing so and their capabilities have not diminished.
quote: That disturbs me. "The Arabs' consent was asked and they refused." And that makes it okay?
Not in and of itself. However, Israel was going to become a state anyways and the Arabs had a chance for Israel to exist on their terms. But they refused. Why? Because they were not willing to see a place where Jews could find refuge, where Jews might be a majority, where Jews would have any power at all, where Jews would even be allowed to pray at the Western Wall. During Jordan's rule of Old Jerusalem between 1945 and 1967 no non Muslims were allowed in the city similar to Mecca and Medina. Muslims were never prepared to live side by side with Jews as equals. Israelis are on the other hand as a large minority of Israeli citizens are actually Arab.
quote: Arab countries in the past never felt the need to invade Palestine during sporadic spurts of immigration (such as prior to the second world war from Germany).
Arab countries were not capable of invading Palestine between 1918 and 1939. The only Muslim power, the Turks, had been destroyed at the end of WWII. Many Arab countries did not have their independence at that time either. Besides, the Arabs were treated well during Israel's British occupation. They were given priority over Jews. When they opposed Jewish immigration it was limited. When they wanted Jewish resistance group attacked at the expense of British soldiers it was done.
Cavalier, the reason why I had pointed out that the Arabs were not native to Palestine before the Romans is because you indicated that Arabs were native during Roman rule as if when the Arabs took over Israel from the Romans they had done so as natives taking their land back when that isn't the case.
quote: It might not be perfect, but could it be much worse than the crap that goes on now? At least by keeping one country you avoid displacing Palestinians that otherwise wouldn't have been politicized.
Yes, it could be worse. The Arabs only recently known as Palestinians were not foricbly displaced but chose to leave out of false fear of the Jews. The entire state, Jews and Arabs, would be in complete poverty, maybe less suicide bombers but more incidences of school buses shot at, full scale battle between villages. Anarchy would reign.
quote: I highly doubt the military "push into the sea" (assuming you're talking about the 1948 war) would have occurred if the Jews had just quietly immigrated in instead of trying to establish a new state
Jews were only allowed to migrate 1000 per month. You had stated earlier that the ideal state would include umlimited Jewish immigration, are you now going back on that? So what would happen after the British left in no new state was created. Are you advocating anarchy? At least one new state had to be created. Because of the overwhelming problems that would have occured if one state was created two separate but equal states would have been much more just. The "treacherous" Jews wouldn't even have had control over Jerusalem, but instead the UN would have had jurisdiction. However, the "push to the sea" did occur and we are left with out current situation.
Twinky, I don't appreciate you completely taking my words out of context.
Cavalier, would you like if I started making fun of your name? How about if I stressed that the crusaders were cavaliers? The crusaders who murdered Jews for practice on the way to reclaim the Holy Land. The ones who caused Jerusalem's streets to literally run thick with blood. If you don't get by now what I'm referring to you about then I can't help you anymore. I bet you don't appreciate that so lay off.
Posted by Duragon C. Mikado (Member # 2815) on :
Cavalier, you should seriously give this up. Your opponents are demonstrating a woeful lack of knowledge of middle eastern history whilst claiming that that fault is YOUR deficiency. Seriously, look at the way they don't even understand the Arab nationalistic movements and their historical effects on the situation, or how they try to portray the two very SHORT White Paper periods as having dominated the entirety of the Jewish migration to Israel.
[ August 05, 2003, 10:29 PM: Message edited by: Duragon C. Mikado ]
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
>> Twinky, I don't appreciate you completely taking my words out of context. <<
If you go back and read the context, you'll see that my post is actually relevant.
You accused Cavalier of oversimplfying, whereas on page one you accused those who "overcomplicate" things of being the direct cause of the problem.
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
They were two different subject matters though. The why is simple. The what is complicated. We do know why Israelis and Arabs contain much hate for each other. The reasons are all too simple. The solution is not so simple because of the why.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
But each time you spoke, you did so in generalities.
*shrug*
I think both the cause and the solution are complicated, but I already know you disagree on that. Posted by Cavalier (Member # 3918) on :
quote: You didn't listen to me at all.
Oh, I listened. There are just two different trains of thought here. Yous seem to think the Israeli intel is valuable because historically it's been valuable. I think it's not worth its cost because there are no longer any enemies (aside from those we have BECAUSE of Israel) that Israel could possibly provide us with good enough intelligence on. i'm not even sure if the old intelligence qualifies...but that's moot. An impasse I say.
quote: Not in and of itself. However, Israel was going to become a state anyways and the Arabs had a chance for Israel to exist on their terms.
That's a false statement. It wasn't a chance to accept on "their own terms". They had no terms. They were not consulted or asked for their consent. The agreement was forced down their throats. That's like saying Germans shouldn't have been upset about the Treaty of Versailles because it was on their terms! It's preposterous.
quote: Arab countries were not capable of invading Palestine between 1918 and 1939.
And obviously not in 1948 either, what was so different?
quote: Many Arab countries did not have their independence at that time either.
Egypt and Iraq both were independent. The other countries had signifgant guerilla movements and small armies that could have easily aided Palestine. Samll terrorist factions still do today. I remain unconvinced.
quote: reason why I had pointed out that the Arabs were not native to Palestine before the Romans is because you indicated that Arabs were native during Roman rule
Uh, no I didn't. When I said "at the same time" I was referring to an arbitrary amt. of time (basically a long time ago). I mentioned the Romans in the next sentence as a completely different topic. Nowhere do I say or imply that Arabs, Jews, and the Romans all lived together.
quote: The Arabs only recently known as Palestinians were not foricbly displaced but chose to leave out of false fear of the Jews.
Right, false fear. The false fear of being swamped by a group of foreigners that could pass laws over you and your land, knowing that there weren't enough of your own people around to oppose them. Who doesn't like having laws passed over them by people who could care less about their interests? Like I said before, tyranny of the majority is still tyranny no matter how it's sliced. Though, I 'll grant you they weren't marched off at gun point, disregarding the fact that I never said that in the first place.
quote: The entire state, Jews and Arabs, would be in complete poverty, maybe less suicide bombers but more incidences of school buses shot at, full scale battle between villages. Anarchy would reign.
I remember people sying this in America too. Something about uh...uh... Oh yeah! Civil rights! Chaos and anarchy forever and ever...a death spiral for society. Battles between the races in the streets. White and black people can never get along because there's way too much history there
The Civil Rights movement was hardly perfect but I think we can agree there aren't full scale wars between towns and anarchy in the streets. You may argue there's more histor to the Arab/Israeli conflict but the principle is the same. Given enough time (and lack of outside interference) any conflict will mend.
quote: Jews were only allowed to migrate 1000 per month. You had stated earlier that the ideal state would include umlimited Jewish immigration, are you now going back on that?
Uh no...didn't say that either. "Quietly" immigrating as opposed to "loudly" declaring a new state and scaring the bejesus out of the Palestinians. Nowhere do I recind my earlier statement. In fact, I'm just stating my preference for immigration over declaring a new state.
quote: At least one new state had to be created.
No. A state was already there. If you start with one state and end up with one state you haven't made a new state, you've changed some names around.
quote: Because of the overwhelming problems that would have occured if one state was created two separate but equal states would have been much more just.
I'd love to hear some of those problems, in detail. They're (The problems) kinda like the tooth fairy to a little kid. Everyone says it's there but somehow nobody can ever show you it.
quote: The "treacherous" Jews wouldn't even have had control over Jerusalem, but instead the UN would have had jurisdiction. However, the "push to the sea" did occur and we are left with out current situation.
I hope to heaven you're not trying to subtly suggest I ever said "treacherous Jews" or implied it. Never did. If you weren't, I'm sorry for accusing you of it.
The push to the sea did occur, areas were occupied indefinitely that shouldn't have been and the flames grew larger. Like I said to Chaeron, it was like trying to put out a fire with a can of gasoline.
quote: Cavalier, would you like if I started making fun of your name? How about if I stressed that the crusaders were cavaliers? The crusaders who murdered Jews for practice on the way to reclaim the Holy Land. The ones who caused Jerusalem's streets to literally run thick with blood. If you don't get by now what I'm referring to you about then I can't help you anymore. I bet you don't appreciate that so lay off.
Hm. Well, I wouldn't care...then I would continue not to care...and then I probabaly still wouldn't care to be honest with you. I know when I made my name it was in reference to the adjective, meaning chivalrous. That's good enough for me. Your ridiculous baiting isn't going to bug me at all.
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
quote: That's a false statement. It wasn't a chance to accept on "their own terms". They had no terms. They were not consulted or asked for their consent. The agreement was forced down their throats. That's like saying Germans shouldn't have been upset about the Treaty of Versailles because it was on their terms! It's preposterous.
No the Arabs had a chance to have their own state or negotiate. They chose not to negotiate because of their hate for the Jews. You can check previous posts for why they didn't want to negotiate with the Jews.
quote: quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Arab countries were not capable of invading Palestine between 1918 and 1939. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And obviously not in 1948 either, what was so different?
Between those years they didn't even have countries where they did in 1948. Syria, Jordan, and Lebanon were all known as Transjordan, Egypt was barely autonomous, and Iraq was still under British control. In 1948 the Arabs had relatively large armies, relatively advanced weapons, Panzer quality tanks, and generally Soviet supplied weaponry. Israel had a one plane air force until halfway through the war, only homemade armor, no artillery, and not even a rifle per man. Again, many , not all, Arab countries did not have their independence.
quote: Right, false fear. The false fear of being swamped by a group of foreigners that could pass laws over you and your land, knowing that there weren't enough of your own people around to oppose them. Who doesn't like having laws passed over them by people who could care less about their interests? Like I said before, tyranny of the majority is still tyranny no matter how it's sliced.
It was false fear mostly because they were expecting blood sucking Jews who wanted to use the bloof of Arab children to make matzot on Passover. The Arabs would still barely be a minority so they weren't going to be "swamped" with foreigners. Why would the Jews pass laws restricting Arabs' rights anyways. Israel has only passed restrictive laws when in danger. As long as the Arabs did not threaten the Jews there would be no reason for disagreeable laws. With your reasoning why shouldn't Jews in the US start blowing themselves up in buses? They are a minority. Laws have been passed virtually recognizing the "truth" of Jesus and they certainly aren't a majority.
quote: I remember people sying this in America too. Something about uh...uh... Oh yeah! Civil rights! Chaos and anarchy forever and ever...a death spiral for society. Battles between the races in the streets. White and black people can never get along because there's way too much history there
First, Blacks still so largely live in poverty. Granted much less so than 140 years ago but it has taken them that long to reach where they are today. Yet, there is still a difference in the situations. In general within the US, Blacks and Whites share a common religion while in general Arabs and Jews have different religions. Blacks have just wanted to be equals, Arabs haven't to drive the Jews into the Mediterranean.
quote: Uh no...didn't say that either. "Quietly" immigrating as opposed to "loudly" declaring a new state and scaring the bejesus out of the Palestinians. Nowhere do I recind my earlier statement. In fact, I'm just stating my preference for immigration over declaring a new state.
Still, immigration into what? Again, there was no private immigration. As long as immigration existed the Arabs would be upset. They complained about the 1000 per month policy. They were never prepared to accept unresticted immigration period.
quote: No. A state was already there. If you start with one state and end up with one state you haven't made a new state, you've changed some names around.
What are you talking about? Are you hallucinating? Wow, you have truly proved your ignorance now. Please, please don't comment again until you develop some sort of a clue.
quote: I'd love to hear some of those problems, in detail. They're (The problems) kinda like the tooth fairy to a little kid. Everyone says it's there but somehow nobody can ever show you it.
Again, do some research or something. I also already detailed the problems.
quote: I hope to heaven you're not trying to subtly suggest I ever said "treacherous Jews" or implied it. Never did. If you weren't, I'm sorry for accusing you of it.
The push to the sea did occur, areas were occupied indefinitely that shouldn't have been and the flames grew larger. Like I said to Chaeron, it was like trying to put out a fire with a can of gasoline.
No you didn't say treacharous Jews or directly implied it but you did say you didn't like the Jews having control over Christian sites because of their treatment of Muslims. I was trying to show you that the UN solution would have quelled even your fears.
I don't think you realize what the "push to the sea" was. It was the Arabs instead of accepting what they are trying to bargain for now attacking the Jews in the belief that they could wipe out the Jews from Israel.
Posted by Cavalier (Member # 3918) on :
quote: No the Arabs had a chance to have their own state or negotiate. They chose not to negotiate because of their hate for the Jews. You can check previous posts for why they didn't want to negotiate with the Jews.
I'm sorry that's just false. I don't know what else to say. Do research.
quote: In 1948 the Arabs had relatively large armies, relatively advanced weapons, Panzer quality tanks, and generally Soviet supplied weaponry. Israel had a one plane air force until halfway through the war, only homemade armor, no artillery, and not even a rifle per man.
The weapons equation was not as lopsided as you're making it out to be. Neither side was particularly well armed by the standards of the time.
quote: As long as the Arabs did not threaten the Jews there would be no reason for disagreeable laws.
Think back to the 1800's, replace "Arabs" with "Blacks" and replace "Jews" with "Whites". Actaully, even better, think 1930's, replace "Arabs" with "Jews" and replace "Jews" with "Nazis". Do you realize how dumb that sounds? Throughout history countries have passed "disagreeable" laws over people that didn't threaten them at all. That whole train of thought is just whimsical wishing. The Arabs living in Israel had valid concerns about their ability to represent themselves. (Edit to add: Dont start whining about how I'm comparing Jews to Nazis, because I'm not. I'm just substituting names into an analogy, not making a comparison.)
quote: First, Blacks still so largely live in poverty. Granted much less so than 140 years ago but it has taken them that long to reach where they are today. Yet, there is still a difference in the situations. In general within the US, Blacks and Whites share a common religion while in general Arabs and Jews have different religions. Blacks have just wanted to be equals, Arabs haven't to drive the Jews into the Mediterranean.
Okay, almost none of that is relavent. I'm not talking about poverty and how far blacks have come. I'm talking about the fact that living with white people didn't ignite a race war like you hypothesized would happen in a one state Palestine. That's all. I didn't say it would be great living for the next 50 years and everyone would be perfectly happy. Being the same religion is also not relavent. As in the aforementioned Irish situation, it was nominally the same religion (Christian). That didn't stop the problem. Believe this or not, you can't just lump us (Christians) all into the same group We were different religions and we managed to get along ater hundreds of years of fighting.
quote: Still, immigration into what? Again, there was no private immigration. As long as immigration existed the Arabs would be upset. They complained about the 1000 per month policy. They were never prepared to accept unresticted immigration period.
What do you mean into what? Unrestricted immigration into the one state of Palestine. If the Arabs raise a fuss, I can see the justification for using some military solution to end it. In that situation they should just grin and bear it. They have their homes and representation. That justification dissolves once you partition the country and displace half of them. They no longer have their fair share and they gain a legitimate grievance.
quote: What are you talking about? Are you hallucinating? Wow, you have truly proved your ignorance now. Please, please don't comment again until you develop some sort of a clue.
But you manage to not say what is so ignorant about it
I thought you might have got this but let me connect the dots for you
I think we can agree Palestine was always there. It obviously didn't rise up out of the ocean in 1948. I think we can also agree that it was the British Mandate of Palestine prior to 1948. When I say there's no new nation if you repalce one with another one with exactly the same borders in the sense of realpolitik. For instance, if some revolution happened in America and it started calling itself Pepsi Presents: America (Simpsons ) then Americans would probably call itself a new nation, sure. Nobody else cares though. It's just a different name for America to anyone outside of it. It still retains the same geopolitical signifigance it always had because it's one ruling group ruling on the exact same boundaries as the old ruling group. Hence, only the names have changed to the outside observer. A good example is the real, non-pepsi America. We declare independence and make ourselves a new nation in our own eyes, but not much else changes for a while. We still mostly trade with Britain, we still fight Indians, maintain fairly close ties with Britain in other ways, etc. To the observer in Europe, it was just the old English colonies with a new name. America didn't really start showing the effects of being a new nation until it began moving west and opening up its trade more, changing its status in the eyes of foreign oonlookers. That's what I mean by only changing the names. Is that enough of a clue for you?
quote: Again, do some research or something. I also already detailed the problems.
I keep hearing " Jews will never ever get along with Arabs because they're Arabs, we're Jews and we will fight indefinitely until the end of time. " I think I've already addressed this issue with my civil rights analogy. I know my history and I don't see any other insurmountable problems (politically, startegically) to negate the the one state solution. And I've yet to read one, in addition to the general quote above, from you. If you did then just repaste it from above and I'd be happy to address it. I wouldn't advocate the one state otherwise.
quote: No you didn't say treacharous Jews or directly implied it but you did say you didn't like the Jews having control over Christian sites because of their treatment of Muslims. I was trying to show you that the UN solution would have quelled even your fears.
Uh, no, Muslims have nothing to do with my reluctance to having Israel control Christian holy sites. It has more to do with IDF riddling the Church of the Nativity with bullets to try and shoot a few Palestinians seeking refuge. Believe this or not I don't appreciate the IDF shooting the BIRTHPLACE OF MY SAVIOR! It's kind of important to my religion. I'm 99% certain a Catholic priest was injured too. When the IDF gets a little less careless with its aim then maybe I'll put more faith in them. Not likely though. It has nothing to do with anyone being treacherous, it has everything to do with not caring one way or the other on the part of the IDF and sections of the Israeli government. I'm an understanding person and don't hold all Jews responsible (like you're implying) for the actions of the few.
Plus, let's look at it this way. We have a group of Chrisitians occupy Jerusalem. That'd be okay with you right? We're not treacherous. Probabaly a band of Americans flying the good old red white and blue over Jerusalem. But God help us if we were chasing some suicide bomber and accidentally shot the Western Wall. There'd be such a hissy fit it'd be intolerable. You have a huge double standard.
As for the UN, it's incompetent. If they had control I'd be more afraid of them blowing up something by accident than anything else. But I guess we'll never know because Israel occupied it right?
quote: I don't think you realize what the "push to the sea" was. It was the Arabs instead of accepting what they are trying to bargain for now attacking the Jews in the belief that they could wipe out the Jews from Israel.
I don't think YOU realize what the push into the sea was. If you bothered to read any of the Arab contempoary view, it wasn't about religion at all for most of them. The majority of Arabs were supporting the fledgling Arab nationalism and Pan-Arabism movements, not just looking to kill Jews like you're implying. It was seen as fighting against an illegal invasion, not the insidious porgom you're painting it as. Granted, some had religous motivation but so did some Jews, like the settlers of today do, I'm sure.
[ August 07, 2003, 12:00 PM: Message edited by: Cavalier ]
Posted by Duragon C. Mikado (Member # 2815) on :
Cav, I feel bad to see you wasting your time, didn't it occur to you that when he obviously didn't know the general history of the region outside of British actions that it was useless? Give it up, you can use your extensive knowledge on something else.
Posted by Cavalier (Member # 3918) on :
Ooh, forgot this, they're my favorites too.
quote: Why would the Jews pass laws restricting Arabs' rights anyways. Israel has only passed restrictive laws when in danger.
They've always been in danger! How can you tell me they wouldn't have passed the laws anyway?
quote: With your reasoning why shouldn't Jews in the US start blowing themselves up in buses? They are a minority. Laws have been passed virtually recognizing the "truth" of Jesus and they certainly aren't a majority.
Buy a clue. You've just described an ENTIRELY different situation. The Jews immigrating to American KNEW they were going to be a minority America and had the CHOICE (even if it was between going and dying) not to go. They have no right to be angry, they chose to come. The Palestinians had their country cut up so that half the country would have a majority of another people IMPORTED on top of them! They had no choice in being the minority, it was thrust upon them one day and there was nothing they could do about it.
Laws recongnizing the truth of Jesus? What the HELL are you talking about?! So there are laws recognizing the truth of Jesus but you can't pray in public schools?! Seriously, I have no idea about what you're referring to.
[ August 07, 2003, 12:20 PM: Message edited by: Cavalier ]
Posted by Cavalier (Member # 3918) on :
Duragon, ususally I'd just walk but this issue really gets to me. People argue on behalf of Israel without even bothering to do even a cursory reading of the Arab point of view or try to understand their situation.
Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
Cav, the man you're thinking of who was shot at the church of nativity was the elderly chap who rang the bells.
I don't believe there was another one.
Posted by Cavalier (Member # 3918) on :
I'm almost certain he was ordained a priest, but regardless someone was shot by the IDF in the church. That's unacceptable.
Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
I'm thinking of Samir Salman, the Palestinian caretaker for the church who died while trying to get from his house to the church. There was some kafuffle about whether it was Israeli or Palestinian gunfire that killed him, although hospital officials insisted it was the former.
Are we thinking of different people?
Posted by Cavalier (Member # 3918) on :
Yeah, we definitely are and I can't find any non-biased articles to prove it one way or the other. But the church was shot at, there were definitely bullets in the walls from the Israeli side. That's the overriding point.
Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
Granted.
Sorry I butted in, carry on.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"But you manage to not say what is so ignorant about it "
Allow me to fill in for NFL, then.
There was not a nation there. Israel was, in fact, a new nation, because there was not, immediately prior to the creation of Israel, or for several hundred years leading up to the creation of Israel, a nation existing where Israel is now.
You know, I've been avoiding posting on this thread like the plague, up til this point. I've argued over Israel so many times, here and on ornery, that its starting to get frustrating.
You talk about the church of the nativity being shot up. Well, during Jordan's control of Jerusalem, they LEVELED over 50 temples. Israel has, so far, only done any damage to any Mosque's or Church's that are, at the time, occupied by armed militants, or terrorists. Israel has allowed islamic access to all the holy sites under her control, while, under Arab control, Jews can't visit their own holy sites, including relatively modern temples with no significance other then being places of worship.
You say that the land that is now Israel was never offered to the Arabs... well, thats wrong too. The UN mandate of 1947 was going to give 45% of the land that is now Israel to the Arabs... but the Arab leadership rejected that proposal, and instead asked neiboring arab nations for assistance in driving the jews out of Israel.
I don't know why I'm bothing... most of this stuff is fairly easy to find, unless you're reading palestinian propoganda sites.
So I give up again, after a short post.
Posted by Cavalier (Member # 3918) on :
Here's one link with the type of thing I'm talking about.
It's the blurb at the top about the family attending mass. I remmeber reading the whole article in the Globe back in December and it goes on to say how they were almost shot going to church.
Posted by Cavalier (Member # 3918) on :
quote: There was not a nation there. Israel was, in fact, a new nation, because there was not, immediately prior to the creation of Israel, or for several hundred years leading up to the creation of Israel, a nation existing where Israel is now.
There was the mandate of Palestine. It had roughly the same borders as the Israel+Palestine of today. Thus it was the same land marked out with a different set of rulers. The same exact thing as I just explained above.
quote: Well, during Jordan's control of Jerusalem, they LEVELED over 50 temples. Israel has, so far, only done any damage to any Mosque's or Church's that are, at the time, occupied by armed militants, or terrorists.
Listen bud, just because they do it doesn't give you the justification to do it too. I don't care if the church is occupied by militants, butt out. It's not your church to be shooting at. That kind of thinking (well we're not so bad, we can do it if it helps us out) is exactly my point.
quote: Israel has allowed islamic access to all the holy sites under her control, while, under Arab control, Jews can't visit their own holy sites, including relatively modern temples with no significance other then being places of worship.
Okay...that's great. A nice fact I already knew. I'm not sure what point you're trying to address here.
quote: You say that the land that is now Israel was never offered to the Arabs... well, thats wrong too.
I didn't say land wasn't offered to them. I even acknowledge that the 48% you're referring to was occupied after the 1948 war. I attack the character of the UN mandate. First, I don't believe it was any of the UN's business to begin with. Second, jus because something is offered doesn't mean you should be forced to take it. The Arabs had every right to reject that provison as being unfair. They did and the UN basically gave them the finger and told them to go to hell. Why shouldn't they be angry?
quote: I don't know why I'm bothing
I don't know why you're bothering either. You obviously didn't bother enough to do more than skim my arguments, if that.
quote: most of this stuff is fairly easy to find, unless you're reading palestinian propoganda sites.
Gee thanks. Cause I get all my information from Palestinian propaganda sites... I'm glad you enlightened me.
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
I don't have time to go into the whole argument right now but I will address the "new nation" point. A mandate is not a country. A country with a new government had to be created likely with one group as a majority. That one group would likely be the Jews. Then you would still have your tyranny of the majority issue. Unless then you wanted dictatorship. A piece of land doesn't make it a country. Even then its borders would have been arguable. The Golan Heights, West Bank, Gaza Strip, Sinai Peninsula... A new country had to be created no matter what you want to call it or what it is.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
ok, fine, I'll go into detail.
"There was the mandate of Palestine. It had roughly the same borders as the Israel+Palestine of today. Thus it was the same land marked out with a different set of rulers. The same exact thing as I just explained above."
Right. But you seem to think there was an independent palestinian nation. THere was not. From 1517-1917, the territory was ruled by the Ottoman Empire, an Empire that fell during the course of WWI. When an Empire falls, there is no legal claim by ANYONE to the territory that is evacuated by the falling Empire. Of course, the Ottoman Empire fell to the British Empire, who occupied the transjordan, and palestine, in 1917.
At the peace treaty of Versailles, Britain was granted control of that territory. Maybe not perfectly moral, but then again, the Ottoman Empire had been part of the Central Power alliance, and then collapsed. SOMEONE had to rule that territory, and the British had occupied the territory, so this made sense at the time. Obviously, it could have been given to the people there... but, as has been pointed out, the people there were already fighting about who should control the land.
So, the previous legal owner of the territory no longer existed. Britain took over. No nation existed there. No nation had existed there for over 400 years. The territory was disputed by the people LIVING there already. Your statement was "No. A state was already there. If you start with one state and end up with one state you haven't made a new state, you've changed some names around."
THERE WAS NO STATE THERE! And had not been for hundreds of years. The "State" that was there was Britain. I'm sorry that you can't comprehend this.
"Listen bud, just because they do it doesn't give you the justification to do it too. I don't care if the church is occupied by militants, butt out. It's not your church to be shooting at. That kind of thinking (well we're not so bad, we can do it if it helps us out) is exactly my point."
So you're point is that Israel should let terrorists hide out in churches until they come out and blow Israeli citizens to bits. Good point. Well argued. Dumb, too.
Obviously the church isn't "ours" to shoot at. On the other hand, Israel (And jewish philosophy and law) do not recognize the right of sanctuary that christian law does. When terrorists and militants occupy a church, it becomes disputed military territory. If you don't like the fact it got shot up, perhaps you should be yelling at the people who hid in the church in order cause exactly the reaction that you're showing? Because, frankly, the BEST way for Israel to have removed that thread was to blow it up. The fact they didn't just level the place shows Israel places a higher regard for innocent life, and religious sites, then their opponents in this war show.
I place the blame for that incident on the Palestinians who hid in a church, because they knew that Jews don't have the same sanctuary laws Christians do, and knew that they put themselves in a win win situation. Either Israel would leave them alone, in which case they have a strong point to attack out of which their enemies won't assault, OR, Israel assaults the church, and christian opinion gets turned against Israel.
"Okay...that's great. A nice fact I already knew. I'm not sure what point you're trying to address here."
The point I am trying to address is the consistent respect Israel has tried to show to holy sites, despite a war being waged against Israel by a people who do not respect Israel's holy sites, or respect the wishes of Jews to visit those sites... a fact you obviously miss.
" First, I don't believe it was any of the UN's business to begin with"
You're right. It was BRITAIN'S business. They controlled the land, both militarily, and by legal right. They should have just done what they were originally going to do, and give the whole territory to the Jewish people, and not even try to appease the arab people.
They did, however, try to come up with a mutually satisfactory arrangement, as did the UN, who Britain ceded some control to in the interests of a fair arrangement. Since to the arab nations fairness meant "not a single jew anywhere in the middle east," I'm inclined to accept the arrangments offered by both Britain and the UN as "more fair and trying to accomodate the needs of everyone."
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Paul, there was no independent state. But Britain was given the mandate of Palestine. If you want to call it a territory, that's fine. But it was a chunk of land with the name "Palestine" and people called "Palestinians," among others, living on it.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
Which is exactly my point, Twinky.
Cavalier seems to think there WAS a state there. There was not. There was an administrative territory.
Posted by Cavalier (Member # 3918) on :
Fine, there was no "state" in that sense of the word, there was a bordered off section of land administered by the British as a mandate. Okay? You feel better now? I can comprehend the fact that it was not referred to as a "state".
But really, we're playing semantics with the state/nation issue. Whatever it was, you don't change its geopolitical importance to other ocuntries unless you split it in two or soemthing along those lines. That's all I'm going to say about that.
quote: So you're point is that Israel should let terrorists hide out in churches until they come out and blow Israeli citizens to bits. Good point. Well argued. Dumb, too
So your point is that the 2 billion Christians in the world should let Israelis shoot one of their most holy of churches to flush out about a score of half-assed militiamen terrorists. Good point. Well argued. Dumb, too.
quote: Obviously the church isn't "ours" to shoot at. On the other hand, Israel (And jewish philosophy and law) do not recognize the right of sanctuary that christian law does.
And you people wonder why I don't want Israel having control over Christian holy sites? Listen to what you're saying. I don't care what Jewish philophy and law says. Blow up your own damn temples, the Church of the Nativity is not a place for your target practice. Don't recognize sanctuary eh? So you don't recognize Christians religous beliefs as long as you're chasing someone, eh? Like I said before, if some Christian were chasing a terrorist and did something to the Western Wall you'd probably get completely bent out of shape about it.
quote: Because, frankly, the BEST way for Israel to have removed that thread was to blow it up. The fact they didn't just level the place shows Israel places a higher regard for innocent life, and religious sites, then their opponents in this war show.
Oh, isn't that friggin big of you, you didn't blow our church up. That's idiocy. It's obviously not the best solution because the previously mentioned Christians would be extremely upset (massive understatement). Hello sanctions, possibly war. Goodbye Israeli aid.
The Palestinians were to blame too, but it wasn't their bullets all over the walls and their APCs almost mowing down Catholic families outside. If you don't want to deal with trying to get them out of the church I suggest relinquishing control of Jerusalem to a third party...even if it is the UN I hate so much. Despite the lack of faith I have in them, I have even less in the Israelis and Palestinians.
quote: The point I am trying to address is the consistent respect Israel has tried to show to holy sites, despite a war being waged against Israel by a people who do not respect Israel's holy sites, or respect the wishes of Jews to visit those sites... a fact you obviously miss
No, I know the what you're saying. It justs has nothing to do with what I'm saying. I metion the C.O.N. being attacked and you come back with stuff about how Israelis are so respectful of religous sites. Maybe you're repsectful of Palestinian religous sites but you obviously didn't have enough respect left over to extend to some of my religous sites.
quote: You're right. It was BRITAIN'S business. They controlled the land, both militarily, and by legal right. They should have just done what they were originally going to do, and give the whole territory to the Jewish people, and not even try to appease the arab people.
Britain. The fact that you refer to their occupation of anywhere as being legal lowers my respect for you a notch. Legal by whose standards? The League of Nations? Are you joking? The legal rule of the land belongs to those who live there. Say anything else and you're nothing but an imperialist.
As for not trying to appease the Arab people, I actually agree with that somewhat. Not necesarily ideologically, but this might be a case where the ends justify the means. I could stomach being an imperialist for a few years if it guranteed equal representation in the end. It would have lead to the one state with democracy and freedom of immigration for the Jews, the solution I advocated several posts ago. It wouldn't have displaced anyone legally living there and most likely not have angered too many everyday Palestinians.
quote: They did, however, try to come up with a mutually satisfactory arrangement, as did the UN, who Britain ceded some control to in the interests of a fair arrangement. Since to the arab nations fairness meant "not a single jew anywhere in the middle east," I'm inclined to accept the arrangments offered by both Britain and the UN as "more fair and trying to accomodate the needs of everyone."
Your characterization of the Arabs is just wrong. The vast majority didn't like the partition of the country/mandate/nation/whatever the hell you want to call it. It basically forced a lot of them to move. Only a small minority were opposed to the Jews returning based on religous grounds. BTW, this coming out of a history textbook, not a Palestinian website .
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Paul:
I don't think we disagree on that point, I just want to make it as clear as possible, because I've seen "there's never been a state called Palestine" used to deny the very existence of the Palestinian people, a postition I find truly frightening given my background.
(Edited to show that this post is directed at Paul.)
[ August 07, 2003, 03:03 PM: Message edited by: twinky ]
Posted by Cavalier (Member # 3918) on :
Well Twinky, I'm glad somebody understood the meaning of what I was saying.
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
So you are saying that the people who lived in "Palestine" should rule the land? OK, so the Jews and Palestinians should have control over the land they occupy? OK, guess what both the Arabs and Israelis who live in Israel control Israel. Both groups are citizens if they want to be with equal rights. So its called Israel instead of Palestine why should it be called the other way around. Jews would still view it has Israel, they had even for their thousand years in exile. However, not only do the Jews want an independent nation, a homeland even if it is shared with the Arabs, the Arabs want an independent country of their own. Throughout this entire argument you have made it sound like it was only the Jews who wanted an separate country while the Arabs wanted one country. That's not true. The Arabs wanted one country, but one country in which they would rule independent from the Jews. A country in which they could oppose Jewish immigration. A country with unlimited Jewish immigration, which equal protection for Jews would not have satisfied the Arabs at the time. Some Arabs would be more than happy with that, they are in large part the modern Israeli-Arabs. Most however would still not want that. The declared goal of terrorist groups like Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Hezbollah, and others is a country where they can exclude Jews. In countries ruled by Muslims Jews have restricted rights. They are not allowed to even enter Islamic Holy Cities. Jerusalem wouldn't be any different seeing as how not one Jew touched the Western Wall during the Jordanian occupation.
If not try to flush out the militants what would you have the Israelis do regarding the Church of the Nativity incident? Do you know what a "score of half-assed militiamen terrorists" can do. If each one represents one suicide bomber and each suicide bomber blows up one bus and with each bus 10 Israelis die that is 200 people murdered for the sake of some bullet holes. Or maybe they are the leaders and their continual leadership leads to the death of thousands, Israelis and Arabs. Like what Paul said, be pissed at the Arbas who hid their not the Israelis who were trying to defend themselves.
quote: I don't care what Jewish philophy and law says.
Then why should Jews care about Christian law, especially when that law interfers with the lives of hundreds of people. Despite this the Jews were perfectly willing to give control of holy sites and cities to the UN back in 1948. Instead the Arabs forcibly took these sites in an unprovoked war and when Israel took them back in another unprovoked war started by Arab countries suddenly the Arabs living in the conquered territories want independence. Its like if the Sinai Peninsula wanted independence after the Six Day War because they were the Sinain people.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
I'm going to give up, now, not because you're right, but because doing this is so ****ing frustrating. Not because you have points I don't understand or have counter-argumetns to (I do, and I do). But because doing this is so ****ing frustrating. I really shouldn't have gotten invovled in the first place. I've been trying to stop arguing over israel on hatrack for years. At least on Ornery, its manageable, because the threads are reasonable lengths.
Posted by Cavalier (Member # 3918) on :
quote: OK, so the Jews and Palestinians should have control over the land they occupy? OK, guess what both the Arabs and Israelis who live in Israel control Israel.
Finally, something we can agree on. I'm glad you found a good way to express it. What I want is what Israel is now (sans Jewish religous influence) over the whole area. Israel is almost a microcosm of what I'm talking about, but there aren't enough Arabs still living there to see it work. My issue is not necesarily how Israel functions today (except for the religous angle) so much as how it was founded. As for the name issue, well, let me quote:
Turning to ongoing Middle East conflicts, Gadhafi criticized the U.S. approach toward the war in Iraq and the Israeli-Palestinian crisis, saying it caused people to support al-Qaida and "say that bin Laden is right."
Gadhafi laughed when asked to comment on President Bush's "road map" peace plan to solve the Palestinian-Israeli situation, saying: "It will not succeed."
He reiterated his theory that the land on which Israel and the Palestinian territories are located was too small for two states, and that the solution was to create one country — Isratine — for both sides to live in.
You can find that at http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20030803/ap_on_re_mi_ea/libya_gadhafi_5 Now I know what you're thinking...this is Gadhafi, the Libyan lunatic. However he has, for his own reasons, repudidated fundamentalism in recent years and I think his suggestion is not totally without merit. Assuming you could get the countries together without the two obliterating each other...it'd probably make the majority of citizens happy.
quote: If not try to flush out the militants what would you have the Israelis do regarding the Church of the Nativity incident? Do you know what a "score of half-assed militiamen terrorists" can do. If each one represents one suicide bomber and each suicide bomber blows up one bus and with each bus 10 Israelis die that is 200 people murdered for the sake of some bullet holes. Or maybe they are the leaders and their continual leadership leads to the death of thousands, Israelis and Arabs. Like what Paul said, be pissed at the Arbas who hid their not the Israelis who were trying to defend themselves.
Hello? We're talking about a specific situation here. They weren't suicide bombers so what's the point of bringing that up? I also don't believe this take Paul has on the gunmen devising a win win situation by forcing a showdown. They wouldn't have surrendered if that was their aim. I think it's far more likely that they were being pursued and threw themselves into the first sanctuary they knew the Israelis couldn't readily pursue them into.
quote: Then why should Jews care about Christian law
Because it's a Christian church that's supposed to have its right to practice its religion without undue interference. If you take that away you're running a Jewish theocracy over there. I'd be just as mad if the Vatican had a temple (which is unlikely seeing as how it's only a few blocks wide) and the Swiss Guards hacked up the place trying to chase someone down. Neither scenario is right.
quote: Its like if the Sinai Peninsula wanted independence after the Six Day War because they were the Sinain people.
Wouldn't it be more like the Egyptians in the Sinai wanting to be part of Egypt again? I'm not even being sarcastic, you seriously lost me.
Posted by Cavalier (Member # 3918) on :
Also:
quote: this entire argument you have made it sound like it was only the Jews who wanted an separate country while the Arabs wanted one country. That's not true. The Arabs wanted one country, but one country in which they would rule independent from the Jews. A country in which they could oppose Jewish immigration.
Yeah, that's what I've been saying right? Combine one country (Arabs want) and unrestricted immigration with democracy (what Jews want) and mix. Nobody gets all of what they want but, hey, it's a compromise.
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
Alright, let me just ask one question? Are we debating about what realisticly could be or what ideally could be? Realistically what the Arabs want and what the Israelis want will never be combined in my lifetime and I want a solution before then. Ideally, we would all get along, everyone would follow the "correct" religion, there wouldn't be poverty, racism, or any problems. Assuming you would want to limit the idealism then it would be what would ideally happen regarding that tiny stretch and one state that the Jews and the Arabs share with equal rights for both would be ideal. However, realistically that your compromise will never happen. Israel has been established and only the extremely radical Arabs want the land that Israel consists of (which would not include the West Bank and the Gaza Strip). Those radical Arabs want the Jewish race to perish so I hope that Israel would bar negotiation with them. The only real issue is Jerusalem and settlements. If the Arabs think that in any way Israel will give up Jerusalem they are crazy. However, I would expect that most of the settlements will eventually be abandoned similarly to how settlements in the Sinai Peninsula were abandoned.
Posted by Cavalier (Member # 3918) on :
Uhhhh...well a bit of both. I'm trying to eke out a solution that's realisitic but it's obviously not going to happen in our lifetime. Only a lot of time or a MASSIVE application of outside force is going to bring my compromise into reality. It might take both. So I suppose you could say it's overly idealistic to some extent. I don't think I'm being so idealistic (and concurrently idiotic) as to suggest we will one day all will follow a "correct" religion or eliminate poverty. No offense but the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is way higher on the doable scale than those 2 problems.
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
That's why I suggested you were trying to limit your idealisticness within the realm of this conversation.
Personally, I don't want a solution that I won't come to see to fruition in my lifetime. That's why I'm sticking to a realistic debate.
Posted by Cavalier (Member # 3918) on :
*shakes head* Wow, well, that explains alot, seeing as how we haven't even been arguing about the same thing really when you get right down to it.
Posted by Cavalier (Member # 3918) on :
I move to declare argument over and bygones being bygones
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
There were other issues as well, but whatever we aren't get anywhere, we are being repetitive, and I don't see much point in continuing.
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
![[Grumble]](graemlins/grumble.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Cry]](graemlins/cry.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
. Did you even read the article. Nowhere in it did it say that Israel was bulldozing entire refugee camps. It did say that Israel was bulldozing homes. Why? Because they were previously occupied by terrorists. I'm sure you also used that article to show that Israel is a country that intentionally murders peaceful protesters. However ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)