I don't see Palestinians throwing up their arms like that, unless Hamas is pointing an AK47 at them. They need to reject violence.
Did I say the Palestinians were blameless? I think I said something to the contrary. I said I can understand why they react the way they do though. They are trying to resist domination by a much larger, more powerful, and wealthier society than they are. This does not justify trying to kill Israeli citizens, but the fact is Israel presents a much larger existential threat to Palestinians than the other way around.
Some details to support these points would be nice, but I doubt you have any. Israel building houses does more to hurt the peace process than Hamas firing rockets, interesting theory. Your post is pure hate and rhetoric.
How about the fact that Israel just approved 3,000 new settler homes on occupied land, purely out of retaliation for a largely symbolic recognition of Palestine at the UN? Very constructive. We're supposed to believe that Israel wants a two-state solution, but then acts like this when Palestine begins to form some semblance of an internationally recognized state?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nage Waza
You shake your head because the only source of your material is hateful propaganda.
I don't want to start a pissfest with you, because I'm sure you're not an a$$hole and neither am I. I admit I'm being overly biased here but that's just because I'm feeling frustrated with how Israel is approaching the problem.
Last edited by WesternCanadaKing; 11-30-2012 at 05:22 PM.
The Following User Says Thank You to WesternCanadaKing For This Useful Post:
What a joke of a post and par for the course for you.
In order for it to be anti Semitic, he would have had to post about Jews not the state of Israel. You should be ashamed of yourself throwing around that label so freely.
The Following User Says Thank You to puckluck2 For This Useful Post:
What a joke of a post and par for the course for you.
In order for it to be anti Semitic, he would have had to post about Jews not the state of Israel. You should be ashamed of yourself throwing around that label so freely.
His post compared Israel to the nazis. Comparing Israel to the nazis:
1) draws attention to the fact you are talking about Jews; and
2) belittles/denies the holocaust. The current middle east conflict is nothing like the holocaust.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to blankall For This Useful Post:
His post compared Israel to the nazis. Comparing Israel to the nazis:
1) draws attention to the fact you are talking about Jews; and
2) belittles/denies the holocaust. The current middle east conflict is nothing like the holocaust.
What? He didn't mention any of that. Not sure where you got that from.
His post compared Israel to the nazis. Comparing Israel to the nazis:
1) draws attention to the fact you are talking about Jews; and
2) belittles/denies the holocaust. The current middle east conflict is nothing like the holocaust.
Lebensraum was probably the wrong term to use, but I disagree that it denies or belittles the Holocaust. In my defense, lebensraum was the policy of Nazis annexing neighbouring countries to make way for German citizens and wasn't really connected to the Holocaust. However it was insensitive, and I'll edit my post to reflect that.
Last edited by WesternCanadaKing; 11-30-2012 at 05:33 PM.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to WesternCanadaKing For This Useful Post:
Can you please provide some detail around this displacement?
Palestinians should abandon and reject violence, it might not be too late, but it is getting pretty close.
Making it seem like Israel is the only player in the game is being dishonest. Ignoring the Jewish refugees is also dishonest.
I'm not getting into an argument with you. Many people were clearly displaced when Israel was declared a Jewish state and the Jewish settlements proliferated. I don't need to get into more detail that's evident.
I'm not taking the Palestinians side I'm just pointing out the fact that the argument that palestinians should just give up and accept that they are not entitled to their own state is not something that is realistic to expect will actually happen.
I'm not saying the palestinian experience is even all that similar to the jewish experience, just that if you expect them to accept that they will not have a homeland, you may end up with a similar result in the long run as what happened to the Jews and that would be sadly ironic.
I would certainly disagree with the tactics of the Militant palestinians, it doesn't mean there isn't a valid argument underneath it all.
__________________
onetwo and threefour... Together no more. The end of an era. Let's rebuild...
Lebensraum was probably the wrong term to use, but I disagree that it denies or belittles the Holocaust. In my defense, lebensraum was the policy of Nazis annexing neighbouring countries to make way for German citizens and wasn't really connected to the Holocaust. However it was insensitive, and I'll edit my post to reflect that.
It's a shame you had to explain yourself. Some people really should be embarassed and ashamed of themselves.
Can't have an argument regarding Israel without being labelled anti-Semetic. That is a joke.
So insensitive means he's anti-Semetic? You drew a conclusion from his post that was flat out wrong.
Lebensraum has absolutely nothing to do with the holocaust. You claimed he belittled and denied the holocaust. That is a joke.
Comparing Israel to Nazis is anti-semitic. Like I said before:
1) It draws attention to the fact you are talking about Jews; and
2) It belittles the holocaust.
And yes, Lebensraum, does have to do with the holocaust. For instance, Jews made up 1/3 of the population of Poland prior to the holocaust. The land they lived on was specifically targeted. Although Jews were not the only people targetted by Lebensraum, they most certainly felt the effects.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to blankall For This Useful Post:
Lebensraum was probably the wrong term to use, but I disagree that it denies or belittles the Holocaust. In my defense, lebensraum was the policy of Nazis annexing neighbouring countries to make way for German citizens and wasn't really connected to the Holocaust. However it was insensitive, and I'll edit my post to reflect that.
I'm not getting into an argument with you. Many people were clearly displaced when Israel was declared a Jewish state and the Jewish settlements proliferated. I don't need to get into more detail that's evident.
The displacement was jews from surrounding countries and Europe, not Palestinians. If you have any resource to support your claims that Palestinians were 'displaced' I would be interested in reading it. Do you understand the definition of displacement? Several nations declared war against Israel. Israel did not declare war against those that lived within Israel.
I am interested in anything you may have to that would establish that the state of Israel used force or violence to force Arabs out of the country.
Quote:
Originally Posted by onetwo_threefour
I'm not taking the Palestinians side I'm just pointing out the fact that the argument that palestinians should just give up and accept that they are not entitled to their own state is not something that is realistic to expect will actually happen.
I don't think I noticed you saying anything regarding the surrounding regional countries to step in and help, you only point out Israel. This is a bias. The Palestinians won't have any state if they have violent groups acting on their behalf, it is as simple as that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by onetwo_threefour
I'm not saying the palestinian experience is even all that similar to the jewish experience, just that if you expect them to accept that they will not have a homeland, you may end up with a similar result in the long run as what happened to the Jews and that would be sadly ironic.
Now you are making no sense. You mention the 'Jewish experience' which I assume means everything from holocaust to oppression and then follow up and somehow say the Palestinians may end up with a similar result? Are you trying to connect Jews to being the group that makes that happen? That is shameful.
Israel itself is a sovereign nation, the region itself could also step in and help. People like you who point the finger at Israel and no one else cause more harm than good.
Quote:
Originally Posted by onetwo_threefour
I would certainly disagree with the tactics of the Militant palestinians, it doesn't mean there isn't a valid argument underneath it all.
What that argument be? When is the last time Hamas fired rockets at Egypt? How many people have the Syrian government killed lately? How much freedoms are there in Iran? The only country in the region with freedom of speech, gathering, religion, sexuality, etc is who you want to blame.
The anti-Semitic question. The post ion question, in my opinion was not anti-Semitic. Using Nazi or Apartheid comparisons with Israel is simply a wrong comparison and the arguer is either a) ignorant or b) has a heavy anti-Israel bias and benefits from shocking people with the 21st century's buzz words for "evil".
As I have posted before, criticizing Israeli government policy is not anti-antisemitism. Settlements, avoiding a ground incursion into Gaza, the security fence, immigration, these are policies. "Israel is an usurper nation of people who do not belong there", "Israel/Israelis have no right to be there/defend themselves/have a Jewish State" those are not criticisms of policy but denials of the Jews right to self determination and a sovereign state in their ancestral homeland. (Yes, you may want to argue that Israel is denying the Palestinians of the same rights, but once both parties entered into the 1992 peace process the mechanisms were there for the Palestinians to realize those rights within that framework. Had both sides approached the process with honesty and integrity, there would likely be a sovereign Palestine now, but that argument is for another time.)
Someone who is anti-Israel in not necessarily an anti-Semite, but Anti-Semites often couch their Jew hatred in anti-Israel platitudes. My experience has been that when having this discussion face-to-face often the person on the "other side" will get frustrated at some point and mutter something along the lines of "you Jews" - that is a telling sign to me that that person is working from an anti-Semitic base.
Also, just because there are Jews and Israelis who criticize Israel, doesn't make them right or legitimize a particular argument. It doesn't make them self-loathing either. Many Jews & Israelis believe in the one-state solution, being optimistic that the side with the majority vote won't bring in legislation against them and that everyone can live together (I am not so optimistic). Conversely I have listened to Muslims who have been hard core jihadists in their youth turn, gone to Israel, met Israelis (Arab & Jew) and promote Israel as the best country in the Middle East. It doesn't make them any less Muslim. Each "side" can produce their own atrocities and advocates. Playing the "my wound is bigger" game leads nowhere.
The Thread Topic.
To get to peace both sides will have to agree on a few things (mutual recognition), and they will have to do so in Hebrew, English, & Arabic. Both sides will have to make painful concessions. Israel will have to remove settlement blocs, Palestinians will have to forgo the right of return. Each side will have to give and take on the border line. Each side will have to take trust building measures.
Israel has proven in the past that they will remove settlements. Israel removed the settlements in the Sinai and in Gaza, along with removing outposts in the West Bank. The Palestinians however have not proven anything. They have not proven that they can reign in their terror groups or militias, they have have not amended their constitution (an Oslo Peace Accord requirement) to remove the section that refers to "Death to the Jews". They have not proven that they can run their territories by rule of law (no trails for suspected collaborators). the only laws they have on their books are about not selling property to Jews. They refuse to recognize the Jewish State of Israel. Israel needs to see some measures of trust building taken by the other side.
Peace can be had - both sides need to come to the table without per-conditions. Bib has said that he accepts the two-state solution and will negotiate (5 years ago he would have rather poked his eye out). They can hammer it out.
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Bleeding Red For This Useful Post:
The anti-Semitic question. The post ion question, in my opinion was not anti-Semitic. Using Nazi or Apartheid comparisons with Israel is simply a wrong comparison and the arguer is either a) ignorant or b) has a heavy anti-Israel bias and benefits from shocking people with the 21st century's buzz words for "evil".
As I have posted before, criticizing Israeli government policy is not anti-antisemitism. Settlements, avoiding a ground incursion into Gaza, the security fence, immigration, these are policies. "Israel is an usurper nation of people who do not belong there", "Israel/Israelis have no right to be there/defend themselves/have a Jewish State" those are not criticisms of policy but denials of the Jews right to self determination and a sovereign state in their ancestral homeland. (Yes, you may want to argue that Israel is denying the Palestinians of the same rights, but once both parties entered into the 1992 peace process the mechanisms were there for the Palestinians to realize those rights within that framework. Had both sides approached the process with honesty and integrity, there would likely be a sovereign Palestine now, but that argument is for another time.)
Someone who is anti-Israel in not necessarily an anti-Semite, but Anti-Semites often couch their Jew hatred in anti-Israel platitudes. My experience has been that when having this discussion face-to-face often the person on the "other side" will get frustrated at some point and mutter something along the lines of "you Jews" - that is a telling sign to me that that person is working from an anti-Semitic base.
Also, just because there are Jews and Israelis who criticize Israel, doesn't make them right or legitimize a particular argument. It doesn't make them self-loathing either. Many Jews & Israelis believe in the one-state solution, being optimistic that the side with the majority vote won't bring in legislation against them and that everyone can live together (I am not so optimistic). Conversely I have listened to Muslims who have been hard core jihadists in their youth turn, gone to Israel, met Israelis (Arab & Jew) and promote Israel as the best country in the Middle East. It doesn't make them any less Muslim. Each "side" can produce their own atrocities and advocates. Playing the "my wound is bigger" game leads nowhere.
The Thread Topic.
To get to peace both sides will have to agree on a few things (mutual recognition), and they will have to do so in Hebrew, English, & Arabic. Both sides will have to make painful concessions. Israel will have to remove settlement blocs, Palestinians will have to forgo the right of return. Each side will have to give and take on the border line. Each side will have to take trust building measures.
Israel has proven in the past that they will remove settlements. Israel removed the settlements in the Sinai and in Gaza, along with removing outposts in the West Bank. The Palestinians however have not proven anything. They have not proven that they can reign in their terror groups or militias, they have have not amended their constitution (an Oslo Peace Accord requirement) to remove the section that refers to "Death to the Jews". They have not proven that they can run their territories by rule of law (no trails for suspected collaborators). the only laws they have on their books are about not selling property to Jews. They refuse to recognize the Jewish State of Israel. Israel needs to see some measures of trust building taken by the other side.
Peace can be had - both sides need to come to the table without per-conditions. Bib has said that he accepts the two-state solution and will negotiate (5 years ago he would have rather poked his eye out). They can hammer it out.
Just curious where you get that idea from. To me it seems that Fatah is doing a pretty admirable job in reining in the militias. I'm not sure if there has been any major attacks on Israel originating in the West Bank.
Just curious where you get that idea from. To me it seems that Fatah is doing a pretty admirable job in reining in the militias. I'm not sure if there has been any major attacks on Israel originating in the West Bank.
Frankly, this has more to do with the security fence and the IDF presence in the WB then it has to do with the PA's efforts. Before the fence most terrorist attacks originated from the WB. The PA under Abbas has been cracking down on their political rivals, which is good for them and Israel, but they didn't start doing that until after Hamas kicked them out of Gaza. There might not be any rockets or missiles (maybe there are and they just haven't fired them yet), but there sure are a lot of unaccounted for guns.
The Following User Says Thank You to Bleeding Red For This Useful Post:
I find outside of CP, you folks are generally well informed; that there is such utter ignorance about the past in this conflict. I often debate Icelanders about this conflict because of the pro Palestine views here, that I find most of them utterly unaware of the history.
Ran across this, obviously slanted in Israel's favor, but cannot find any fault in what the Israel minister of foreign affairs is saying here. Of course like always with this conflict there is much more to this story but perspective is so important when talking about peace. First you need an ACTUAL peace partner, something the Arabs have not been since the beginning, in that context the wall, the aggressive nature of the Israeli's becomes much more understandable.
I find outside of CP, you folks are generally well informed; that there is such utter ignorance about the past in this conflict. I often debate Icelanders about this conflict because of the pro Palestine views here, that I find most of them utterly unaware of the history.
Ran across this, obviously slanted in Israel's favor, but cannot find any fault in what the Israel minister of foreign affairs is saying here. Of course like always with this conflict there is much more to this story but perspective is so important when talking about peace. First you need an ACTUAL peace partner, something the Arabs have not been since the beginning, in that context the wall, the aggressive nature of the Israeli's becomes much more understandable.
What a load of BS. Seriously, how can anyone take this guy seriously when all he does is spew lies that he conveniently calls "The Truth".
On the first point. Yes the West Bank is occupied territory. From the Hague conventions of 1909:
Art. 42.
Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army.
The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised.
Is Israel a hostile army towards the Palestinians? check
Does the occupation only extend to the West Bank? check
How you can argue otherwise is preposterous.
Jordan was never considered Palestine, ever. The British Mandate of Palestine was only what was west of the Jordan river. East of that was called Transjordan and was semi-autonomous, being ruled by the Hashemite tribe (current rulers of Jordan).
1967 being a war of self defence? Please. A pre-emptive strike can hardly ever be called a war of self defence. The Arabs were not ready for war and thus lost in 6 days.
To the second video. All peace negotiations with Arafat and previous Israeli prime ministers have not been as generous as the Israelis would like you to believe. They all call for restrictions on Palestinian air space, Israeli control of all borders (Including the borders with Jordan and Egypt, not in Israel proper) and heavy restrictions on access to certain roads within Palestinian territory. That is not how you establish a sovereign nation.
To the third video, it wasn't 500,000 Palestinian refugees. It was 700,000. That's the internationally recognized number. Secondly, the Jews became refugees because of the creation of Israel. The Palestinians became refugees also because of the creation of Israel. Seems as though the creation of Israel kind of disturbed the order of the region, does it not?
1967 being a war of self defence? Please. A pre-emptive strike can hardly ever be called a war of self defence. The Arabs were not ready for war and thus lost in 6 days.
How can you say that when Egypt had massed 100,000 or nearly 2/3rds of its military in the Sinai leading up to the war including nearly 1000 tanks, over 1000 APC's and over 1000 artillary pieces both tubed and gun.
Syria had put more then 75000 troops along jump off points on the border to Israel,
Jordan had about 55,000 troops along its border with Israel including about 300 tanks, they also massed APC's and artillary.
On June 2nd the Commander of the forces adjacent to the west bank declared that in 3 days we will be in Tel Aviv.
The Arab Militaries were on the border with highly mobile armmoured apearheads.
Plans were captured from Jordanian posts along the border outlining Operation Khalid.
If the Israeli army wouldn't have pre-emptively striked and put these formations off balance they would have lost the war and been destroyed.
You are way off base. The Arab's were fully prepared they had called up reservists they had plans captured including key captured point and their senior officer declaring that they would be in Tel Aviv in three days.
But they weren't prepared . . . ok
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
