Hope and Dispair in the ME

[Flash Walken]

Bingo, you are drawing a completely wrong conclusion from what you posted.

If one day, the Islamic world is also equipped with weapons like those that Israel possesses now, then the imperialists' strategy will reach a standstill because the use of even one nuclear bomb inside Israel will destroy everything. However, it will only harm the Islamic world. It is not irrational to contemplate such an eventuality.

He's talking about imperial deterent. If Iran has nuclear weapons (like israel does), suddenly, everyone is a lot more careful about their imperialist tactics, because if they push too hard, Iran has the ability to push back. It's black and white right there in the text.

He goes on to say, essentially, that that's what the world is discussing, whether states like Iran and Iraq should be allowed to defend themselves. It's completely political. If he was calling for the extermination of jews, he wouldn't say that hopefully they wander the globe in the future like they did in the past, as is the want of their Religion. There's a reason many orthodox jews oppose zionism.

The 'state' of Israel is an artificial construct, an appaling act of anti-semitism that has somehow convinced the jews to be their own gatekeepers at their own concentration camps.

Bingo, the information you provided proves the exact opposite of the point you're trying to frame it in.

[Bleeding Red]

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

Also, the Jews controlled the region in question? Not at ANY time in history prior to the UN creation of Israel did the Jews control the region

Nice try:

"Starting around the 11th century BCE the first of a series of Jewish kingdoms and states established intermittent rule over the region that lasted more than a millennium.

Under Assyrian, Babylonian, Persian, Greek, Roman, Byzantine, and (briefly) Sassanian rule, Jewish presence in the region dwindled because of mass expulsions. In particular, the failure of the Bar Kochba Revolt against the Roman Empire in 132 CE resulted in a large-scale expulsion of Jews. It was during this time that the Romans gave the name Syria Palaestina to the geographic area, in an attempt to erase Jewish ties to the land.[7]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel#Historical_roots

Quote:
" Blankall: Your totally failing to realize facts on the ground. Israel is there and the people who live there are not going to lay down and die. The only way towards peace is for people to realize and accept that. Why would Isrealies chose to live as minorities under arab regimes that make it illegal to practice other religions openly? "

Lanny" What about the Palestinians who were there before the creation of Israel? What about them? Don't they count? It was okay to force them to do something they didn't want to do, but demanding the Jews do the same thing is wrong?"

Which is why the two-state solution is the one to work on.

Past Israeli governments have uprooted Jewish populations - for erecting non-sanctioned settlements (trailers on hilltops) - unilaterally, as in Gaza, and from the Sinai Peninsula in return for peace with Egypt.
And they will have to up-root more communities for peace.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

Stuff the intolerance bull****. You're more intolerant of Arabs than I'll ever be of Jews, so spare me your rhetoric. Also, the Jews controlled the region in question? Not at ANY time in history prior to the UN creation of Israel did the Jews control the region, so again, spare me your rhetoric.



Wow, you're pretty quick. Hence the return to what the region once was, not what it has been turned into, which appeals to only the one side.



Who said anything about European colonialism? Never entered into the picture. The UN created the problem, not Europe, although Europe played a very big part in the process.



What about the Palestinians who were there before the creation of Israel? What about them? Don't they count? It was okay to force them to do something they didn't want to do, but demanding the Jews do the same thing is wrong? Wow, and you have the balls to speak of intolerance?

Your ignoring my point that if the arabs had not attacked Israel they would not have had to have been displaced. You seem very concerned w/ there status, yet you mention nothing about the hundreds of thousands of jews who were displaced from arab lands. Its called a population transfer. Your also ignoring the origin of many of these "Palestinians". Why do Palestinians have different rules for refugee status than any other group? In order to qualify as a Palestian you only had to be in what is now Israel for two years prior to its creation. Hundreds of thousands moved to the region when early zionists began construction projects. Yasser Arafat the founder of the Palestinian cause was born and raised in Egypt. Did you ever wonder how a dessert with no natural resources has become one of the most populated areas in the world? Your view of Israel interupting a preexisting eurphoric state is totally false.

Also please tell me how I am intolerant of arabs. Did I call for a solution of wipping all arab states off the map?

Not at any point in history did the jews control the region? They have not controlled it for a very long time. There is a difference.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

I'm not trying to be an apologist any more than those who support Israel are being apologists. BOTH SIDES are wrong in their actions, but that does nothing to understand the root issue. The root issue is the oppression that the Arabs have felt and that oppression was intensified with the creation of Israel. That is the root cause of the matters in the Middle East IMO and that is the matter that needs to be addressed.

I like you're comparison to the Iranian comments, but I think something more accurate is this. The western equivalent runs non-profit religious organizations, has the freedom to make what ever comments about foreign policy they like, and has a pipeline to the White House because of the massive numbers of dollars they contribute to political parties. Times have changed, and the "new" Klan is dressing in three piece suits and is hiding behind the protection that religious and political insititutions give them.

Then I guess we disagree ...

If Israelis are quoted (and I'm sure they have been to some degree) saying that all Muslims needed to be wiped from the face of the Earth I'd be all over them too.

It's hatred.

It should not be tolerated ever.

You and I can see the conflict differently but neither of us should make room for that type of banter, it's plain wrong. A land issue should be worked out like any dispute is worked out without suggested genocide as an undertone.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Bingo, you are drawing a completely wrong conclusion from what you posted.



He's talking about imperial deterent. If Iran has nuclear weapons (like israel does), suddenly, everyone is a lot more careful about their imperialist tactics, because if they push too hard, Iran has the ability to push back. It's black and white right there in the text.

He goes on to say, essentially, that that's what the world is discussing, whether states like Iran and Iraq should be allowed to defend themselves. It's completely political. If he was calling for the extermination of jews, he wouldn't say that hopefully they wander the globe in the future like they did in the past, as is the want of their Religion. There's a reason many orthodox jews oppose zionism.

The 'state' of Israel is an artificial construct, an appaling act of anti-semitism that has somehow convinced the jews to be their own gatekeepers at their own concentration camps.

Bingo, the information you provided proves the exact opposite of the point you're trying to frame it in.

shouldn't you put an "in my opinion" or "I think" in there somewhere?

I can see your interpretation, but to suggest it's the only interpreation is somewhat assumptive isn't it?

To me he's saying ... in school yard terms ... "ha ha, we can trade blows and our side will still be there while you'll all be burned to a crisp and we'll be done with you once and for all".

Am I right? who knows ... but there's more than one way to read something like that and you could honestly be wrong.

[Bleeding Red]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

It's completely political. If he was calling for the extermination of jews, he wouldn't say that hopefully they wander the globe in the future like they did in the past, as is the want of their Religion. There's a reason many orthodox jews oppose zionism.

These Orthodox sects (well outside the mainstream) oppose Zionisim with the belief that ONLY the MESSAIAH can bring about the return of the Jewish People to Israel. When that happens, then Israel will be run not by politicains but by Rabbis under Torah law (like Islamic states are run under Shairia Law).

They still have an attachement to the Land as they encourage individuals to live there.

Just out of curiosity, how is "wandering the globe ...the want of our religion"?
A lot of Judaism is rooted in the agricultural cycle which means attachment to a farm, a land. The Wandering Jew is an image of powerlessness, Jews are not welcome and have to go from place to place with no permanent home.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Bingo

shouldn't you put an "in my opinion" or "I think" in there somewhere?

I can see your interpretation, but to suggest it's the only interpreation is somewhat assumptive isn't it?

To me he's saying ... in school yard terms ... "ha ha, we can trade blows and our side will still be there while you'll all be burned to a crisp and we'll be done with you once and for all".

Am I right? who knows ... but there's more than one way to read something like that and you could honestly be wrong.

No, this is complete conjecture on your part. He goes on to reference the use of a nuclear device in Israel would harm the entire Islamic world. It would be like saying, in your schoolyard terms, "haha, I can kick this kids ass because I have a beef with him, but then his older brothers will come by and kick me and my friends asses." Ask any kid in elementary whether that is a win-win scenario. The answer is predictable.

Bingo, come on, it's right there in the quote that you offered up.

He also makes no reference to wanting to exterminate the jews, but rather focuses solely on the state.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Bleeding Red

These Orthodox sects (well outside the mainstream) oppose Zionisim with the belief that ONLY the MESSAIAH can bring about the return of the Jewish People to Israel. When that happens, then Israel will be run not by politicains but by Rabbis under Torah law (like Islamic states are run under Shairia Law).

They still have an attachement to the Land as they encourage individuals to live there.

Just out of curiosity, how is "wandering the globe ...the want of our religion"?
A lot of Judaism is rooted in the agricultural cycle which means attachment to a farm, a land. The Wandering Jew is an image of powerlessness, Jews are not welcome and have to go from place to place with no permanent home.

Uhm, I know?

So the answer to worldwide anti-semitism is self-segregation?

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

No, this is complete conjecture on your part. He goes on to reference the use of a nuclear device in Israel would harm the entire Islamic world. It would be like saying, in your schoolyard terms, "haha, I can kick this kids ass because I have a beef with him, but then his older brothers will come by and kick me and my friends asses." Ask any kid in elementary whether that is a win-win scenario. The answer is predictable.

Bingo, come on, it's right there in the quote that you offered up.

He also makes no reference to wanting to exterminate the jews, but rather focuses solely on the state.

Glad to see my suggestion of the odd "in my opinion" has really sunk in ...

I think ...

one nuclear bomb inside Israel will destroy everything. However, it will only harm the Islamic world

is very clearly suggesting that a trade off of strikes would mean the end of Israel while only a bruise to the Islamic world.

you don't think all the people in Israel are included in his "everything" comment?

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Glad to see my suggestion of the odd "in my opinion" has really sunk in ...

I think ...

one nuclear bomb inside Israel will destroy everything. However, it will only harm the Islamic world

is very clearly suggesting that a trade off of strikes would mean the end of Israel while only a bruise to the Islamic world.

you don't think all the people in Israel are included in his "everything" comment?

I'm sure they are included, as would palestinians and Israeli arabs, however, Israel =/= jews and jews =/= israel, no matter what Alan Dershowitz and websters dictionary would have you believe.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by Bleeding Red

"Starting around the 11th century BCE the first of a series of Jewish kingdoms and states established intermittent rule over the region that lasted more than a millennium.

Under Assyrian, Babylonian, Persian, Greek, Roman, Byzantine, and (briefly) Sassanian rule, Jewish presence in the region dwindled because of mass expulsions. In particular, the failure of the Bar Kochba Revolt against the Roman Empire in 132 CE resulted in a large-scale expulsion of Jews. It was during this time that the Romans gave the name Syria Palaestina to the geographic area, in an attempt to erase Jewish ties to the land.[7]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel#Historical_roots

I did not know that. Always nice to learn something new!

So to the two nation state idea, how do you make it happen? How do you divide the lands? How do you make Israel cough up the real estate?

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by Bingo

If Israelis are quoted (and I'm sure they have been to some degree) saying that all Muslims needed to be wiped from the face of the Earth I'd be all over them too.

There's your problem, you're not getting the quote right. If Iran had said that all Jews need to be wiped from the face of the earth, then I would agree with you as well. But the fact that he said Israel and leaves it at that, he is indicating a geopolitical issue, not an ethnic issue like you were suggesting. IMO Quebec should be wiped from the face of the earth as it would make Canada a much more peaceful place to live, but I don't wish that on Quebekers living there. I would like to see the political construct that is Quebec obliterated and have them conform to the standards outlined by the rest of Canada. It's a political statement, not a statement towards the people.

Here's a question that I think is at the root of this, and I've yet to get a resonable answer from anyone one the subject matter. Why should the Jews have a country homeland, when no other religion has the same need? Religion knows no political boundries, yet we make a special exception for the Jewish religion. Why?

[calculoso]

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

But the fact that he said Israel and leaves it at that, he is indicating a geopolitical issue, not an ethnic issue like you were suggesting.

Then why are they resorting to military / terrorist / etc means and not diplomatic ones?

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

Here's a question that I think is at the root of this, and I've yet to get a resonable answer from anyone one the subject matter. Why should the Jews have a country homeland, when no other religion has the same need? Religion knows no political boundries, yet we make a special exception for the Jewish religion. Why?

You won't get a good answer from me, because frankly I'm not sure they should either.

I take it from a different stance ... they do now, and average Joe in Tel Aviv isn't responsible for decisions made 60 years ago and deserves not to blow up on a bus or while eating pizza.

I think in retrospect it was a terrible mistake in it's handling but it is what it is, and suicide bombers are not the way to work it out.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Bingo

I think in retrospect it was a terrible mistake in it's handling but it is what it is, and suicide bombers are not the way to work it out.

True, I don't think we fundamentally disagree, but neither is racial apartheid.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

True, I don't think we fundamentally disagree, but neither is racial apartheid.

Not sure I follow.

If you're suggesting that racial apartheid was what it was and wasn't left alone and therefore Israel should be disbanded I don't think I agree.

Ending racism has no victims ... the oppressive get stopped and the innocent get rights.

But in Israel you have an entire population of innocent citizens that have done nothing to harm anyone. They simply exist, go to work, raise their families and pay their taxes.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

There's your problem, you're not getting the quote right. If Iran had said that all Jews need to be wiped from the face of the earth, then I would agree with you as well. But the fact that he said Israel and leaves it at that, he is indicating a geopolitical issue, not an ethnic issue like you were suggesting. IMO Quebec should be wiped from the face of the earth as it would make Canada a much more peaceful place to live, but I don't wish that on Quebekers living there. I would like to see the political construct that is Quebec obliterated and have them conform to the standards outlined by the rest of Canada. It's a political statement, not a statement towards the people.

Since you can no longer seperate the Jews and Israel due to the recognition of a Jewish homeland by both the League of Nations and the United Nations, then you can no longer seperate the statement calling for the removal of the Jewish homeland and the extermination of the Jews that live there. Beyond that repeated attacks on Israel by mainly Islamic based nations using advanced Military gear as oppossed to Diplomacy is a basic statement that the only accepted way to remove Israel is to wipe it and its people off of the map.

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

Here's a question that I think is at the root of this, and I've yet to get a resonable answer from anyone one the subject matter. Why should the Jews have a country homeland, when no other religion has the same need? Religion knows no political boundries, yet we make a special exception for the Jewish religion. Why?

Beyond the fact that the Jews were being exterminated in mass numbers by the German's and the Russians, and they were refused shelter by other nations during World War II. That the Jewish people settled in the area of Jeruselum (sp?) in about 1000 B.C. and were mass exiled.

They later returned and established a kingdom based around Jeruselum after they revolted against a General who had made the practic of Judism illegal.

Basically from a historical claim, the Jews have a right to that land, from a financial standpoint when Palestine landowners sold much of the land to the Jews. From a legal standpoint based on both the League of Nations and the UN's proclamation that the Jews had a pre-existing right to a country of thier own based where it stands now, and from a moral right the Jews had a right to thier own homeland that they could defend based on thier historically bad treatment by the Germans, the Russians and other Nations.

This has less to do with a specific religion gaining rights over another religious groups, and more about legal rulings on a world stage.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Not sure I follow.

If you're suggesting that racial apartheid was what it was and wasn't left alone and therefore Israel should be disbanded I don't think I agree.

Ending racism has no victims ... the oppressive get stopped and the innocent get rights.

But in Israel you have an entire population of innocent citizens that have done nothing to harm anyone. They simply exist, go to work, raise their families and pay their taxes.

That's a fallacy. I don't particularly begrudge the citizens of israel for the treatment of palestinians, but I also don't accept that they have no part in it, as their elected officials are the ones implementing the policy of racial apartheid, a policy which is willfully accepted as a correct policy.

Sure, most of them, despite required military service, have not shot palestinians, lebanese or syrians, but if you're endorsing those policies, you might as well be holding the gun.

I am personally of the belief that no nation should be founded as a state of any religion, whether it be Israel, The Holy See or Saudi Arabia.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

That's a fallacy. I don't particularly begrudge the citizens of israel for the treatment of palestinians, but I also don't accept that they have no part in it, as their elected officials are the ones implementing the policy of racial apartheid, a policy which is willfully accepted as a correct policy.

Sure, most of them, despite required military service, have not shot palestinians, lebanese or syrians, but if you're endorsing those policies, you might as well be holding the gun.

I am personally of the belief that no nation should be founded as a state of any religion, whether it be Israel, The Holy See or Saudi Arabia.

Honestly...what a load of crap.

I will present you with a very equitable, allbeit, not likely scenario.

If a First Nation "soldier" under the guise of a "militia or a guerilla group" shows up at the door of your house, and demands you secede to his requests of leaving because the UN says so, are you going to blame the Canadian Government for his acts? After all....the policies of the gov't that represent him are what we would be talking about...correct?

If so, why. But more important, if not...why not?


The Israelis as a people have put up with more than enough in the last 70 years...all while being allowed by international laws to inhabit the land in which they claim today. They are also the ONLY state in the mid-east to actually give up land in an effort to make peace agreements with those states/groups that have vowed to eradicate them as a race and/or an independant group.

Yet, as i read this thread, they are still being pegged as the aggressors and the evil cousins of the even more evil USA.

I truly fail to grasp to understand this way of thinking, and can only conclude that youth plays such a huge role for most, and age along with real lfe experience will have *some* changing their tune in the future.

I guess time will tell...and only time.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Honestly...what a load of crap.

I will present you with a very equitable, allbeit, not likely scenario.

If a First Nation "soldier" under the guise of a "militia or a guerilla group" shows up at the door of your house, and demands you secede to his requests of leaving because the UN says so, are you going to blame the Canadian Government for his acts? After all....the policies of the gov't that represent him are what we would be talking about...correct?

If so, why. But more important, if not...why not?


The Israelis as a people have put up with more than enough in the last 70 years...all while being allowed by international laws to inhabit the land in which they claim today. They are also the ONLY state in the mid-east to actually give up land in an effort to make peace agreements with those states/groups that have vowed to eradicate them as a race and/or an independant group.

Yet, as i read this thread, they are still being pegged as the aggressors and the evil cousins of the even more evil USA.

I truly fail to grasp to understand this way of thinking, and can only conclude that youth plays such a huge role for most, and age along with real lfe experience will have *some* changing their tune in the future.

I guess time will tell...and only time.

From top to bottom, this post is a complete load of garbage. Your analogies are flawed to the state of being laughable, your 'history' contains as much fact as my turds and the hilarious resort of ageism reminds me of a senile, racist old man who can't defend any of his points of view without it.

There's a reason I don't bother replying to you.