What really gets me about the Israel / Palestine thing

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 NEXT
 

Anoni Mus:

TheIronRuler:

Anoni Mus:

Then shouldn't gays, gipsies, socialists and communists get their own states too? Jews weren't the only victims of nazism.

.
Their situations cannot be compared. You bringing this up shows you're not fully familiar with the topic.

I'm not. I actually came to this topic to learn a little bit.
Still, tell me why the situations aren't comparable.

.
*sigh*
Alright. Sorry, it's just that I have to repeat myself a lot of times. This is elementary for me.

Are you familiar with the racial biology that was at the heart of the Nazi Fascist ideology? Are you familiar with the centuries of antisemitism Jews suffered in Europe? Are you aware that after the rise of Nationalism Jews were seen as a nation with no land - a perplexing example and resisted the proper definition of nationalities at the time?

Homosexuality was a crime and remained such in many countries in Europe, the USA, (most of the allies). In fact, those gays held in prison by Nazi Germany often ended up in another prison for being gay. Homosexuality at the time was illegal in many places. It was perceived as immoral and unnatural. Furthermore, Homosexuals did not want for a nation, they wanted to be equal to other men and to be recognized as being normal the way they are.

Gypsies have no land to call their own as they are currently unaware of a particular piece of ancestral origins that they could even try to claim as their homeland.

Socialists? There was much socialism in Nazi germany - but it was of a different breed.

Communism is a political ideology. I don't see why Objectivists should form their own nation, and even if they did it would fail.

Shaoken:

TheIronRuler:

Anoni Mus:

Then shouldn't gays, gipsies, socialists and communists get their own states too? Jews weren't the only victims of nazism.

.
Their situations cannot be compared. You bringing this up shows you're not fully familiar with the topic.

What about homosexuals and gypsies? Both parties have been experiencing persecution over the course of history, and both suffered under Nazism (homosexuals even more so since they had the highest death rates in the camps because even amongst the other groups in there nobody helped the gays out). Yet I don't see Israelis giving a damn about them.

So their situations can be compared, you just refuse to do so because it's inconvient for your position.

.
I beg your pardon? What was just that I heard here?

Their situation can be compared, but the conclusions you draw are plain illogical.

"Yet I don't see Israelis giving a damn about them." - What is this about? What... I don't even... how...

Shaoken:

What about homosexuals and gypsies? Both parties have been experiencing persecution over the course of history, and both suffered under Nazism (homosexuals even more so since they had the highest death rates in the camps because even amongst the other groups in there nobody helped the gays out). Yet I don't see Israelis giving a damn about them.

So their situations can be compared, you just refuse to do so because it's inconvient for your position.

Actually, Israel is very progressive when it comes to homosexuals. Plus, the preceding post from TheIronRuler addresses the rest of this premise.

Israel has death droids(drones) and is backed by a global superpower.

The opposing side consists of an impoverished population and is using old Soviet era technology.

Now it's hard to feel sorry for the side using death droids against people living in that kind of squalor.

I mean that's just how most people perceive it right there and couple cartoons of Hamas shielding themselves with pregnant women and baby carriages isn't going to change that.

TheIronRuler:

.
*sigh*
Alright. Sorry, it's just that I have to repeat myself a lot of times. This is elementary for me.

Are you familiar with the racial biology that was at the heart of the Nazi Fascist ideology? Are you familiar with the centuries of antisemitism Jews suffered in Europe? Are you aware that after the rise of Nationalism Jews were seen as a nation with no land - a perplexing example and resisted the proper definition of nationalities at the time?

Homosexuality was a crime and remained such in many countries in Europe, the USA, (most of the allies). In fact, those gays held in prison by Nazi Germany often ended up in another prison for being gay. Homosexuality at the time was illegal in many places. It was perceived as immoral and unnatural. Furthermore, Homosexuals did not want for a nation, they wanted to be equal to other men and to be recognized as being normal the way they are.

Gypsies have no land to call their own as they are currently unaware of a particular piece of ancestral origins that they could even try to claim as their homeland.

Socialists? There was much socialism in Nazi germany - but it was of a different breed.

Communism is a political ideology. I don't see why Objectivists should form their own nation, and even if they did it would fail.

I'm aware of the first two questions, not really the third one.

I don't see the correlation between the video and communism (keep in mind I never played bioshock). as to it would fail, it's an opinion which I disagree.

You didn't really answer my question directly, just provided background. Is it just the difference between jews and other nazism victims is that Jews claimed land and the others didn't?

Keep in mind what made me intervene in this topic:
"The mistrust and trauma that the Jews suffered during that time brought the whole "never again" mentality.
Never again shall they be stripped of their rights and treated like cattle to the slaughter. Under their own country and their own government they were free to pursue their religion without persecution or the fear of being denied citizenship and rights, like it was in Nazi Germany"

Both gipsies, communists and gays felt that (and disabled people, and blacks etc), true that gays felt that everywhere, but point still stands for the other groups.

Shaoken:

What about homosexuals and gypsies? Both parties have been experiencing persecution over the course of history, and both suffered under Nazism (homosexuals even more so since they had the highest death rates in the camps because even amongst the other groups in there nobody helped the gays out). Yet I don't see Israelis giving a damn about them.

So their situations can be compared, you just refuse to do so because it's inconvient for your position.

It isn't about death rates, its about the characteristics of the group. Homosexuals aren't a race or religion, they have no physical (genetic) characteristic and there was never a shared land that was home to all homosexual's at some point.

"Gypsies" are the only ones who can really be compared, but the term its self is to vague. If you argued that the Roma, for example, are entitled to their own land, then he might be slightly obliged to agree with you. However the Roma and gypsies in general are by nature a nomadic culture, giving them land seems pointless as a result.

Anoni Mus:

TheIronRuler:

.
*sigh*
Alright. Sorry, it's just that I have to repeat myself a lot of times. This is elementary for me.

Are you familiar with the racial biology that was at the heart of the Nazi Fascist ideology? Are you familiar with the centuries of antisemitism Jews suffered in Europe? Are you aware that after the rise of Nationalism Jews were seen as a nation with no land - a perplexing example and resisted the proper definition of nationalities at the time?

Homosexuality was a crime and remained such in many countries in Europe, the USA, (most of the allies). In fact, those gays held in prison by Nazi Germany often ended up in another prison for being gay. Homosexuality at the time was illegal in many places. It was perceived as immoral and unnatural. Furthermore, Homosexuals did not want for a nation, they wanted to be equal to other men and to be recognized as being normal the way they are.

Gypsies have no land to call their own as they are currently unaware of a particular piece of ancestral origins that they could even try to claim as their homeland.

Socialists? There was much socialism in Nazi germany - but it was of a different breed.

Communism is a political ideology. I don't see why Objectivists should form their own nation, and even if they did it would fail.

I'm aware of the first two questions, not really the third one.

I don't see the correlation between the video and communism (keep in mind I never played bioshock). as to it would fail, it's an opinion which I disagree.

You didn't really answer my question directly, just provided background. Is it just the difference between jews and other nazism victims is that Jews claimed land and the others didn't?

Keep in mind what made me intervene in this topic:
"The mistrust and trauma that the Jews suffered during that time brought the whole "never again" mentality.
Never again shall they be stripped of their rights and treated like cattle to the slaughter. Under their own country and their own government they were free to pursue their religion without persecution or the fear of being denied citizenship and rights, like it was in Nazi Germany"

Both gipsies, communists and gays felt that (and disabled people, and blacks etc), true that gays felt that everywhere, but point still stands for the other groups.

.
Now I see the issue here. Jews weren't given their own country just because they were the victims of Germany during the Holocaust. I was referring to the scar that still remains within the Israeli Jewish psych because of that. It contributed to the urgency of such an enterprise, but it was already in place since the late 1880s and was officially recognized by a world super-power in 1917.

Lets see... there's this, for example.

TheIronRuler:

Shaoken:

TheIronRuler:

.
Their situations cannot be compared. You bringing this up shows you're not fully familiar with the topic.

What about homosexuals and gypsies? Both parties have been experiencing persecution over the course of history, and both suffered under Nazism (homosexuals even more so since they had the highest death rates in the camps because even amongst the other groups in there nobody helped the gays out). Yet I don't see Israelis giving a damn about them.

So their situations can be compared, you just refuse to do so because it's inconvient for your position.

.
I beg your pardon? What was just that I heard here?

Their situation can be compared, but the conclusions you draw are plain illogical.

You can't use the Holocaust as a blank check for Israeli attitudes when there were plenty of other groups that were in the same boat.

Also you literally just contradicted yourself; first you say their situations cannot be compared and accuse the other side of ignorance, then you say they can be compared.

"Yet I don't see Israelis giving a damn about them." - What is this about? What... I don't even... how...

Simple, you're (meaning you, the Iron Ruler) are using the Holocaust as justification for the lengths Israel is going to 'secure' their safety (and achieving the oppossite effect), yet Israel isn't really showing a great deal of concern about the plight of these other groups who went through the same hell. For such a great scar, you'd think they'd be leading a fight against such discrimination and intolerance across the world.

ratzofftoya:

Fair enough! But I would urge you to consider a few things:

1.)the possibility that ending the occupation would--however slow and frustrating the progress may be--lead to a safer and better Jewish state of Israel
2.)the fact that the IDF's actions, whether due to misguided leadership, poor execution, or a deep-seated trauma from the relatively recent Holocaust, are not an effective effort to protect their citizens
3.)Palestinian motivations may be slightly more complex than just uprooting Israelis

Also keep in mind that Hamas is the governing body of the Gaza strip, not Palestine.

Food for thought indeed. All of those points will definitely be on my mind next time this topic comes up again.

As for the last part, my mistake again. Honestly, I proof read it and everything, how did I not pick up on that?

TheIronRuler:

Anoni Mus:

TheIronRuler:

.
*sigh*
Alright. Sorry, it's just that I have to repeat myself a lot of times. This is elementary for me.

Are you familiar with the racial biology that was at the heart of the Nazi Fascist ideology? Are you familiar with the centuries of antisemitism Jews suffered in Europe? Are you aware that after the rise of Nationalism Jews were seen as a nation with no land - a perplexing example and resisted the proper definition of nationalities at the time?

Homosexuality was a crime and remained such in many countries in Europe, the USA, (most of the allies). In fact, those gays held in prison by Nazi Germany often ended up in another prison for being gay. Homosexuality at the time was illegal in many places. It was perceived as immoral and unnatural. Furthermore, Homosexuals did not want for a nation, they wanted to be equal to other men and to be recognized as being normal the way they are.

Gypsies have no land to call their own as they are currently unaware of a particular piece of ancestral origins that they could even try to claim as their homeland.

Socialists? There was much socialism in Nazi germany - but it was of a different breed.

Communism is a political ideology. I don't see why Objectivists should form their own nation, and even if they did it would fail.

I'm aware of the first two questions, not really the third one.

I don't see the correlation between the video and communism (keep in mind I never played bioshock). as to it would fail, it's an opinion which I disagree.

You didn't really answer my question directly, just provided background. Is it just the difference between jews and other nazism victims is that Jews claimed land and the others didn't?

Keep in mind what made me intervene in this topic:
"The mistrust and trauma that the Jews suffered during that time brought the whole "never again" mentality.
Never again shall they be stripped of their rights and treated like cattle to the slaughter. Under their own country and their own government they were free to pursue their religion without persecution or the fear of being denied citizenship and rights, like it was in Nazi Germany"

Both gipsies, communists and gays felt that (and disabled people, and blacks etc), true that gays felt that everywhere, but point still stands for the other groups.

.
Now I see the issue here. Jews weren't given their own country just because they were the victims of Germany during the Holocaust. I was referring to the scar that still remains within the Israeli Jewish psych because of that. It contributed to the urgency of such an enterprise, but it was already in place since the late 1880s and was officially recognized by a world super-power in 1917.

Lets see... there's this, for example.

Thanks, I'm really ignorant about Jewish issues pre WWII. Except we (Portugal) kicked them out a lot.

Champthrax:

Anyway, the source wasn't supposed to be the heart of my post, I was just using it as an example of the perceived bias I see against Israel. The point I am trying to make is that Israel is constantly condemned, yet Palestinians (though admittedly there are a lot of factions), behave in more violent and international law breaking ways, yet get mass international sympathy.

I think a problem with that is that Israel is pretty much considered a 'Western' country (like the US/UK) while Palestine is considered a 3rd world country. It's a case of Israel picks dicks as government because they're disks while Palestinians pick dicks as government because they don't have any real choice.

Palestine is let off the hook a lot more because it is considered as a lesser country (if that makes sense). Consider a petty crime (say, theft) a child will not be as harshly treated as an adult. That's the idea of Israel/Palestine. Israel is held to a higher standard as it is considered an equal to 1st world countries while Palestine is considered as a 2nd/3rd world country so we accept 'they're not as peaceful as us'. We let them off because we don't hold them to the same standards that we hold Israel to.

p.s. Before I get flamed, I personally think that's bullshit but that's my take on how the international community perceives the Israel/Palestine conflict.

TheIronRuler:
Do you think that the neighboring nations want a Palestinian state?

This appears to be what their negotiations are based on.

"this bears little relation whatsoever to is actually going on. Peace has existed for 4 decades, negotiations have been had two decades, and recognition has been offered (on the basis of a Palestinian state having existed)." - What the hell are you talking about? That's wrong.

Okay, more precisely, which Arab countries have invaded Israel since 1973? After that, it's been nothing but glorified policing and anti-terrorism operations where the only country to cross a border militarily has been Israel.

If you think the likes of Saudi Arabia have not been holding negotiations with Israel, I can only wonder whether you know as much about the situation as you claim.

I am saying that these nations demand Palestine 'independence' (with their conditions such as the '49 armistice borders, east Jerusalem as its capital, etc.) now because it will weaken Israel.

Will it?

Israel would lose some land it's settlers are on. Realistically, it's not even going to be the 1967 borders - Israel will get more than that, which the Palestinians and Arab states will accept. Israeli industry is going to lose its source of cheap Palestinian labour when the Palestinians can better develop their own economy.

One the plus side, some level of normalised relations - including trade - would be an enormous boon to Israel (and its neighbours). I don't imagine terrorism would cease for a l-o-n-g time, but then terrorism exists anyway. It would reduce the friction between Israel and the Arabs which incites hostility, although there again some ill-feeling is going to last a long time.

Militarily, who gives a damn? Israel has got nuclear weapons. No-one invades nuclear-armed states.

Agema:
This appears to be what their negotiations are based on.

Those countries carefully keep their own Palestinians behind fences and treat them like second rate citizens though. I'd say it's more wanting it to go at the expense of Israel, than wanting the situation for Palestinians to improve.

As a bonus, a Palestinian state at the expense of Israel would likely fix the Palestinian problem of many Arabic countries. I'm sure places like Lebanon or Jordan would be quite pleased to watch their Palestinians depart to a Palestinian state.

Agema:
Israel would lose some land it's settlers are on. Realistically, it's not even going to be the 1967 borders - Israel will get more than that, which the Palestinians and Arab states will accept.

While you're right that it will be a compromise based on the current situation if there will be peace, that's not what the Palestinians and some other Arab countries demand. They demand the 1967 borders, meaning the rigid application of that old outdated line in the sand, and demolition of entire cities, before they're even willing to sit down and talk.

Those unrealistic Palestinian demands are a major stumbling block for any negotiations there have been or could be.

I mean, that's like Mexico closing the borders with the US and making a big fuss untill they get Nevada, Utah, California, Colorado and New Mexico from the US.

Blablahb:
While you're right that it will be a compromise based on the current situation if there will be peace, that's not what the Palestinians... will accept

No. Obviously no, for anyone who pays attention to current affairs.

Actually, let's go further. Please accept this courtesy message that henceforth I am not replying to any of your posts on the Israel/Palestine issue until such a time as you can use factually-derived arguments. Your bias makes your substance sorely lacking to the point I resent even having to read them, never mind reply, and still more your willful disregard of contrary evidence when it is supplied.

Shaoken:

TheIronRuler:

Shaoken:

What about homosexuals and gypsies? Both parties have been experiencing persecution over the course of history, and both suffered under Nazism (homosexuals even more so since they had the highest death rates in the camps because even amongst the other groups in there nobody helped the gays out). Yet I don't see Israelis giving a damn about them.

So their situations can be compared, you just refuse to do so because it's inconvient for your position.

.
I beg your pardon? What was just that I heard here?

Their situation can be compared, but the conclusions you draw are plain illogical.

You can't use the Holocaust as a blank check for Israeli attitudes when there were plenty of other groups that were in the same boat.

Also you literally just contradicted yourself; first you say their situations cannot be compared and accuse the other side of ignorance, then you say they can be compared.

"Yet I don't see Israelis giving a damn about them." - What is this about? What... I don't even... how...

Simple, you're (meaning you, the Iron Ruler) are using the Holocaust as justification for the lengths Israel is going to 'secure' their safety (and achieving the oppossite effect), yet Israel isn't really showing a great deal of concern about the plight of these other groups who went through the same hell. For such a great scar, you'd think they'd be leading a fight against such discrimination and intolerance across the world.

.
"Simple, you're (meaning you, the Iron Ruler) are using the Holocaust as justification for the lengths Israel is going to 'secure' their safety (and achieving the oppossite effect), " - I didn't say that.

"yet Israel isn't really showing a great deal of concern about the plight of these other groups who went through the same hell." - If it matters, gay intercourse had been illegal in Israel since it had inherited the British legal code, but Israel's Attorney General effectively denied to enforce these laws in court since the early 1950s. It was officially decriminalized in '88.
.

Anoni Mus:

TheIronRuler:

Anoni Mus:

I'm aware of the first two questions, not really the third one.

I don't see the correlation between the video and communism (keep in mind I never played bioshock). as to it would fail, it's an opinion which I disagree.

You didn't really answer my question directly, just provided background. Is it just the difference between jews and other nazism victims is that Jews claimed land and the others didn't?

Keep in mind what made me intervene in this topic:
"The mistrust and trauma that the Jews suffered during that time brought the whole "never again" mentality.
Never again shall they be stripped of their rights and treated like cattle to the slaughter. Under their own country and their own government they were free to pursue their religion without persecution or the fear of being denied citizenship and rights, like it was in Nazi Germany"

Both gipsies, communists and gays felt that (and disabled people, and blacks etc), true that gays felt that everywhere, but point still stands for the other groups.

.
Now I see the issue here. Jews weren't given their own country just because they were the victims of Germany during the Holocaust. I was referring to the scar that still remains within the Israeli Jewish psych because of that. It contributed to the urgency of such an enterprise, but it was already in place since the late 1880s and was officially recognized by a world super-power in 1917.

Lets see... there's this, for example.

Thanks, I'm really ignorant about Jewish issues pre WWII. Except we (Portugal) kicked them out a lot.

.
It's alright, I was happy to help.
.

Agema:

TheIronRuler:
Do you think that the neighboring nations want a Palestinian state?

This appears to be what their negotiations are based on.

"this bears little relation whatsoever to is actually going on. Peace has existed for 4 decades, negotiations have been had two decades, and recognition has been offered (on the basis of a Palestinian state having existed)." - What the hell are you talking about? That's wrong.

Okay, more precisely, which Arab countries have invaded Israel since 1973? After that, it's been nothing but glorified policing and anti-terrorism operations where the only country to cross a border militarily has been Israel.

If you think the likes of Saudi Arabia have not been holding negotiations with Israel, I can only wonder whether you know as much about the situation as you claim.

I am saying that these nations demand Palestine 'independence' (with their conditions such as the '49 armistice borders, east Jerusalem as its capital, etc.) now because it will weaken Israel.

Will it?

Israel would lose some land it's settlers are on. Realistically, it's not even going to be the 1967 borders - Israel will get more than that, which the Palestinians and Arab states will accept. Israeli industry is going to lose its source of cheap Palestinian labour when the Palestinians can better develop their own economy.

One the plus side, some level of normalised relations - including trade - would be an enormous boon to Israel (and its neighbours). I don't imagine terrorism would cease for a l-o-n-g time, but then terrorism exists anyway. It would reduce the friction between Israel and the Arabs which incites hostility, although there again some ill-feeling is going to last a long time.

Militarily, who gives a damn? Israel has got nuclear weapons. No-one invades nuclear-armed states.

.
"This appears to be what their negotiations are based on." - I beg your pardom? Do you might clarifying this a bit more?
.
"Okay, more precisely, which Arab countries have invaded Israel since 1973? After that, it's been nothing but glorified policing and anti-terrorism operations where the only country to cross a border militarily has been Israel." - There's the first Lebanon war, for example... There's a list you can look at, but what you've said isn't true.
.
"If you think the likes of Saudi Arabia have not been holding negotiations with Israel, I can only wonder whether you know as much about the situation as you claim." - Oh, they have been doing so as a mediator in the region to try and facilitate an agreement between Israel and the Palestinians (together with other Arab nations). If a Palestinian nation is formed, bordering Jordan... oh boy it'll be fun to watch events unfold. Poor Hashemite family. It still doesn't matter that a Jew is barred from entering Saudi Arabia, punishable by death.
.
"Will it?
Israel would lose some land it's settlers are on. Realistically, it's not even going to be the 1967 borders - Israel will get more than that, which the Palestinians and Arab states will accept. Israeli industry is going to lose its source of cheap Palestinian labour when the Palestinians can better develop their own economy."-Some Palestinians will still seek employment in Israel... tell that to the Mexicans who go over the border to the USA to work. This labor is illegal most of the time, so it will only benefit Israel for the long run. I'm talking also about East Jerusalem, and the 500 thousand civilians living there and in the west bank.

"One the plus side, some level of normalised relations - including trade - would be an enormous boon to Israel (and its neighbours). I don't imagine terrorism would cease for a l-o-n-g time, but then terrorism exists anyway. It would reduce the friction between Israel and the Arabs which incites hostility, although there again some ill-feeling is going to last a long time." - Oh, trade is still there between the Palestinians and Israel. They depend on Israel's large ports, and even if they get their Gazan Ports operating they need to move through Israel territory to get their produce from the West Bank there...

"Militarily, who gives a damn? Israel has got nuclear weapons. No-one invades nuclear-armed states."-Maybe that is one of the reasons why there hasn't been a large-scale orchestrated assault on Israel for 40 years... and why Israel is so adamant against Iran's nuclear programs.

TheIronRuler:

"This appears to be what their negotiations are based on." - I beg your pardom? Do you might clarifying this a bit more?

That's not a quote of mine, for a start. Saudi Arabia clearly has some negotiating with Israel, mostly mediation of the peace process. There are also rumours it in cahoots with and co-operative with Israel against Iran. How true, I do not know.

There's the first Lebanon war, for example... There's a list you can look at, but what you've said isn't true.

Israel invaded Lebanon, you know. Over terrorism. I'm not sure it even declared war.

It still doesn't matter that a Jew is barred from entering Saudi Arabia, punishable by death.

Oh it does, and its reprehensible. Along with an awful lot of other reprehensible stuff Saudi Arabia gets up to.
.

-Some Palestinians will still seek employment in Israel... tell that to the Mexicans who go over the border to the USA to work. This labor is illegal most of the time, so it will only benefit Israel for the long run. I'm talking also about East Jerusalem, and the 500 thousand civilians living there and in the west bank.

It's beneficial in ways, but not in others. Depends on circumstances, which sector of the community, and so on. Fairly obviously, if you have more jobs than workers, immigrant workers are very much advantageous.

Oh, trade is still there between the Palestinians and Israel. They depend on Israel's large ports, and even if they get their Gazan Ports operating they need to move through Israel territory to get their produce from the West Bank there...

I'm not thinking about the Palestinians: all the countries that don't or restrict trade with Israel,

Maybe that is one of the reasons why there hasn't been a large-scale orchestrated assault on Israel for 40 years... and why Israel is so adamant against Iran's nuclear programs.

Everyone except Iran hates the idea of Iran having nukes. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if Saudi Arabia hates (or perhaps more accurately its regime fears) Iran more than Israel.

There other reasons no-one has orchestrated a large-scale invasion of Israel. Israel has a near top-notch modern military and all it's neighbours have very much second- or third-rate militaries, and surely they've learned the lessons of 1948, 1967 and 1973 that it just doesn't work out very well.

Agema:
Actually, let's go further. Please accept this courtesy message that henceforth I am not replying to any of your posts on the Israel/Palestine issue until such a time as you can use factually-derived arguments. Your bias makes your substance sorely lacking to the point I resent even having to read them, never mind reply, and still more your willful disregard of contrary evidence when it is supplied.

Yeah, I mean, Hamas being a terrorist movement, who has taken into their mission statement that they want to destroy Israel, and refuses to negotiate about any form of peace, I'm clearly just making that up...

I'm also making up that Fatah violate peacedeals. I mean, Israelis getting lynched after being arrested despite previous agreements about Fatah policing certain areas I'm clearly just making that up.

And that Fatah itself also gets down with terrorism, more proof that they don't care about peace, that's also just a lie. No such thing like the Al Aqsa Brigades exist.

Just for the record, Gypsies do have a country. It's called India.

And no, that isn't me making some kind of weird joke, the Roma are ethnically Indians.

PrinceOfShapeir:
Just for the record, Gypsies do have a country. It's called India.

And no, that isn't me making some kind of weird joke, the Roma are ethnically Indians.

.
You're only half-right - the area where researchers think they came from was north-west (modern) India, but the actual piece of land where they came from is unknown.

Let's see Palestine was a Britain colony that was given to the Jews after WW2. Palestine fought and lost Israel, and has been stuck in a rut that they could have just as easily rebuild and set off from there, but ideology prevail where logic failed. The end result being two sides that have been playing "woe is me card" while being massive cunts, like selling America tech to China and getting billions of dollars in aid, or Hamas who has the wonderful idea of launching rockets strikes from a heavily populate area, and cries foul when:
A)Israel having a better defense minimize civilian casualties.
B)Gets a strike, where they and the people who lives in Gaza are now casualties and colloteral damage.
C)Launches terrorist strikes at civilians.
Oh wait, turns out that is a good idea, because people are ignorant and looks at the casualties numbers, thus placing yourself in a heavily populate area and attacking a superior force and getting decimate by said force gives you the underdog status, and sympathy points, because your side have bigger losses, along with civilian casualties. Anyway what's going to happen is that they will either do talks, or go to war. Thought that statehood is a catch-22 as now if Hamas launches a strike, it counts as their government doing so. Losing them sympathy points. Either way I don't care about Israel nor Palestine, and if I had to pick a side, I would go with Israel because my country happens to be ally with them, even if they are a pretty shitty ally.

ratzofftoya:

-snip-

.
I was meaning to answer earlier, but I postponed it more than a couple of times. Anyway, I'm back.
.
"OK. While you're obviously very learned on this topic and intelligent in general, we seem to be at an ideological impasse with regard to some of these issues, including acceptable levels of violence against Palestinian civilians and acceptable levels of general dickishness with regard to collateral damage." - What issues in general? I see that Israel should see the safety of its civilians and soldiers before it cares for the safety of other civilians who are caught in the crossfire. They need to take some responsibility as well, and although some times it's impossible to avoid, often if you stay away from the military force the enemy is fighting against you can stay safe. An example would be the mass movement of Palestinians from neighborhoods where IDF dropped leaflets for them to leave so they could bomb the place. They ran out of these neighborhoods and were kept in the UN schools for a few days until the fighting stopped. There's always an assessment of risk vs. reward and how much of a chance there is for civilian casualties. You have no idea how many targets are spared because there's a high risk of killing civilians. General dickishness with regard to collateral damage? Did you just used the word "dick" as an adjective?
.
"But the Israeli occupation of Gaza is fact." - Nope!
.
"In 2007, John Dugard, then UN Special Rapporteur on the Situation of Human Rights in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, explained that the manifestations of Israel's continuing effective control include: (a) substantial control of Gaza's six land crossings; (b) control through military incursions, rocket attacks and sonic booms, and the declaration of areas inside the Strip as "no-go" zones where anyone who enters can be shot; (c) complete control of Gaza's airspace and territorial waters; and (d) control of the Palestinian Population Registry, which has the power and authority to define who is a "Palestinian" and who is a resident of Gaza." - Israel is blockading Gaza - an action it is legally allowed to do. Same goes with the naval blockade. The fence is understandable. It gets a little iffy when the IDF declared some dozens of meters from the fence as a 'no-man's land', but it's still within its capabilities - it warns those inside in advance not to approach. There had been cases when people infiltrate the fence and get through. Most recent of which is this one:
http://www.inquisitr.com/415311/jewish-mother-fights-off-armed-gaza-terrorist-with-krav-maga-video/
http://www.algemeiner.com/2012/11/26/israeli-woman-fights-off-knife-wielding-terrorist-intruder/
You know when this was? After the Hamas-IDF ceasefire.


This was done before, but in the west bank:
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4041237,00.html

Ehm... Checkpoints&shit have soldiers require information from Palestinian citizens. Israel refuses to change the addresses of people who moved from Gaza to the West Bank... because Gaza is currently under blockade. You're not supposed to leave and come to the West Bank. If you've done so you either did it illegally or... er... illegally. Now, what is being done with those before 2005 is explained... here. BTW I do loathe many of these organizations, so it took me some courage to search their pages.
.
"To these must be added Israel's continuing capacity to invade Gaza, arrest residents, and transport them into Israel. In the wake of Israel's unilateral disengagement, which included the dissolution of the military court at the Erez base on the edge of Gaza, the Knesset enacted the 2006 Criminal Procedure Law to allow for the prosecution of Gazans in Israeli civil courts, and their imprisonment inside Israel. Moreover, on the very day Israel implemented the completion of its unilateral disengagement plan (12 September 2005), the military issued detention orders for two Gazans under the 2002 Internment of Unlawful Combatants Law. That Israeli law (modeled on the military order issued by US President George W. Bush on 13 November 2001) was originally promulgated to provide legal cover for the imprisonment of kidnapped Lebanese nationals who were to be used as "bargaining chips" in exchange for Israeli prisoners of war and the remains of those who had been killed in Lebanon. Since 2005, that law has been used primarily to administratively detain (i.e., imprison without trial) Gazans."- "invade" Gaza? Arresting criminals isn't something I would call a sign of occupation. Counter-Terrorism, yes, but not occupation.
.
"According to Addameer, the Prisoner Support and Human Rights Association, as of 1 November 2012, 445 Gazans were imprisoned in Israel. The International Committee of the Red Cross reports a higher figure of 550." - Yes? What of this data?
.
"Since 2007, when Dugard offered up his authoritative calculus, much has changed, but none of these changes support the contention that Israel does not exercise effective control over Gaza. Sara Roy, in a recent Boston Globe article, offers examples of how, despite the absence of a military administration, Israel continues to control what happens "on the ground" on a daily basis. She writes:"-...
.
"Israeli-imposed buffer zones-areas of restricted access-now absorb nearly 14 percent of Gaza's total land and at least 48 percent of total arable land. Similarly, the sea buffer zone covers 85 percent of the maritime area promised to Palestinians in the Oslo Accords, reducing 20 nautical miles to three, where waters are fouled by sewage flows in excess of 23 million gallons daily." - Are you repeating yourself? You've probably copy pasted a few articles together. I've talked about the buffer zone policy earlier and the validity of the "no-man's land". Israel has such borders with Lebanon and Syria, and there you have UN observers to watch the hot border. Of course the problem here is that these guys don't do much and they're mostly a formality. Additionally, Palestine isn't a country within the UN, like Israel, Lebanon and Syria.
"the sea buffer zone covers 85 percent of the [maritime area promised to Palestinians in the Oslo Accords"- I beg your pardon? The fuck is this shit? How dare anyone mention the Oslo Accords in regards to Hamas, when the accord was struck between the PLO and Israel, not Hamas or the Palestinian people.
.
"Assaf Kfoury, who traveled into Gaza as part of an academic delegation in October, summarizes some of the well-documented elements of Israel's ongoing effective control. He writes:" - ...
.
"The Gaza Strip is hemmed in from all sides. The Israeli naval blockade prevents all transport of people and goods from the sea. The land border with Israel is tightly sealed. Rafah at the southern edge of the Strip...is the only and hard way in and out, via Egypt, for the vast majority of Palestinians. Israel controls the Erez crossing, strictly monitoring entry of international aid workers, journalists, and a trickle of Palestinians...Over past decades and years, Palestinian industry has been systematically sabotaged in favor of Israeli industry, including industry (or whatever is worthy of the name) in Gaza, whose economy is essentially controlled by Israel. Most alarming is a recent UN report, Gaza in 2020, which suggests that Gaza will no longer be a "livable place" in 2020."-He is probably refering to the fact that Israel allows very very few exports from Gaza and brings in only the necessary humanitarian aid the strip needs, so yes Israel doesn't allow the Gaza economy to "thrive". However you need to understand that exporting Goods from Gaza is a pain in the ass - Soldiers in the crossings have to check every container and there is much danger of explosives and others hurting soldiers. The risk is too much for those people, and Israel isn't really obliged to allow Gaza to export anything from its crossings.
"Most alarming is a recent UN report, Gaza in 2020, which suggests that Gaza will no longer be a "livable place" in 2020." - I remember a report about the world melting in twenty years, thirty year ago. So what? Geo-political situations change, so do statistics. Nothing goes in a straight line.
.
"Turning one's back to the misery inland, and looking out to the Mediterranean and its shimmering waters, should normally be a soothing escape, but not in Gaza. Our mornings over breakfast at the hotel were punctuated by gunfire from somewhere off shore. These were not dynamite sticks that kids or poor people detonated underwater to collect large quantities of stunned fish, as I initially thought, but gunfire from Israeli patrol boats warning fishermen to stay inside the three nautical-mile limit. On the morning we left the Strip, we were told that two fishermen who went beyond the limit were killed the day before." - So a bunch of fishermen go over the imaginary line and get shot for doing that? It's not too different from people who get shot when they run at the fence in full speed.

TheIronRuler:

-snip-

Great. You've provided clearly biased justifications for each of the points I've offered. These justifications are pretty much unacceptable to most people in the world, hence the horrendous levels of support for Israel and its policies.

What you haven't done is refute my argument that each of the points I made amounts to "effective control over" and therefore "continued occupation of" Gaza.

Which is to say...that was an awfully long-winded concession speech you just wrote.

ratzofftoya:

TheIronRuler:

-snip-

Great. You've provided clearly biased justifications for each of the points I've offered. These justifications are pretty much unacceptable to most people in the world, hence the horrendous levels of support for Israel and its policies.

What you haven't done is refute my argument that each of the points I made amounts to "effective control over" and therefore "continued occupation of" Gaza.

Which is to say...that was an awfully long-winded concession speech you just wrote.

.
...So you've read what I wrote and you don't agree with me? Like earlier, instead of addressing each issue you just pack it all into one unit and say I'm wrong or biased. I've said it earlier and I will say it again, the place is not occupied by Israel. Israel closed its borders to Gaza and it deploys a naval blockade of the strip's ports. It preforms routine border patrols that do sometimes go over the fence when they are dealing with combatants shooting at them from the other side or other issues that require their attention (like defusing explosive tunnels).

TheIronRuler:
So a bunch of fishermen go over the imaginary line and get shot for doing that? It's not too different from people who get shot when they run at the fence in full speed.

This is the kind of attitude the rest of the world needs towards Israeli deaths until Israelis learn to stop being so self centered.

TheIronRuler:

ratzofftoya:

TheIronRuler:

-snip-

Great. You've provided clearly biased justifications for each of the points I've offered. These justifications are pretty much unacceptable to most people in the world, hence the horrendous levels of support for Israel and its policies.

What you haven't done is refute my argument that each of the points I made amounts to "effective control over" and therefore "continued occupation of" Gaza.

Which is to say...that was an awfully long-winded concession speech you just wrote.

.
...So you've read what I wrote and you don't agree with me? Like earlier, instead of addressing each issue you just pack it all into one unit and say I'm wrong or biased. I've said it earlier and I will say it again, the place is not occupied by Israel. Israel closed its borders to Gaza and it deploys a naval blockade of the strip's ports. It preforms routine border patrols that do sometimes go over the fence when they are dealing with combatants shooting at them from the other side or other issues that require their attention (like defusing explosive tunnels).

Effective control is determined by a totality of the circumstances. It's abundantly clear to the Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, UN members, most sane citizens of the world, and non-chauvinists living within Israel that Gaza is occupied by Israel.

I suppose one ought to deal with you the same way I deal with my parents' views regarding race and the like. It's pretty clear in terms of world opinion and conscience what's going on. History will vindicate the oppressed and condemn the guilty (on both sides of this conflict). The way Israel is conducting itself now is a stain upon the record of human history and, of special importance to me, Jewish history. Your insistence on continuing to piss in the wind doesn't really merit my intervention, since even changing your narrow mind will likely do little to stop your leaders.

Dijkstra:

TheIronRuler:
So a bunch of fishermen go over the imaginary line and get shot for doing that? It's not too different from people who get shot when they run at the fence in full speed.

This is the kind of attitude the rest of the world needs towards Israeli deaths until Israelis learn to stop being so self centered.

.
I beg your pardon? What was that post about? Suddenly I represent all of the people of my nation?

ratzofftoya:

TheIronRuler:

ratzofftoya:

Great. You've provided clearly biased justifications for each of the points I've offered. These justifications are pretty much unacceptable to most people in the world, hence the horrendous levels of support for Israel and its policies.

What you haven't done is refute my argument that each of the points I made amounts to "effective control over" and therefore "continued occupation of" Gaza.

Which is to say...that was an awfully long-winded concession speech you just wrote.

.
...So you've read what I wrote and you don't agree with me? Like earlier, instead of addressing each issue you just pack it all into one unit and say I'm wrong or biased. I've said it earlier and I will say it again, the place is not occupied by Israel. Israel closed its borders to Gaza and it deploys a naval blockade of the strip's ports. It preforms routine border patrols that do sometimes go over the fence when they are dealing with combatants shooting at them from the other side or other issues that require their attention (like defusing explosive tunnels).

Effective control is determined by a totality of the circumstances. It's abundantly clear to the Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, UN members, most sane citizens of the world, and non-chauvinists living within Israel that Gaza is occupied by Israel.

I suppose one ought to deal with you the same way I deal with my parents' views regarding race and the like. It's pretty clear in terms of world opinion and conscience what's going on. History will vindicate the oppressed and condemn the guilty (on both sides of this conflict). The way Israel is conducting itself now is a stain upon the record of human history and, of special importance to me, Jewish history. Your insistence on continuing to piss in the wind doesn't really merit my intervention, since even changing your narrow mind will likely do little to stop your leaders.

.
My narrow mind? Way to go man, I respond to your allegations with counter-arguments and you go "nope", then proceed to insult me and my country. I thought this conversation was going somewhere.

TheIronRuler:

Dijkstra:

TheIronRuler:
So a bunch of fishermen go over the imaginary line and get shot for doing that? It's not too different from people who get shot when they run at the fence in full speed.

This is the kind of attitude the rest of the world needs towards Israeli deaths until Israelis learn to stop being so self centered.

.
I beg your pardon? What was that post about? Suddenly I represent all of the people of my nation?

Why not? I see you justifying a lot of what your nation does in regards to harming other civilians as for the good of your people. I'm sure plenty of others see it that way. So I think you guys deserve to see what it's like yourselves.

Dijkstra:

TheIronRuler:

Dijkstra:

This is the kind of attitude the rest of the world needs towards Israeli deaths until Israelis learn to stop being so self centered.

.
I beg your pardon? What was that post about? Suddenly I represent all of the people of my nation?

Why not? I see you justifying a lot of what your nation does in regards to harming other civilians as for the good of your people. I'm sure plenty of others see it that way. So I think you guys deserve to see what it's like yourselves.

.
"I see you justifying a lot of what your nation does in regards to harming other civilians as for the good of your people." - I don't know, if I stop someone from running at me at full speed with an axe and I shoot him, I shouldn't feel too guilty about not letting him kill me.

"I'm sure plenty of others see it that way."- No, you don't.

"So I think you guys deserve to see what it's like yourselves."-

TheIronRuler:

Dijkstra:

TheIronRuler:

.
I beg your pardon? What was that post about? Suddenly I represent all of the people of my nation?

Why not? I see you justifying a lot of what your nation does in regards to harming other civilians as for the good of your people. I'm sure plenty of others see it that way. So I think you guys deserve to see what it's like yourselves.

.
"I see you justifying a lot of what your nation does in regards to harming other civilians as for the good of your people." - I don't know, if I stop someone from running at me at full speed with an axe to get by and get some food and I shoot him, I shouldn't feel too guilty about not letting him kill me.

Israeli mentality right there. See the word civilians? This is why people need to treat the Israelis like the pariahs they should be.

"I'm sure plenty of others see it that way."- No, you don't.

Yes, I do.

"So I think you guys deserve to see what it's like yourselves."-

You're welcome. Just saying, all your crap about how your own defense is priority one over any innocents proves you don't deserve to be defended.

Dijkstra:

TheIronRuler:

Dijkstra:

Why not? I see you justifying a lot of what your nation does in regards to harming other civilians as for the good of your people. I'm sure plenty of others see it that way. So I think you guys deserve to see what it's like yourselves.

.
"I see you justifying a lot of what your nation does in regards to harming other civilians as for the good of your people." - I don't know, if I stop someone from running at me at full speed with an axe to get by and get some food and I shoot him, I shouldn't feel too guilty about not letting him kill me.

Israeli mentality right there. See the word civilians? This is why people need to treat the Israelis like the pariahs they should be.

"I'm sure plenty of others see it that way."- No, you don't.

Yes, I do.

"So I think you guys deserve to see what it's like yourselves."-

You're welcome. Just saying, all your crap about how your own defense is priority one over any innocents proves you don't deserve to be defended.

.
I am offended by what you've said. You generalize a whole country's people and tell me I deserve to die. I am not comfortable with talking with you any longer. I have put you on my ignore list. You will not provoke me any longer.

TheIronRuler:

My narrow mind? Way to go man, I respond to your allegations with counter-arguments and you go "nope", then proceed to insult me and my country. I thought this conversation was going somewhere.

Actually, I started off insulting your country's actions. That's not a recent development. Your country's actions are those of a callous neighborhood bully. Or maybe it's more akin to someone who got picked on in high school coming back to the reunion with some judo skills and trying to prove to everyone how much ass he can kick now. You haven't offered a single counter-argument to my statement (again, backed up by every respected human rights organization in the entire world) that a look at the totality of circumstances shows that Gaza is occupied. Until you agree to that, you are simply a blind bigot.

ratzofftoya:

TheIronRuler:

My narrow mind? Way to go man, I respond to your allegations with counter-arguments and you go "nope", then proceed to insult me and my country. I thought this conversation was going somewhere.

Actually, I started off insulting your country's actions. That's not a recent development. Your country's actions are those of a callous neighborhood bully. Or maybe it's more akin to someone who got picked on in high school coming back to the reunion with some judo skills and trying to prove to everyone how much ass he can kick now. You haven't offered a single counter-argument to my statement (again, backed up by every respected human rights organization in the entire world) that a look at the totality of circumstances shows that Gaza is occupied. Until you agree to that, you are simply a blind bigot.

.
How am I a bigot? I don't agree with your assertion and you then treat me this way. Moreover, before we even entered the subject of the gaza strip region we have a conversation you diverted away from. Hell, you've told me this:
"OK. While you're obviously very learned on this topic and intelligent in general, we seem to be at an ideological impasse with regard to some of these issues, including acceptable levels of violence against Palestinian civilians and acceptable levels of general dickishness with regard to collateral damage."
Which was very civil, an attitude I've seen from you before. Now that I don't agree with your assertion and I present my counterarguments you are entrenched in your position and call me a bigot for defending mine. You point at some of the world's top organizations in matter of human rights who say that the situation in Gaza is the one of occupation, yet the fact remains that Israel does not exert control over the territory it would have had if it was actually occupied. What you've presented is the way Israel cuts off Gaza from the outside world, an action that is also allowed by Egypt to continue (and the geographic location of Gaza). This, although hinders those inside of Gaza massively are not evidence of an Israel occupation. These are very harsh policies made as a result of Hamas taking the strip hostage and continued ever since 2006. This isn't just a militia organization within the strip - they administer all of the areas in their control and even exert (although somewhat limited) control over other armed organizations in the area, a control Israel doesn't have. They are a political entity, a de-facto government of the region. How can Israel exert its control over the area if Hamas is sitting smack in the middle of it?

Apologies about the late reply, I was busy the last couple of days with school.

ratzofftoya:

You're right. Sorry. I was thinking of the three civilians who died as a result of the Israeli response to the response.

Instead of being sarcastic, just admitting you made a mistake would suffice.

ratzofftoya:

That doesn't absolve Hamas for how they treat people in their own territory

Uh, yes. Right. But we're talking about attacks from Israel to Gaza and vice-versa, and their impact on civilians. So that's really orthogonal to the discussion, is it not?

Not really, I was just countering your claim that "Hamas has no such duty" to protect civilians and treat them properly. Being occupied doesn't absolve you from treating civlians in a humane fashion.

ratzofftoya:

I'm not sure what makes you so incredulous about this, since it was right in the article you posted.

Ah, my mistake. Sorry.

ratzofftoya:
So all of the information about these missiles is taken from an Israeli security official, a person in Israeli government. That's propaganda--not because it's necessarily false, but because it's certainly disseminated to advance a particular cause.

So let me get this straight, your not debating what was said, just who said it and their motivation might be behind informing others? That seems quite petty.

ratzofftoya:

As for the quality of Hamas's weapons, they have their sources

That article is from 1.5 years after the attack described in the NYT article, so it's entirely irrelevant.

From 2009.

ratzofftoya:
The numbers speak for themselves. According to Israeli human rights groups (most prominently B'tselem): 18 Israelis killed by Gaza-based Palestinian Groups between December of 2008 (the end of Cast Lead) and October 2012. 1,661 Palestinians in Gaza killed by Israel during that same time. In 2011 alone (the relevant timeframe in terms of that article), Israeli forces killed or injured 168 women and children in Gaza. Each of these--in addition to the 1 injury on the school bus--is a tragedy.

I never argued that Palestinian people were not killed by the Israeli military.

ratzofftoya:
It's also pathetic to say that the casualties on the Gaza side are unintentional, if "intent" encompasses "wonton disregard," as it does in American criminal law.

Call it whatever you like, the Israelis don't intentionally target Palestinian civilians. The same can't be said about Hamas.

TheIronRuler:

Homosexuality was a crime and remained such in many countries in Europe, the USA, (most of the allies). In fact, those gays held in prison by Nazi Germany often ended up in another prison for being gay. Homosexuality at the time was illegal in many places. It was perceived as immoral and unnatural. Furthermore, Homosexuals did not want for a nation, they wanted to be equal to other men and to be recognized as being normal the way they are.

Im sorry to delve into this subject again but illuminate me. Im honestly interested. Can you answer a few questions for me?

If homosexuals DID demand such a state for themselves and wish to possess one why wouldnt they be entitled to one also? Is it simply due to their lack of interest or shared heritage?

Another key question for me is WHY do Jewish people want their own state. You said "They wanted to be equal to other men and recognised as normal" which is a lovely sentiment. Why dont those of jewish descent seek the exact same recognition? After all be you atheist, jewish, native american or homosexual youre going to be a small minority in most countries and likely the country of your birth (not ancestry) but this doesnt necessitate a separate state. Integration and acceptance into a community seem perfectly fine things to strive for rather than a bit of land where we can be the majority. "Home is where the hearth is" and such? Surely the lack of a "Land to call home" isnt such a pressing issue that a new nation is simply the only answer. Finding a home in other cultures via integration is very possible and very rewarding.

Its not that i take issue with Isreal as a state at all, live and let live and such. Its just this conflict seems totally pointless looking at it from either side. I mean honestly a "Land to call home" is nice and all but how many childrens lives is it worth for any or either side. Call me soft and weak but if even a single man has to die to take a random bit of land to be mine when i can happily live and share "someone elses" (not really, its as much mine as it is anyone elses) land and retain my heritage its not worth it. I just cant justify the price of a single life to do something that to me doesnt seem totally necessary for a happy well integrated life. How much blood must soak the sands before we agree they just arnt worth the effort. Id have thought after such trauma the Jewish people would desire peace and tranquility over more violence and war. I can see motivation for sure, just not enough motivation to make any of these deaths even partially worth while or for a worthy goal. I dont understand why either side would continue to fight.

(Disclaimer: I know MANY jewish people integrate with other cultures and do not wish to live in isreal, i am only talking of those who do)

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked