The same protection? Each subset of religious/ethnic identity gets it's own heavily armed nation carved out of land someone else lived on?Nope - just the right to be treated as a human being, subject to the same rights and responsibilities as the guy standing next to him.Oh. Fine then, we agree on that.
I was discussing the need of Jews to have a state of their own for protection. Particularly why they need to have one, but not every other persecuted minority.
That's a slippery slope counter point.
I think Europe, Russia have pretty routinely shown they are not places that protect Jews.
It's like a woman living with a man who beats her, sure, he's been nice the past couple months, but would you blame her for wanting her own place after suffering decades of abuse? The last 60 years have been better, but 900 years of repression, murder and genocide are going to have an impact.
The Arab Spring hasn't been kind to Jews either. There have been Jewish communities in Tunisia since the Roman empire. They are now experiencing a heightening level of threats and intimidation and are quickly leaving. It's been in decline since Israel was remade, but it's accelerating. This has been happening across the Arab region.
There isn't exactly a lot of people stepping up to protect them. One of the Popes did, don't remember which one exactly, it was the same time they were being kicked out of Spain. They were allowed to live in a single neighborhood. The next Pope built a wall around it.
So, feel free to argue your "not every group can have their own country", but it sounds like a s*@$ argument to me that only deals with vague generalities instead of what has actually happened to these people.
Well, then, how has the Israeli state made Tunisian Jews more safe? They get shat on in Tunis and then move to Israel and get hit by Gaza rockets?
Eh, what the heck.
I agree, it'd be great if all minorities could be protected. I think every situation is different, so the solution for the Jewish people might not be the right solution for Aluites, or Hmong. Just because another minority is being persecuted or might be persecuted does not mean that the Jews don't deserve to protect themselves.
I fully agree that Israel is part of the problem. Not because of their existence, but their use of violence. Violence can never solve the problem of violence, I agree.
It's a complex issue, and yes Israel has done some really awful things. But I also see a severe lack of empathy for how they got to where they are.
So you're saying all the attempted peace agreements and ceasefires are lies?
...words cannot describe how insulting that post is*, and how it reeks of propaganda.
* = And by that I mean it's insulting to every person on both sides who wants peace instead of war!!
Taking a short divergence on the pepperoni issue - you can get halal and kosher pepperoni (they are typically made of beef or chicken).
You still can't mix those with dairy!
Not just because terrorists have been attacking Israel in the last 50 years,
but because it seems like the world has hardly ever been a nice place to live in for jews.
Poland between XIII and XVI/XVII century. It changed, regretfully.
(warning: there are serious differneces between Polish version and English version, including the number of points in the statute - maybe I try to find some sources later and correct one or the other version).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...words cannot describe how insulting that post is*, and how it reeks of propaganda.
WOLF! WOLF!
Oh.. wait..
Come on. You are really overplaying that card. Not everything that disagrees with your view can be dismissed as propaganda. Not everything said about Israel is antisemitism.
He was claiming that every ceasefire and attempted peace agreement in the area was basically a lie.
How can I not feel insulted here? Also, stop accusing me of playing a card that's not there in this situation.
...words cannot describe how insulting that post is*, and how it reeks of propaganda.
WOLF! WOLF!
Oh.. wait..
Come on. You are really overplaying that card. Not everything that disagrees with your view can be dismissed as propaganda. Not everything said about Israel is antisemitism.
Actually I must say that Angstspawn post went a bit too far implying sole responsibility for the lack of peaceful solution on Israel. While Icyshadow certainly were overreacting to some of the previous posts that one was offensive and unfair.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
He was claiming that every ceasefire and attempted peace agreement in the area was basically a lie.
If you think he's wrong then SHOW him. Reason with him, explain your point of view. He's laid out why he thinks the peace talks are disingenuous. If you have nothing else to throw but ad homs then you need to rethink your argument if not your position.
And i think there's some truth to what he's saying. Its how the US wound up being... well, the US. Offer a peace treaty, take a little land. Wait for the next flare up in conflicts, beat them militarily, take a little more. Force another move into an unustainable area, wait for the flare up... wash rinse repeat. Time, hindsight, and distance have made that view more obvious, even if someone would have been denounced for it while it was occuring.
How can I not feel insulted here?
Unless you're the one writing the peace treaty or high in the Isreali government he's not insulting you. He thinks you're incorrect, not lying. You (along with the rest of the planet) are being lied to along with the Palestinians. "I think a politician is lying for their own advantage" is neither an insult nor is it exactly confined to the criticism of Israeli politicians.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's slightly more complicated than that of course, people in Europe had long hundreds of years to develop a very specific kind of society, and one of the outcomes of that society is very low birth rate. Suddenly their lands are flooded (this process took much less than a decade) with people from a VERY diffrent kind of culture, a culture that in many places dosen't coincide very smoothly with it's European counterpart. Those people come in great numbers and breed fast. Europeans have a right to feel intimidated that their way of life might be coming to an end.1) The idea of a country based on ethnicity is not racial discrimination, it is actually rather common in this world. On the grand scale of things the French are a people and the British are a people, and they don't want to share the same country, for example. You can see how the super liberal Europe is reacting to the Muslim refugees for proof that people seek to live with their own.Yes, we call those people racists.
Writing as a European, I don't recognise this at all.
It is worth noting that the people who use words like 'flood' are definitely not in the mainstream.
After the Brievik massacre many Norwegians actually argued that the very idea of 'ethnic purity' was un-Norwegian.
In the UK we have had immigration from poor countries as long as we have been rich and powerful, a lot longer than ten years.
So you're saying all the attempted peace agreements and ceasefires are lies?
...words cannot describe how insulting that post is*, and how it reeks of propaganda.
* = And by that I mean it's insulting to every person on both sides who wants peace instead of war!!
I partially agree with him.
I would say that those who have chosen to abstain from violence were genuine, but those who brokered cease fires, fully willing to recommit to violence weren't truly trying for peace.
I think both sides have been failed to truly seek peace. Individuals might have.
For example, Lord Snows take on a lot of this shows me he is partially interested in peace, but he's more interested in winning. Because violence is something you use when you want to win.
Some further reference information:
Demographics on Palestine - of note is the mass immigration after WWI, and especially the paradigm shift in 1947-48.
Historical Demographics - going back a little further to 1st century AD.
A list of the multitude of peace proposals - if you can make decent sense of that, then you're a better reader than I.
Lastly - the points of the second proposal of Folke Bernadotte - the UN mediator in 1948 who was assassinated by Lehi:
- Peace must return to Palestine and every feasible measure should be taken to ensure that hostilities will not be resumed and that harmonious relations between Arab and Jew will ultimately be restored.
- A Jewish State called Israel exists in Palestine and there are no sound reasons for assuming that it will not continue to do so.
- The boundaries of this new State must finally be fixed either by formal agreement between the parties concerned or failing that, by the United Nations.
- Adherence to the principle of geographical homogeneity and integration, which should be the major objective of the boundary arrangements, should apply equally to Arab and Jewish territories, whose frontiers should not therefore, be rigidly controlled by the territorial arrangements envisaged in the resolution of 29 November.
- The right of innocent people, uprooted from their homes by the present terror and ravages of war, to return to their homes, should be affirmed and made effective, with assurance of adequate compensation for the property of those who may choose not to return.
- The City of Jerusalem, because of its religious and international significance and the complexity of interests involved, should be accorded special and separate treatment.
- International responsibility should be expressed where desirable and necessary in the form of international guarantees, as a means of allaying existing fears, and particularly with regard to boundaries and human rights.
It's interesting how little has changed from 1948 to the present day.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Xenophobia over illegal immigration is a sad topic in many countries - including where I was born - Australia. But the truth is that the media and politicians blow hot air onto the coals and whip it into a much bigger issue than it actually is.
Australian Statistics:
Boat People - 4,565 arrived in 2011
Humanitarian Visas given by Australia - 13,799 issued in 2010-11
Migration program - 168,685 places given in 2010-11
So it's clear that despite the mass hysteria in parts of Australia and the media / politicians on the threat of boat people... Our migration program actually willingly and gladly accepts 37 times as many people per year in legally than those that arrive illegally.
A few recent speeches given by the relevant Israeli and Palestinian leaders:
Speech by Netanyahu to UN - September 2012
Speech was mainly on Iran and nuclear capabilities - but it does show the present position of Netanyahu re: Palestine: We have to sit together, negotiate together, and reach a mutual compromise, in which a demilitarized Palestinian state recognizes the one and only Jewish State.
Mahmoud Abbas Speech to UN - September 2012 - though note that Abbas is not universally considered the Palestinian leader. He is from Fatah, and Hamas don't recognize his legitimacy (from what I can gather).
Quote in 2010: "We accept a Palestinian state on the borders of 1967, with Jerusalem as its capital, the release of Palestinian prisoners, and the resolution of the issue of refugees," and stated that if the Palestinian electorate approves such a peace agreement with Israel his government will abide by it notwithstanding previous Hamas positions on the issue.
Transcipt of a speech in 2011 - of note is Today, we say, in a clear and unambiguous fashion: The armed resistance and armed struggle are our strategic choice and our path to liberate the Palestinian land, from the [Mediterranean] Sea to the [Jordan] River, and to drive the usurping invaders out of the blessed land of Palestine
|
Ah right, you are not a local, you might not know yet :P
Please ignore everything Netanyahu sais, he never means any of it. While he has not been a very aggressive prime minister (by not choosing to attack even when it was "justified" on numerous ocassions) he is not looking for peace in the area, just stability and security for Israel. Hia cocalition is an alliance with the religeous parties, so his interest is to keep the illegal settlements going.
Blah.
One vote for a Matter|AntiMatter reaction in the Middle of Jerusalem so the naughty children understand their crime.
How much?
EDIT: How much antimatter. Not votes.
|
|
If we are going to bring up the "history of persecution" of jews all the way back to rome maybe we should talk about their actions in the last nation of isreal. Midian maybe? absolute genocide, except the little girls they kept for themselves. The had a history as absolute aggressors long before they were anyone's "victim".......
As long as it is one to one ratio, the effect will be th same.
If we are going to bring up the "history of persecution" of jews all the way back to rome maybe we should talk about their actions in the last nation of isreal. Midian maybe? absolute genocide, except the little girls they kept for themselves. The had a history as absolute aggressors long before they were anyone's "victim".......
Two words.
Ancient Egypt (or so they say).
Blame Israel for all the bad stuff, and then complain when Iran is the one aiming a nuke.
Someone willing to and ready to use a nuclear weapon is much worse than whatever opposition he has.
And the religion of Islam itself is separated into two factions that fight with each other as well. I forgot their names.
I don't see peace coming into the Middle-East any time soon, even if Israel somehow managed to make peace with the violent neighbours it has.
An interesting article about who breaks the ceasefires:
From Huffington Post - the graph halfway through is telling.
An interesting article about who breaks the ceasefires:
From Huffington Post - the graph halfway through is telling.
And reading comments about the way the data were interpreted by the creator of the graphs are interesting. According to the commentators there are multiple problems with the method used - for example it presents as exclusively Israel's fault violent ends of ceasefire that were successful defense against incoming attacks that ended with no casualties on Israel's side. It automatically equates the side who suffered casualty with victim and the one that suffered no casualties with aggressor which is not as simple as that.
Drejk - by all means the article isn't perfect, but in defence of the one that wrote it - she doesn't put it out as anything more than what it is.
With a quick search there are a number of articles from different sources which timeline out the present flare-up as follows:
November 8th - Israel forces kill Ahmed Younis Khader Abu Daqqa (a 13 year old playing soccer) in Palestine through indiscriminate fire
November 9th - retaliatory mortar strikes
November 10th - Palestinian militia attack an Israeli jeep - injuring four
November 10-12 - rocket fire from Palestine, Israeli airstrikes in Gaza (some Palestinian casualties, including civilians)
November 13th - provisional lull in fire reported - no strikes or missiles
November 14th - Israel carried out the extrajudicial killing of Hamas military chief Ahmad al-Jabari.
Then Hamas responded in force.
|
I fully agree that Israel is part of the problem. Not because of their existence, but their use of violence. Violence can never solve the problem of violence, I agree.
History would disagree with you. Here's a few examples:
-Troy
-Carthage
-Appomatox
-Hiroshima
-Saigon
Violence can definitely bring about peace. But it has to be overwhelming, uncompromising, horrific violence that people (rightly) frown on.
Israel could solve the Palestinian issue if it really wanted to - force the Palestinians out of Gaza and the West Bank with the overwhelming superiority of the IDF, but the cost of that level of aggression politically and economically would be devastating... far beyond the cost of keeping the Palestinians fenced in forever.
And reading comments about the way the data were interpreted by the creator of the graphs are interesting. According to the commentators there are multiple problems with the method used - for example it presents as exclusively Israel's fault violent ends of ceasefire that were successful defense against incoming attacks that ended with no casualties on Israel's side. It automatically equates the side who suffered casualty with victim and the one that suffered no casualties with aggressor which is not as simple as that.An interesting article about who breaks the ceasefires:
From Huffington Post - the graph halfway through is telling.
Also, numbers will say anything if you torture them enough.
@Yakman--
What are you talking about?
After Odysseus and co. pulled off the Trojan horse thingie, and Neoptolemeus (or whatever his name) slaughtered Priam and took his daughters for concubines, Aeneas hobbled off with his pa and his household gods and set up what eventually became Rome.
Who came back a couple of centuries later and put those arrogant Achaeans to the sword!
I was waiting for another opportunity to link this.
Woody Allen's joke is pretty funny, but stick around for William Buckley's commentary!
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
An interesting article about who breaks the ceasefires:
From Huffington Post - the graph halfway through is telling.
That article completly neglects to mention that when "Israeli air strike killed six more Palestinians", That was when the IDF had accurate intelligence that those Palestinians were members of a terrorist group preparing to start a kidnapping operation in order to take a soldier hostage. Is a preemptive strike really the first one? or just a VERY fast response? This is not a rhetoric question, I'm actualy not sure. I tend to think the IDF is justified in attacking preemptivley, but I may be wrong on this account.
If Hamas is constantly brewing up nasty new suprises for Israel during a cease fire, it means the ceasefire is not real.
I can't find anything that says that they were members of a planned kidnapping ring. All I can find is that they were manning mortar and rocket positions after Israel had carried out a raid across the border.
They've kidnapped soldiers before and held them hostage while making various demands before releasing them.
One time, they gave back a soldier, but only after they had killed the guy. It's quite possible there was a kidnap plan.
Yes, I know, "they" have. But was there accurate IDF info that these guys were or is Lord Snow just making stuff up?
To clarify: I can find no claims that there was accurate IDF intel that the six Palestinians killed on 4 November 2008 were planning on being kidnappers.
Blame Israel for all the bad stuff, and then complain when Iran is the one aiming a nuke.
Someone willing to and ready to use a nuclear weapon is much worse than whatever opposition he has.
So the nukes that Israel has are for what... holding potted plants?
Its such a badly kept secret that Israel has them that they pretty much admit it on the daily show.
If we are going to bring up the "history of persecution" of jews all the way back to rome maybe we should talk about their actions in the last nation of isreal. Midian maybe? absolute genocide, except the little girls they kept for themselves. The had a history as absolute aggressors long before they were anyone's "victim".......
If you're responding to some of my comments, I don't think you understand my point at all.
Its such a badly kept secret that Israel has them that they pretty much admit it on the daily show.
Did you know...?
|
|
@Yakman--
What are you talking about?
After Odysseus and co. pulled off the Trojan horse thingie, and Neoptolemeus (or whatever his name) slaughtered Priam and took his daughters for concubines, Aeneas hobbled off with his pa and his household gods and set up what eventually became Rome.
Who came back a couple of centuries later and put those arrogant Achaeans to the sword!
Well, if you believe Virgil, who was trying to tie the Roman narrative into the Greek one. It certainly makes for a great story.
In reality, the Greeks so scourged the area that the Asian Aegean coast remained ethnically and culturally Greek (for the most part) until Ataturk expelled them after the establishment of the Turkish Republic (yes, it was part of an agreed set of population transfers between Athens and Ankara).
If you believe Homer.
At least we know for a fact that Virgil really lived.
An interesting article about who breaks the ceasefires:
From Huffington Post - the graph halfway through is telling.
I love how Gaza's idea of a cease fire is to only fire one-eight rockets a month... It's not what the name suggests to me.
Thus the latest ceasefire ended when Israel first killed Palestinians, and Palestinians then fired rockets into Israel.
Or perhaps it ended with the rocket fired in July? Maybe with the 8 rockets fired in August?
Someone willing to and ready to use a nuclear weapon is much worse than whatever opposition he has.
And the religion of Islam itself is separated into two factions that fight with each other as well. I forgot their names.
I don't see peace coming into the Middle-East any time soon, even if Israel somehow managed to make peace with the violent neighbours it has.
You're finally saying stuff that is sane enough I can agree with!
Yes, clearly America (Allied powers) were far more evil than the Nazis (and Axis powers) since, ya know, we're the only ones to ever have deployed a nuke in warfare.
You're right, Islam is divided and has been fighting amongst itself for well over a thousand years. The ONLY thing uniting the factions is the nation of Israel. Ya know, occupying one of their holy cities and all. So, if you REALLY want to stick it to them, you'd leave and come back in a hundred years after they've killed each other off.
Peace (probably) won't come to the middle east until after Israel is gone...OR they're the last ones standing.
Let me be clear, I think all religion is a huge waste of time, and for what it's worth I think Islam is generally a worse, less tolerant, and more violent religion. But someone has to be a grown up and say no. If y'all want to go to war I couldn't care less, I just resent having to pay for it.
An interesting article about who breaks the ceasefires:
From Huffington Post - the graph halfway through is telling.I love how Gaza's idea of a cease fire is to only fire one-eight rockets a month... It's not what the name suggests to me.
Thus the latest ceasefire ended when Israel first killed Palestinians, and Palestinians then fired rockets into Israel.Or perhaps it ended with the rocket fired in July? Maybe with the 8 rockets fired in August?
I guess proportional response is not a term you're familiar with.
If Israel were willing to shake off utterly insignificant rocket attacks rather than retaliate with overwhelming force, we'd have at least a livable peace.
It's like a man with a knife standing over a brutalized and bloody body saying "he spilled my beer."