Why do they want it "handed over"? If they want to see it, they can go see it where it's currently housed. Only reason I can see that they want it "handed over" is to destroy it.
The foreign researchers invited to the conference -- some of whom have criminal records at home -- gave papers claiming the Holocaust never happened on the scale assumed by the vast majority of historians.
IMO, there is no question about the Holocaust and the atrocities. But for some there is, and to make it criminal to ask questions is utter BULLSHIT.
I don't see you Sirs, discussing how nuts the mainstream government of Turkey is for denying the Armenian Genocide. This has been a point of contention for Turkey's entrance into the EU, which your president has promoted several times to the European leaders. I don't see you demanding the diwthdrawal of our diplomats from Japan over their refusal to accept their role in the Rape of Nanking, one of the most well-documented atrocities in world history. Why do we talk with Japan? I don't see you demanding the Croatian Government step up to the plate and admit to their massacres of the Serbians in World War II, in death camps just like those used on the Jews and Roma at the hands of the Nazis.
I recognize false outrage when I see it.
Neither do I see any of these nations at the forefront of the current mideast debacle, and the effort at trying to stabilize the region. When it becomes relevent, then I just may. To do so now, is wasting energy, and perhaps even making things worse. Is that what you want?
Apparently not, if you're implying my current outrage at the likes of Syria, Iran, and insurgents/terrorists, bent on killing innocent women & children as "fake". Just because I don't routinely add every other nation's egregious acts, when I'm demonstrating the utter fallicy of trying to "talk" to the likes of Iran & Syria, doesn't make my outrage at the more relevent ones, as it relates to this issue, any less sincere or vaild, thank you very much
QuoteNeither do I see any of these nations at the forefront of the current mideast debacle, and the effort at trying to stabilize the region. When it becomes relevent, then I just may. To do so now, is wasting energy, and perhaps even making things worse. Is that what you want?
You're just changing the subject out of convenience.
What I see here is someone using the Holocaust for their political benefit - in that way you are no different than the Iranian government.
QuoteApparently not, if you're implying my current outrage at the likes of Syria, Iran, and insurgents/terrorists, bent on killing innocent women & children as "fake". Just because I don't routinely add every other nation's egregious acts, when I'm demonstrating the utter fallicy of trying to "talk" to the likes of Iran & Syria, doesn't make my outrage at the more relevent ones, as it relates to this issue, any less sincere or vaild, thank you very much
I'm not going to get into anything personal. I just call it like I see it and here I see a false outrage for certain.
The truth is that we have intimate dealings with Turkey and Japan, but I see nothing from you. President Bush has given speeches in Istanbul. Silence from you.
And............? That acheives what precisely in Iraq? You see Js, your attempt here sure seems to be that unless we have equal outrage, then no outrage is allowed. You seem to be implying since we don't have equal outrage, then by design, we have to "talk" to the likes of Iran & Syria? See where your hypothesis falls apart yet?What's your stand on the Armenian Genocide and Turkey's entrance to the European Union?
Don't have one, since I'm not up to speed on any of it. Neither do I have the time to delve into into it, unless you can demonstrate to how relevent it is to the current issue of Iraq & the war on Terror. Demonstrate how trying to attach a "Faiirness Outrage Doctrine" will help the situation in Iraq & that immediate region.That doesn't even touch on the Palestinian and Israeli atrocities dating back to 1948. Should we discuss those as well?
Already have, thank you very much. When you can get the neighboring countries to accept Israel as part of the region, and to denounce their rhetoric on an agenda of seeing Israel cease to exist, then we can go into more discussion, on that matter
Don't have one, since I'm not up to speed on any of it. Neither do I have the time to delve into into it, unless you can demonstrate to how relevent it is to the current issue of Iraq & the war on Terror. Demonstrate how trying to attach a "Faiirness Outrage Doctrine" will help the situation in Iraq & that immediate region.
Now Sirs, answer this. Since the Armenian Genocide and the Rape of Nanking, etc., aren't relevant to the point you are trying to make... how is it that the Jewish Holocaust in WWII is?
Simple, the folks that we're being urged to 'talk to", to supposedly help bring peace tru diplomacy. are the same folks that pretty much deny it's existance...translated, irrational, if not demented (though honestly, I thought I already answered that question before).
Don't have one, since I'm not up to speed on any of it. Neither do I have the time to delve into into it, unless you can demonstrate to how relevent it is to the current issue of Iraq & the war on Terror.
When you can get the neighboring countries to accept Israel as part of the region, and to denounce their rhetoric on an agenda of seeing Israel cease to exist, then we can go into more discussion, on that matter
Simple, the folks that we're being urged to 'talk to", to supposedly help bring peace tru diplomacy. are the same folks that pretty much deny it's existance...translated, irrational, if not demented (though honestly, I thought I already answered that question before). And no apologies necessary
QuoteSimple, the folks that we're being urged to 'talk to", to supposedly help bring peace tru diplomacy. are the same folks that pretty much deny it's existance...translated, irrational, if not demented (though honestly, I thought I already answered that question before).
So we should just go to war with them, instead of attempting diplomacy... because they've questioned the Holocaust? (Kill 'em all. They even deny the Holocaust!) I was on my way out the door to go out to dinner (bit time difference between here and CA, LOL), and something else struck me. Talking to Iran is like talking to Charlie Manson? Since when? Use that comparison for those who were responsible for the Holocaust... not someone who is just asking questions. Sheesh! :)
Sirs, you use ignorance as an excuse to show selective outrage.
It is my understanding that we are discussing the Holocaust of the Jews in Europe , and not other incidents of similar nature, because the Holocaust in Europe is what President Acmananejad brought up. It it is this incident that he has set up a foundation to study and this incident that he demands proof of.
If he wants to shine a spotlight on this incident , how does anyone else become hypocritical for responding to the terms of the argument as they have been chosen and presented ?
As far as I know President Acmananejad has expressed no intrest in examining the slaughter of the Jain's by the Moguls , the Cherokee by the Georgians , the Cambodians by the Communists , the Kurds by the Iranians ,Iriuis and Turks , the Romany by the Nazis , the Technocal by the Aztec , the Aztec by the Spanish , The Hopi by the Apache , the Apache by the Mexicans , the Scotch by the English , the Irish by the English , the Plantegent by the French , the Carthaginians by the Romans or even the Philistines by the Jews led by king David.
It is my understanding that we are discussing the Holocaust of the Jews in Europe , and not other incidents of similar nature, because the Holocaust in Europe is what President Acmananejad brought up. It it is this incident that he has set up a foundation to study and this incident that he demands proof of.
If he wants to shine a spotlight on this incident , how does anyone else become hypocritical for responding to the terms of the argument as they have been chosen and presented ?
As far as I know President Acmananejad has expressed no intrest in examining the slaughter of the Jain's by the Moguls , the Cherokee by the Georgians , the Cambodians by the Communists , the Kurds by the Iranians ,Iriuis and Turks , the Romany by the Nazis , the Technocal by the Aztec , the Aztec by the Spanish , The Hopi by the Apache , the Apache by the Mexicans , the Scotch by the English , the Irish by the English , the Plantegent by the French , the Carthaginians by the Romans or even the Philistines by the Jews led by king David.
Well summized, Plane. As ususal 8)
the irrationality of trying to 'talk" specifcally to folks who are wilfully ignorant of history
As one peruses history this sort of incident seems to be a reoccurig theme.
QuoteAs one peruses history this sort of incident seems to be a reoccurig theme.
Very true. I wonder why we focus so much on this one incident?
Perhaps, as Plane has referenced so concisely, that the president of Iran, and the "forum" they held keeps brining up this 1 incident, at the exclusion of all others? No?
QuotePerhaps, as Plane has referenced so concisely, that the president of Iran, and the "forum" they held keeps brining up this 1 incident, at the exclusion of all others? No?
Going out on a limb here Sirs, but Iran isn't the first nation to single out the Holocaust above other historical atrocities, or haven't you ever heard of that nation we just talked about called Israel?
I was responding to a specific point on focusing on the Holocaust. By the way, the Holocaust has nothing to do with the situation in Iraq either, certainly less than the Israeli-Palestinian conflict does.
Honestly Sirs, this discussion has been bizarre, even by your standards.
You cannot limit anyone's point of view to the myopia you wish. In fact, I'd say your inability to comprehend even the basic rudimentary issues surrounding Iraq and her neighbors might well stem from your very narrow-minded focus.
I was responding to a specific point on focusing on the Holocaust. By the way, the Holocaust has nothing to do with the situation in Iraq either, certainly less than the Israeli-Palestinian conflict does.
Honestly Sirs, this discussion has been bizarre, even by your standards. You cannot limit anyone's point of view to the myopia you wish. In fact, I'd say your inability to comprehend even the basic rudimentary issues surrounding Iraq and her neighbors might well stem from your very narrow-minded focus.
It does as it relates to one of the main fellas we're supposed to "talk to", regarding brining stability to Iraq, who not only demands proof of the holocaust (not simply "questioning it") but has basically pledged to continue that to which Hitler started
THAT's what it has to do with it. Putting in perspective the frame of mind of those we're supposed to "talk to"
No more bizarre than this twisted version of a fairness doctrine, in that unless we condemn every other country, for all their egregious acts & rhetoric, we can't condemn Iran for it's specific acts & rhetoric, on this specific issue. Which is why the Fairness Doctrine is anything, but fair. It's apparent your dislike for both U.S. and israeli policy is so great, you can't deal with what's right in front of you.
Again, let's pretend I'm just as outraged as you, regarding the Turks & Japan. So bloody what?? Let's even pretend I'm so outraged, I'm publically condemning them, just as I am Iran's President. How does that have ANY bearing on dealing with trying to bring stability to Iraq, and in condemning Iran (& Syria) for their facilitating precisely the opposite?? You're the one trying to impliment some obligation to condemn every egregious act in order to condemn one that is of current issue, and of paramount importance, in the war on Terror. If one doesn't, they're not allowed to condemn Iran?? Talk about bizarre, or more so twisted
I do not agree.
If the subject is President Acmanenajad's attitude , then the discussion of things that President Acmananejad has stated is most pertinent , other things less so.
QuoteIt does as it relates to one of the main fellas we're supposed to "talk to", regarding brining stability to Iraq, who not only demands proof of the holocaust (not simply "questioning it") but has basically pledged to continue that to which Hitler started THAT's what it has to do with it. Putting in perspective the frame of mind of those we're supposed to "talk to"
And MY point is that we've had closer relations (in other words more than just "talking to") nations that have done the same thing. Now do you see how it relates?
We can carry on extremely cordial relationships with perpetrators of some of the world's bloodiest atrocities and genocides, yet we are too above the fray to talk with Iran?
But they're not relevent to Iraq and in trying to bring stability to it, Js. They're only relevent to you (and Miss Henny) because others who recognize irrationality and the complete implausibility of "talking" to the President of Iran, have to be diminished.
acknowledge the lack of consistency in American foreign policy
But they're not relevent to Iraq and in trying to bring stability to it, Js. They're only relevent to you (and Miss Henny) because others who recognize irrationality and the complete implausibility of "talking" to the President of Iran, have to be diminished.
Sirs, you are stuck on Iraq... like broken record. You are talking about one issue. Js and I have been trying to get you to grasp the concept as a whole, using examples of other comparative issues. Could you at least try to look at the situation hypothetically and acknowledge the lack of consistency in American foreign policy (and your own assessment of the situation)?
Seriously Miss Henny, I have. I know precisely what you and Js are trying to do. Now, I'd ask you do something for me. Explain to me HOW YOU HAVE A RATIONAL CONVERSATION with a country and leadership who, not only demands (read: not questions) proof of the holocaust, but is also on record largely pledging to assist in the destruction of Israel.
Please tell me what "talk" accomplishes with such a predisposed mindset, and how that "talk" brings about a radical change in their policy, that would cause Iran to cease all forms of aide and facilitation towards the current instability of Iraq. Not being a psychiatrist myself, I'd love to know how "talk" alone fixes this
Pardon my ignorance, but for the palestinians to go home wouldn't they have to occupy about half of Jordan?
Seriously Miss Henny, I have. I know precisely what you and Js are trying to do. Now, I'd ask you do something for me. Explain to me HOW YOU HAVE A RATIONAL CONVERSATION with a country and leadership who, not only demands (read: not questions) proof of the holocaust, but is also on record largely pledging to assist in the destruction of Israel.
Please tell me what "talk" accomplishes with such a predisposed mindset, and how that "talk" brings about a radical change in their policy, that would cause Iran to cease all forms of aide and facilitation towards the current instability of Iraq. Not being a psychiatrist myself, I'd love to know how "talk" alone fixes this
Seriously Miss Henny, I have. I know precisely what you and Js are trying to do. Now, I'd ask you do something for me. Explain to me HOW YOU HAVE A RATIONAL CONVERSATION with a country and leadership who, not only demands (read: not questions) proof of the holocaust, but is also on record largely pledging to assist in the destruction of Israel.
Please tell me what "talk" accomplishes with such a predisposed mindset, and how that "talk" brings about a radical change in their policy, that would cause Iran to cease all forms of aide and facilitation towards the current instability of Iraq. Not being a psychiatrist myself, I'd love to know how "talk" alone fixes this
Ah, now we're back to the crux of the matter. Now I respond to you, how can you have a rational conversation with a country that has worked for over 50 years to ethnically cleanse the Palestinians from the region? How can you have a rational conversation with a country whose flag represents their goal of land from the Euphrates to the Nile?
On the other hand, did you know that Iran is a very well educated and advanced society? Did you know that the majority of even women pursue higher education? That they have a well trained and developed military? Or are they just a bunch of idiots riding around on camels? Lunatics, all of them? The idea of not talking to them is what is absurd.
In fairness Sirs, you have yet to even show that the Iranian Government is heavily involved in Iraq.
I never said heavily involved. I said disruptive, assistive to insurgents/terrorists, and something you've even conceded, a desire for more power and pull in the region. "Why wouldn't they" I believe were your words.
I never said heavily involved. I said disruptive, assistive to insurgents/terrorists, and something you've even conceded, a desire for more power and pull in the region. "Why wouldn't they" I believe were your words.
You are on step 52 and have we have yet to confirm step 1.
QuoteI never said heavily involved. I said disruptive, assistive to insurgents/terrorists, and something you've even conceded, a desire for more power and pull in the region. "Why wouldn't they" I believe were your words.
I did, because it is logical.
But I still would not proceed without evidence. You have none.
You're just screaming about them questioning the Holocaust, when other countries have done similar actions. Then you pronounce we can't talk to these guys, they aren't rational. You don't know that.
And talk to them about what? There's nothing to talk about. They haven't done anything. All you have is conjecture.
But wasn't Jordan part of the palestinian homeland?
Because this isn't about Isreal (unless of course you're on board with the idea of destroying Israel), it's about Iraq/Iran...
But you're right in this manner, this is the crux of the matter to you ... Israel. Apparently in your mind, Israel is as bad, if not worse than Iran. So, if we can talk to Israel, consider it a significant partner & ally, then by God we can talk to Iran, right?
The problem being that's your perception of how evil Israel is supposed to be. Perhaps you can help me out here, as I haven't read any reports of the mass killings by Israelis, mass grave sites of Palestinians, Government declarations of how Israel is to rid the region of the Palestinian scurge, etc. Quite the contrary in fact, as I see & read example after example of Arab/Palestinian/Persian homicide bombers targeting and killing as many innocent civilian men/women & children as they possibly can. I hear of examples of Palestinian children being taught history that doesn't include Israel as being part of the region. I see examples of rhetoric coming from Arab leaders, concluding not their contempt, but active goal in ridding the region of Israel (read; ethnic clensing). A certain Iranian president comes to mind
I'm gonna pretend you aren't being serious with those last "questions". Especially since you have yet to answer how and what kind of "talk" would bring Iran into the realm of the rational & reasonable, as you answered that question with another question
If they try to retailiate in any way for anything done to them, the American press points a finger and says "look what those horrible Palestinians have done now
They are very powerful in the region. I believe - truly believe - that it would be foolish to do anything BUT talk to them.
It was called the Transjordan, created by the British and part of the Mandate of Palestine. Why?
Is there a cultural, ethnic or sociological difference between jordanians and palestinians?
So the israel-palestinian problem is really an israel-Jordanian problem since palestinians are essentially jordanians? It wasn't palestinians who were uprooted it was jordanians. and they were jordanians because of lines on a map?
What is your point here?
You are nit-picking the issue.
Because this isn't about Isreal (unless of course you're on board with the idea of destroying Israel), it's about Iraq/Iran...
Sirs, you're the one who keeps bringing the Jews and Israel into it.
But you're right in this manner, this is the crux of the matter to you ... Israel. Apparently in your mind, Israel is as bad, if not worse than Iran. So, if we can talk to Israel, consider it a significant partner & ally, then by God we can talk to Iran, right?
Perhaps you can help me out here, as I haven't read any reports of the mass killings by Israelis, mass grave sites of Palestinians, Government declarations of how Israel is to rid the region of the Palestinian scurge, etc. Quite the contrary in fact, as I see & read example after example of Arab/Palestinian/Persian homicide bombers targeting and killing as many innocent civilian men/women & children as they possibly can. I hear of examples of Palestinian children being taught history that doesn't include Israel as being part of the region. I see examples of rhetoric coming from Arab leaders, concluding not their contempt, but active goal in ridding the region of Israel (read; ethnic clensing). A certain Iranian president comes to mind
Look. President Ahmadine... whatever is a royal ass. ....they are very powerful in the region. I believe - truly believe - that it would be foolish to do anything BUT talk to them.
You know what, I have an idea. If you and the Mrs. ever want to come visit the Holy Land and see some beautiful things, let me know. We have a guest apartment here that you can stay in, and we would be happy to be your own personal tour guides. During your visit, we'll tour through the West Bank and Gaza... maybe spend some time. Truly, something you will never forget Sirs. (And I am not being sarcastic, you are always welcome to visit!
But i am curious, if palestians are really Jordanians wouldn't Jordan be home?
Ahhhh, it's a slow purge. One that doesn't leave any substantive trails of their nefarious plot to rid the region of Palestinians? My apologies Miss Henny, but isn't the Palestinian population going up?? So how this can be called "ethnic clensing" is beyond me
What I don't see, which I still have yet to see you provide, is comparable rhetorc and public platform to that of Israeli's neighboring enemies, to help validate this notion of how evil Isreal is supposed to be.
In fact, i do recall reading how Israel was very sympathetic to Palestinians when they returned in the late 40's. Until of course they began getting attacked from all sides.
So was Hitler. And look what "talk" alone led to, there
I would welome the opportunity Miss Henny. I sincerely would, and will keep this offer in mind, if we ever manage to make it out that way. :)
The Palestinians are procreating like bunnies... and THAT is the reason their population is going up. Their mortality rate is horrendous.
QuoteWhat I don't see, which I still have yet to see you provide, is comparable rhetorc and public platform to that of Israeli's neighboring enemies, to help validate this notion of how evil Isreal is supposed to be.
Could you clarify what information you're looking for?
QuoteIn fact, i do recall reading how Israel was very sympathetic to Palestinians when they returned in the late 40's. Until of course they began getting attacked from all sides.
I guess it was easy to take a position of sympathy when they were the ones who uprooted them all and disrupted the entire region.
Why does every discussion about world leaders wind up using Hitler as an example? Is it because of the Holocaust thing that you've made this comparison?
QuoteI would welome the opportunity Miss Henny. I sincerely would, and will keep this offer in mind, if we ever manage to make it out that way. :)
The door is always open! ;D
I don't believe that it's the same thing. If you lived in a certain place for generations and were uprooted and tossed somewhere else, you might make a new home there, but it isn't the same thing. IMO.
And even if that is the case, does it make it OK to be forcibly relocated?
I just want to know is how does one fabricate something so big as the holocaust?
I don`t recall anyone saying skin lamps are fake and don`t forget all those people who came to those camps after the end of the war seeing all those physical evidence.
and don`t forget it was not only jews.
quite afew other groups of people were in those camps
Israel should be confronted regarding their tantrum victimhood, and the matter pruned to balance, a solution contructed to achieve resolution, and retire the continually festering open sore schtick.
In what I'll term Henny-mania, our esteemed colleague from the Middle East spews acontextual rhetoric designed to inflame rather than illuminate. If you really want to illuminate rather than perform as an amen chorus, you might start by quoting Palestinian rhetoric and then by providing a balanced account of the critical 1947-1949 period in which the Palestinian exodus occurred. (Hint: there are competing histories.) Then, you should factor in the Holocaust on the morality of the entire episode.
Henny, I have been meaning to tell you how much I appreciate the vast information regarding the Middle East.
People would know more about the Middle East if they watched media not coming from Katie, though I think everybody thinks if they listen to al jizirah they will be banned from listening to country music.
Before you, can't think of anybody who had much actual knowledge, though some banged the holocaust drum, one of the favorite guilt cannons of the JDL in dealing with critics. (One thing about the Jews--they get SOME mileage using the ole guilt card.)
Thanks again for providing something real, you know, beyond the imitations of Frederic March doing William Jennings Bryant.
In the case of the Palestinians, was the uprooting done by the British and then the UN or was it done after the fact by the Israeli's or was it perhaps both.
Perhaps the solution is the creation of a Palestinian state made up of territory from Israel, Lebanon, Jordan and Syria. Did i leave out any adjoining states?
What you're providing our examples of hard life, and yea, unfair foreign policy practicies, at the hands of Israel. Perhaps if Israel weren't surrounded by nations and peoples intent on seeing it destroyed, as soon as it came into existance, I'd be far more sympathetic to your position.
He understandibly believed many Palestinians are terrorists, which many are.
Then, you should factor in the Holocaust on the morality of the entire episode.
That is a new and very interesting idea... although it would certainly be an peculiar circular shape, ringing Israel. LOL.
QuoteWhat you're providing our examples of hard life, and yea, unfair foreign policy practicies, at the hands of Israel. Perhaps if Israel weren't surrounded by nations and peoples intent on seeing it destroyed, as soon as it came into existance, I'd be far more sympathetic to your position.
Look at the above response by Sirs. "[E]xamples of hard life." So as long as Israel doesn't employ actual gas chambers their policies are acceptable because they fall under what you both deem as "safety and security."
QuoteHe understandibly believed many Palestinians are terrorists, which many are.
That is a blatant lie.
Apparently you missed the part where I've conceded unfair foreign policy practices, on the part of Israel. Many of them leading to the hard life the Palestinians endure.
Perhaps you missed the part where most of the rhetoric Miss Henny provided demonstrates no mindset that Palestinans be wiped off the map.
Perhaps you also missed the part where no other Arab country has lifted a finger to allow Palestinians to come to their region, such as Jordan.
Perhaps you also missed the part where the majority of Israel's neighbors have publically pledged to see Israel cease to exist.
What you fail to see is the reality of history, here appearing to repeat itself.
No, it's referencing that many Homicide bombers are indeed Palestinian.
Perhaps you missed the part where most of the rhetoric Miss Henny provided demonstrates no mindset that Palestinans be wiped off the map. Perhaps you also missed the part where no other Arab country has lifted a finger to allow Palestinians to come to their region, such as Jordan.
Perhaps you missed the part where most of the rhetoric Miss Henny provided demonstrates no mindset that Palestinans be wiped off the map. Perhaps you also missed the part where no other Arab country has lifted a finger to allow Palestinians to come to their region, such as Jordan.
Wrong and wrong. I saw those quotes as saying very clearly that they wanted them off the map. There were a FEW that didn't say that, but most did. I'm sorry I didn't have recent quotes from Olmert to add to the list so that it can't be dismissed as history.
Second, all other Arab countries have helped the Palestinians. The difference is, only Jordan has given them citizenship; the rest have given them refugee documents, but have not turned their backs on them.
It sure seems they have, since I recall reading how many of those same countries refuse to allow Palestinians from settling in their territories. It seems the ONLY place they can stay just happens to be ths same place Israel is located :-\
It sure seems they have, since I recall reading how many of those same countries refuse to allow Palestinians from settling in their territories. It seems the ONLY place they can stay just happens to be ths same place Israel is located
No, that is not so. However, the other Arab countries take the stricter policies because they want to encourage the right of return.
The Israelis did all they could to remove Palestinians from their land or to cause them to flee. After they fled, they were banned from returning.
The Israelis did all they could to remove Palestinians from their land or to cause them to flee. After they fled, they were banned from returning.
Pretty much pure hyperbole there, but whatever makes you feel better, Xo
I don't think so , there are some facts that lean n the direction XO is pointing. The failing that lead to the long running hostility was and is human failing, and can be perceived as the fault of either side.
The Native mentality does not allow them to gather for a peaceful demonstration. For them to gather means violence.
Either gripped by the power of his new-found Catholicism or deluded into righteousness by his pseudo-intellectualism, JS persists in his misapprehension of the Israeli-Palestinian problem. I scoff at his comparisons. In fact the Holocaust and the events in its wake are unique in the history of mankind, fully understood, and should not be trivialized. While I don't have close enough knowledge to bespeak what position I would take on particular Israeli policies, some of which I deplore, I can however see the larger picture of the absolutely essential nature of security in the life of the Israeli nation. Further, the morality of the settlement of "Israel" cannot be understood without a full comprehension of the history leading up to it. While the maelstrom of 1947-1949 may reveal bona fides to some degree, the historical backdrop against which those events are assessed provides little succor for the Palestinians. Denying in the strongest terms possible that the Jewish resurgence in Palestine can rightly be called a war of aggression, the latter means of ascent is a "storied" avenue to nationhood. Just ask any American Indian.
Further, the morality of the settlement of "Israel" cannot be understood without a full comprehension of the history leading up to it.
In fact the Holocaust and the events in its wake are unique in the history of mankind, fully understood, and should not be trivialized
Right now we know that Sirs proposition that Israel is surrounded by enemies who refuse to acknowledge her existence is false.
Right now we know that Sirs proposition that Israel is surrounded by enemies who refuse to acknowledge her existence is false.
Well yes ,with the qualifier of "right now" you have a valid statement. Egypt and Jordan struggled with Israel for a while before reaching settlement , motly settlements that required mutual sacrifice.
We also have the qualifier that those few countries that have recognized Isreal's right to exist, or have a treaty with Isreal, do absolutely squat in curbing the violence aimed directly at them by those Arab nations & terrorists that don't.
We also have the qualifier that those few countries that have recognized Isreal's right to exist, or have a treaty with Isreal, do absolutely squat in curbing the violence aimed directly at them by those Arab nations & terrorists that don't.
Sirs, you are absolutely wrong in this statement. Please give some examples of what you think these countries are doing (or not doing).
Immigration policies to inhibit if not prevent Palestinians from becoming citizens of their countries. Little to no finiancial aide to relocate for those that wish to relocate. Little to no Public/Governmental condemnation of organizations like Hamas, and denouncing terrorist attacks on Isreal. Little to no military action in trying to disarm or take down organizations like Hamas. Shall I go on? Or please, show me how I'm wrong. Show me how these countries are actively trying to stop the Arab/muslim lead attacks on Isreal, while also trying to help find places for the Palestinians to live, besides Isreal. Or are you going to rationalize why they don't do precisely what I've outlined above as examples?
First of all, I wasn't questioning the policies regarding helping Palestinians relocate. Just about countries that have treaties with Israel helping to stop attacks against them.
Now we're talking about Jordan and Egypt. I am very well aware of everything that Jordan does to stop attacks on Israel and Israeli citizens, and they are truly the best neighbor that Israel could possibly have. Egypt is a little more murky - they have a host of internal problems they are unable to control, let alone Israel's problems. Now, before I get started, could you please specify what Jordan and Egypt are NOT DOING for Israel?
First of all, that's precisely part of my point about who actually is and isn't trying to help the whole Israeli/Arab conflict, which includes the disposition of the Palestinians, not just the attacks against Israel
Lemme see if I have this straight. I get chastised because I referenced Israel as practically surrounded by enemies that wish to cease it to exist, while only 2 of them, you even conceding that 1 is "murky") are the reasons I was supposedly debunked?
When I stated that "The pledges of seeing Israel cease to exist, while other Arab nations that have a "treaty" with Israel, do zip to curb those public pledges in the destruction of Israel, does little to help soften that stance" somehow has no merit?? What i don't see ANYONE doing Miss Henny, much less Jordan and Egypt is publically condemn folks like Hamas, publically pledge to help stop such attacks by folks like Hamas, provide logistical and intelligence assistance in taking out Terrorist cells and leaders. It amazes me how everytime I see an Arab leader asked if he'll denounce Terrorist attacks on Israel, they unanimously respond "we denounce all terrorist activities, including what Israel......". They never can focus on the Arab side of the equation.
I am absolutely convinced that if ALL attacks on Israel were to cease, and that all the surrounding Arab Governments would acknowledge Israel's right to exist right where it is, and pledge to go after any terrorist cells that took some pot shots at Israel, Israel would never bulldoze another Palestinian home. They could even go back to their '47 borders,
We also have the qualifier that those few countries that have recognized Isreal's right to exist, or have a treaty with Isreal, do absolutely squat in curbing the violence aimed directly at them by those Arab nations & terrorists that don't.
No, Sirs, you originally said this:QuoteWe also have the qualifier that those few countries that have recognized Isreal's right to exist, or have a treaty with Isreal, do absolutely squat in curbing the violence aimed directly at them by those Arab nations & terrorists that don't.
You were discussing the countries with peace treaties doing nothing. I've given you an example of how a country with a peace treaty protects Israel and its interests. You were generalizing - don't try to say you meant something else later.
I expect more from you, JS.
I get chastised because I referenced Israel as practically surrounded by enemies that wish to cease it to exist, while only 2 of them, you even conceding that 1 is "murky") are the reasons I was supposedly debunked?
What i don't see ANYONE doing Miss Henny, much less Jordan and Egypt is publically condemn folks like Hamas, publically pledge to help stop such attacks by folks like Hamas, provide logistical and intelligence assistance in taking out Terrorist cells and leaders.
I am absolutely convinced that if ALL attacks on Israel were to cease, and that all the surrounding Arab Governments would acknowledge Israel's right to exist right where it is, and pledge to go after any terrorist cells that took some pot shots at Israel, Israel would never bulldoze another Palestinian home. They could even go back to their '47 borders
What they can't do is to allow the Palestinians to become a governing part of Israel, for the simple reason that if that were to occur, the majority of Palestinians could, over time, simply vote out all the Israeli elements of Israel ---> Israel ceases to exist.
Separate Palestinian and Israeli lands, completely sovereign unto themselves, with their own governments, immigration polices, economy, etc.
Yes, I concede you gave me 1 country, doing more than just squat. So any reference to all nerighboring Arab countries looking to see Israel cease to exist, can be amended to nearly all countries. And the reference to those few who have recognized Israel's right to exist, but do nothing, can be amended to of those few countries that recognize Israel's right to exist, Jordan actually does help in some ways. I do appreciate you getting me up to speed to at least 1 country trying to do something to help defuse the conflict, Miss Henny
Which still in no way refutes the premise that the vast majority (if not nearly all) Arab nations around the region, continue to work actively against Isreal, and it's right to exist.
Yes, I concede you gave me 1 country, doing more than just squat. So any reference to all nerighboring Arab countries looking to see Israel cease to exist, can be amended to nearly all countries. And the reference to those few who have recognized Israel's right to exist, but do nothing, can be amended to of those few countries that recognize Israel's right to exist, Jordan actually does help in some ways. I do appreciate you getting me up to speed to at least 1 country trying to do something to help defuse the conflict, Miss Henny
Which still in no way refutes the premise that the vast majority (if not nearly all) Arab nations around the region, continue to work actively against Isreal, and it's right to exist.
Sirs, I disagree again, but this is like running my head into a brick wall. The only problems I see for Israel in the region (other than the resistance in Palestine) is Hizbollah in Lebanon - and don't forget that they do not represent the Lebanese government - as well as Syria, probably fueled by Iran.
QuoteI get chastised because I referenced Israel as practically surrounded by enemies that wish to cease it to exist, while only 2 of them, you even conceding that 1 is "murky") are the reasons I was supposedly debunked?
How many neighbors does Israel have in your world Sirs?
By the way, the Bush administration spent nearly $200 million in Jordan helping the Government there fight terrorism. So, I think you underestimate the efforts that Jordan has put into place.
As I've said, you're lying about the scenario under which Israel lives. They are no longer surrounded by belligerent neighbors.
The main issues since 1973 have all been in Lebanon and many problems there have been of Israel's own creation (a region from where we should be able to learn a lot about how not to occupy a territory). Israel has basically fought in Lebanon, in some form, since 1978. To say that Lebanon (one of Israel's 4 neighbors) is a belligerent neighbor is wholly unfair.
Israel and Syria enter and leave at will. Hopefully one day the two will leave Lebanon alone and allow them to establish peace treaties with both nations and rebuild a real nation again.
That leaves Syria, the last of the four.
Syria has a relatively small border with Israel and the nastiest reputation. They were the last nation to actively engage Israel in combat during the 1982 war with Lebanon. Between the two countries they have all but ravaged Lebanon. We could debate on Syria's role. Are they as bad as has been said, or are they the bogeymen of the Middle East?
So, one out of four neighbors are possibly hostile? Though Syria is certainly not moving their tanks to the border any time soon. (By the way Lebanon is not an Arab nation, neither is Iran.)
QuoteWhat i don't see ANYONE doing Miss Henny, much less Jordan and Egypt is publically condemn folks like Hamas, publically pledge to help stop such attacks by folks like Hamas, provide logistical and intelligence assistance in taking out Terrorist cells and leaders.
As an aside, should they?
How would Palestinians stop the policies that you even claim to believe are unjust otherwise? Do you suggest they just let Israel bowl them over, take their land, bulldoze their neighborhoods, force them into privation? Seriously, if you were a Palestinian and just had your home bulldozed and been moved to the West Bank - where you've never lived - what would you do?
QuoteI am absolutely convinced that if ALL attacks on Israel were to cease, and that all the surrounding Arab Governments would acknowledge Israel's right to exist right where it is, and pledge to go after any terrorist cells that took some pot shots at Israel, Israel would never bulldoze another Palestinian home. They could even go back to their '47 borders
LOL Sorry, it is just that now I see how you view this issue. I don't mean to belittle your opinion at all. I wonder if some Americans said the same thing about the Native American population back in the day...
QuoteWhat they can't do is to allow the Palestinians to become a governing part of Israel, for the simple reason that if that were to occur, the majority of Palestinians could, over time, simply vote out all the Israeli elements of Israel ---> Israel ceases to exist.
That's a unionist argument in Northern Ireland. That was a nationalist argument in South Africa. That was a White Citizens Council argument in the Old South. That was a fascist argument in Germany.
QuoteSeparate Palestinian and Israeli lands, completely sovereign unto themselves, with their own governments, immigration polices, economy, etc.
That would be nice except that Israel, just as South Africa and Southern Rhodesia did, keep the best land and most development for themselves and place the Palestinians in shantytowns, forcing them to work in Israel.
The rhetoric of anti-Semitism gets harsher and harsher, fueled by the ethos of Mother Church.
Miss Henny, I'd ask you to check out my response to Js, unless the headache I gave you is too great at this time. It's much more pervasive and vitriolic than simply a pair of terrorist organizations. For crying out loud, you have the President of Iran not only demanding proof of the holocaust, but openly looking forward to the destruction of Isreal, of which he seems to be in a growing position to help bring about. Until those organizations & governments are dealt with, and at a minimum recognized for what their goals and methods are, little progress will be made in any debate or diplomacy
Boy, isn't that an eye opening response. and here is probably why such great effort and rationalizations are done to both minimize the threat and attacks on Israel, while magnifying Israel as something along the lines of the next Hitler-like Germany, complete with ethnic cleansing and mass killings of Palestinians, minus of course the actual ethnic cleansing and and mass killings
Somehow you keep skipping right over the part that causes Israel to "enter at will". Would you care to please keep that in the forefront of this discussion?
No, only the last of the 4 that simply border Israel, but definitely not the last bad guy in this debacle
And note the effort to pull Israel back into this, and imply some equal "ravaging" to Lebanon, completely ignoring what Israel was doing in Lebanon vs what Syria & Hezbollah were doing in Lebanon.
Move. Then again, my other Arab "neighbors" have immigration policies even stricter than that of Israel. Most bascially won't let me become citizens of their countries. Imagine that
then Israel might have some legitimate reasons to rethink some of their foreign policy positions, as it relates to the Palestinians
And I'd have a legitimate reason to condemn them if they didn't
So under the right circumstances, apartheid is acceptable to you?
I love how you completely ignored the foundation that has brought Isreal to be this evil South African-like place you try make it out to be, and again minimizing the reasons they were in Lebanon, yet focused on how disastrous it is. And no matter how ludicrous it is for you to think I'm being as some RW Likud supporter, my point still remains, which you also managed to gloss right over;
- had Israel not been the focus of attacks since '48, and hadn't had to procure more lands in their defense,
- if other Arab nations would openly and publically condemn terrorist attacks on Israel,
- if other Arab nations took active steps to stop said attacks against Isreal,
- if other Arab nations would publically broadcast Israel's right to exist right where it is,
then Israel would have some legitimate reasons to rethink some of their foreign policy positions, as it relates to the Palestinians.
And I'd have a legitimate reason to condemn them if they didn't
I love how you completely ignored the foundation that has brought Isreal to be this evil South African-like place you try make it out to be
again minimizing the reasons they were in Lebanon, yet focused on how disastrous it is
And no matter how ludicrous it is for you to think I'm being as some RW Likud supporter
You may be an apologist for instituional policies of racism, bigotry, and apartheid but I cannot walk down that path. I learned something different from the Holocaust, Rwanda, Congo, and the Yugoslav Wars.
Yeah... you know, Sirs, South Africa's apartheid policies sprouted from a similar background
Oh? They were being routinely rounded up and exterminated in the millions? When the world woke up to that, and allowed them to settle in their home region, they were immediately attacked from all sides, with the goal largely of continuing the effort to exterminate them? Please, do tell
I look forward to when we can come to a mutual understanding of how things actually came to be
....snip...America is the root of all evil....snip....
Please, do tell
Most of the Boers at the concentration camps were women and children of whom 25% died. So yes, a huge amount of Boers died and they were attacked by neighbors.
Except that this was all history of the region before the creation of the Republic of South Africa.
it will ensure complete equality of social and political rights to all its inhabitants irrespective of religion, race or sex; it will guarantee freedom of religion, conscience, language, education and culture; it will safeguard the Holy Places of all religions; and it will be faithful to the principles of the Charter of the United Nations
In fact it is a great parallel, because the people who were punished the worst had nothing to do with the concentration camps. Very similar to the Palestinians.
Sirs, your lack of comprehension is astounding. Isreal is a U.S. protectorate, no matter how you look at it.
Many black South Africans fought on the side of the British.
Concentration camps were perfected by the British during the Boer Wars, Sirs. The Boers were often attacked by the various black African tribes, though some fought with the Boers and suffered at the concentration camps as well. Most of the Boers at the concentration camps were women and children of whom 25% died. So yes, a huge amount of Boers died and they were attacked by neighbors.....And the Holocaust came before the creation of Israel
This conversation has degenerated from the laughable to the absurd. Israel is being castigated in vile terms without any nod by JS and Henny, our stewards of Catholic sentiment, to the context in which that beleagured nation's perhaps necessary policies of control are played out. What is the rhetoric on the Palestinian side? Far worse, what are the repeated terrorist acts on the Palestinian side? In league with these refugees, how often have contiguous and otherwise surrounding Arab (read now: Muslim, including the bete noir Iran) nations actually waged war to eradicate the State of Israel? Short of an eternal kumbaya moment, perhaps only conceivable to whacked-out, righteous Catholics, this history virtually compels Israel to take a strong defensive posture toward these proven threats. And for good measure, the conceit used by the Palestinian's ("once our land") dissipates almost entirely when the facts are brought to the fore that their connection to the land was incidental, not essential (in that they could have developed the exact same culture in another place), and that the surest method of defusing the roiling conflict is to have the concerned Arab/Muslim states absorb the mass of refugees as their own, as their citizens. Viewed in that light, the Palestinians are homeless only because, figuratively, they refuse to walk down the block to their sister's capacious home, were she to offer them temporary or permanent quarter so they could once and for all relinquish victimhood and embrace productive personhood.
<<And Larry, your lack of historical perspective and context is truely astounding, regardless your hyperbolic opinion of how fascist and evil America is.>>
Both Iran and Iraq were victims of Reagan's duplicity. I think it is you Sirs who has a problem remembering what the historical prospective is. Not to worry, if histroy teaches us anything, it teaches us that fascist states are never economically sustainable.
As many as 100,000 black South Africans were placed in the concentration camps.
This conversation has degenerated from the laughable to the absurd. Israel is being castigated in vile terms without any nod by JS and Henny, our stewards of Catholic sentiment... perhaps only conceivable to whacked-out, righteous Catholics
Dear Henny: don't mistake acerbic criticism for anything but a topical rebuke. Trust me, otherwise I have but the highest genuine regard for you, a champion of goodness in so many ways, and for JS, whose friendship (internet though it is) I treasure among my most valuable.
As an honor student through 16 years of Catholic education, after which I began to learn the insidious institutional anti-Semitism (despite John Paul II's efforts at repair) that not only infected Catholic regard for Jews over the centuries but also infected the larger European ethos on that matter, arguably providing much of the passion and some of the structure for the horrible culmination realized by the Nazis, I am acutely sensitive to tone-deaf righteousness submerging a cacaphony of hate experienced nonetheless as the living word of the Lord, a Jew Himself, whose Church flourished by casting the Jews as foil and scapegoat.
More Arab actions... for Sirs. :)
More Arab actions... for Sirs. :)
Don't you mean more Jordan action? More "Arab action" from the same country that's been providing some Arab actions? 8)
Have Catholic attitudes changed, Henny? Perhaps superficially. In a top-down organization like the Church, where reform so often starts at the pinnacle, a new edict may be heard, dimly understood and dumbly embraced without any genuine let alone profound change of heart occurring in what is otherwise a rote reaction to an edict, not a heartfelt epiphany of the soul. True individual changes of heart, let alone massive organizational changes of ethos, may take eons to accomplish, if ever accomplished at all. For example, the Emancipation Proclamation was signed in 1863. Yet now even, has racism been banished? My overall point (and I have to go) is that virulent anti-Semitism, now most famously harbored by some Arabs, is insidious and corrosive and cannot be trusted. My advice to Israel would be, despite any welcome change in government, to proceed very cautiously, putting security first, and on the path to peace don't even bother trusting, but instead verify, verify, verify.
No, Jordan's King was just doing the talking. LOL. He is talking about other regional expectations:
...The unity deal contains a vague promise to "respect" Israeli-Palestinian pacts. But it does not commit the incoming government to abiding by those pacts, nor to recognizing Israel and renouncing violence as the Quartet demanded....[/color]
No, Jordan's King was just doing the talking. LOL. He is talking about other regional expectations:
...The unity deal contains a vague promise to "respect" Israeli-Palestinian pacts. But it does not commit the incoming government to abiding by those pacts, nor to recognizing Israel and renouncing violence as the Quartet demanded....[/color]
Gotta start somewhere, I guess
The RESPONDING of Israel's military to ongoing attacks, since '48 (read; nothing preemptive or offensive outside of a strike against Iraq's nuclear facility)
This conversation has degenerated from the laughable to the absurd. Israel is being castigated in vile terms without any nod by JS and Henny, our stewards of Catholic sentiment, to the context in which that beleagured nation's perhaps necessary policies of control are played out. What is the rhetoric on the Palestinian side? Far worse, what are the repeated terrorist acts on the Palestinian side? In league with these refugees, how often have contiguous and otherwise surrounding Arab (read now: Muslim, including the bete noir Iran) nations actually waged war to eradicate the State of Israel? Short of an eternal kumbaya moment, perhaps only conceivable to whacked-out, righteous Catholics, this history virtually compels Israel to take a strong defensive posture toward these proven threats. And for good measure, the conceit used by the Palestinian's ("once our land") dissipates almost entirely when the facts are brought to the fore that their connection to the land was incidental, not essential (in that they could have developed the exact same culture in another place), and that the surest method of defusing the roiling conflict is to have the concerned Arab/Muslim states absorb the mass of refugees as their own, as their citizens. Viewed in that light, the Palestinians are homeless only because, figuratively, they refuse to walk down the block to their sister's capacious home, were she to offer them temporary or permanent quarter so they could once and for all relinquish victimhood and embrace productive personhood.
Just a few points I'd like to make.QuoteThe RESPONDING of Israel's military to ongoing attacks, since '48 (read; nothing preemptive or offensive outside of a strike against Iraq's nuclear facility)
The 1956 Suez War was an offensive attack by Israel, United Kingdom, and France on Egypt (and one that President Eisenhower vehemetly opposed).
The 1967 war was an attack by Israel on her neighbors. And considered one of the greatest examples of a preemptive strike in modern military history.
The Arabs invaded Israel in 1948 and 1973, Israel invaded Egypt in 1956, and attacked all her neighbors in 1967. Two invasions by the Arabs and two by Israel. That doesn't seem as one-sided as you probably thought it was, does it?
Egypt closed the Suez, no? That wasn't a provocation, in and of itself?
Now, you tell me, what was Israel supposed to do??
By the way, if you dislike Nasser's idea, you may be surprised to know that it worked. The Canal is still operated to this day by the Suez Canal Authority.
Just a few points I'd like to make.QuoteThe RESPONDING of Israel's military to ongoing attacks, since '48 (read; nothing preemptive or offensive outside of a strike against Iraq's nuclear facility)
The 1956 Suez War was an offensive attack by Israel, United Kingdom, and France on Egypt (and one that President Eisenhower vehemently opposed).
The 1967 war was an attack by Israel on her neighbors. And considered one of the greatest examples of a preemptive strike in modern military history.
The Arabs invaded Israel in 1948 and 1973, Israel invaded Egypt in 1956, and attacked all her neighbors in 1967.
Two invasions by the Arabs and two by Israel. That doesn't seem as one-sided as you probably thought it was, does it?QuoteThis conversation has degenerated from the laughable to the absurd. Israel is being castigated in vile terms without any nod by JS and Henny, our stewards of Catholic sentiment, to the context in which that beleaguered nation's perhaps necessary policies of control are played out. What is the rhetoric on the Palestinian side? Far worse, what are the repeated terrorist acts on the Palestinian side? In league with these refugees, how often have contiguous and otherwise surrounding Arab (read now: Muslim, including the bete noir Iran) nations actually waged war to eradicate the State of Israel? Short of an eternal kumbaya moment, perhaps only conceivable to whacked-out, righteous Catholics, this history virtually compels Israel to take a strong defensive posture toward these proven threats. And for good measure, the conceit used by the Palestinian's ("once our land") dissipates almost entirely when the facts are brought to the fore that their connection to the land was incidental, not essential (in that they could have developed the exact same culture in another place), and that the surest method of defusing the roiling conflict is to have the concerned Arab/Muslim states absorb the mass of refugees as their own, as their citizens. Viewed in that light, the Palestinians are homeless only because, figuratively, they refuse to walk down the block to their sister's capacious home, were she to offer them temporary or permanent quarter so they could once and for all relinquish victimhood and embrace productive personhood.
Well, I've answered the question on how many times there have been wars waged by the Arabs on Israel. I think that is one of the reasons I have pressed so hard in this thread Domer. Americans seem to have this false sense that Israel is a permanent victim state barely existing on the shores of the Mediterranean. Americans seem to believe that at any moment the fledgling state of Israel could be toppled by the slightest wind of Arab aggression. The Noble Israeli Defense Force therefore must defend all of Judaism against these evil, fascist, dirty, disgusting, slovenly Palestinians who might bring the entire Arab world down in a crushing blow to destroy the delicate flower of Israel.
But it isn't so. And it is apparent in your very words, which paraphrased are the equivalent of: "why don't they just move to Syria, Jordan, or Egypt." Did you stop and think that not all Palestinians are Muslim? Did you know that many of them are Christians, Druze, and will it surprise you to learn that some of them are Jews?
Are you still going to tell them to move to Syria and "embrace productive personhood?"
I may be a "whacked-out, righteous Catholic" but in my mind the use of racism and bigotry in institutionalized forms through the Government will never breed the trust necessary to establish the peace that many claim to want both inside and outside of Israel.
It should also be noted that not all Israelis support the methods of the Israeli Government in dealing with the Palestinians.
As I've told you before Domer, I love the Jewish and Muslims as my brothers and sisters. Yet, I have no reason to support any Government that acts in such an inhumane and undemocratic way. I thoroughly dislike the actions of Robert Mugabe's government in Zimbabwe, but surely that doesn't make me a racist, does it?
Nasser nationalised the canal because he considered it to have belonged to Egypt. Was it a provocation for war with Israel? That's up to you to rationalize a foreign policy response, but you said specifically "preemptive war" and therefore I responded with the 1956 Suez Crisis. Yes, Egypt sponsored the Fedayeen who did some damage, though were mainly contained by the Israelis.
For Nasser, he considered the canal to be Egypt's property and Egypt's territorial waters. By the way, if you dislike Nasser's idea, you may be surprised to know that it worked. The Canal is still operated to this day by the Suez Canal Authority.
You asked for preemptive wars and I gave you two. I am not making judgements on who was right or who was wrong. You are making the mistake of assuming that I am some kind of apologist for the Arab states. I am not.
What I dislike is that Americans know so little of the history of the Arab-Israeli conflicts yet they so often neatly compartmentalize it into Israel = Good and Arabs = Evil. I don't know how we got to be such Manichean people, but the truth is not so neatly arranged.
Their flaw is that they are growing soft as is indicated by their latest debacle in Lebanon and this will lead to Armageddon, as was foretold.
If you note, it seems he took that actions, specifically to prevent Israel from using it.
In any case, UN 17 concluded that they were illegally blocking Israeli transit
I referenced that Isreal largely RESPONDS to attacks, & that outside of the one attack on Iraq's Nuclear facility was the only really pre-emptive action taken.
That said, they are not South Africa, this is not some equvilant apartheid
Israel has a right to exist right where it is, and I support it's efforts to DEFEND itself, given the overt and frequent efforts to exterminate them. Yes, it is that simple
JS pronounces with the arrogance of righteousness on the goodness and badness of the Israeli-Palestinian situation, plucking details (not always correctly served) to illustrate oppression while ignoring the larger themes such as Israel's right to exist AND its right to construct and execute a sound, if often harsh, security program to dissuade, deter and punish attacks on its territory and its citizens. The danger emanates from sworn-enemy terrorists and surrounding (not necessarily contiguous) Muslim nations either in a formal state of war against Israel or subject to strong internal or pan-Arabic (pan-Muslim) pressures to take a belligerent stance short of war but on its verge against a reviled people cast as wanton intruders. Thus balanced, we are now free to examine the questions with only a COMPREHENSIVE, OMNIBUS justice as our guide.
So, JS, let me see if I have your position clear, please. You believe that if they were to try to live in peace with thier neighbors while also allowing Arabs living within thier borders equal treatement in all respects ,then all would be well, namely they would not be attacked from in or out?
QuoteIf you note, it seems he took that actions, specifically to prevent Israel from using it.
You mean using an Egyptian canal and waterway? Perish the thought. Besides that was hardly the only reason..
QuoteIn any case, UN 17 concluded that they were illegally blocking Israeli transit
You do not want to get into United Nations resolutions and who broke what and when, Sirs. Besides, Nasser put his nation before the United Nations, I thought you right-wingers ate that stuff up ;)
QuoteI referenced that Isreal largely RESPONDS to attacks, & that outside of the one attack on Iraq's Nuclear facility was the only really pre-emptive action taken.
And I demonstrated that there have been four major wars between 1948 and 1973. Israel used preemptive action in two of them. The Arabs used preemptive action in two of them. Justifications and rationalizations abound and are the tools of apologists, of which I'm not one for either side.
This is apartheid. There are towns within Israel where race and religion determine who may live there. There are roads in Israel and in Palestinian territories where Palestinians are not allowed to drive. There are neighborhoods and homes destroyed all the time by Israeli armored bulldozers. There have been peaceful protesters killed, including Americans, by the Israelis.....I have no problem with Israel existing. I have a lot of problems with apartheid and treating your fellow man like dirt. This is systematic and anti-democratic action on the part of the Government of Israel. It isn't about "existing" it is about doing what is right.
That's right. I'm just like Tee and Israel is fully justified to carry on apartheid practices.
Sirs, look at your final statement. It is completely manichean and that is the whole problem. This is not one-sided.
"Now, if this were a liberal western democracy the issue of seizing land and allowing this other community to live in poverty and deprivation would not be an issue. Purely from a economics standpoint as a Socialist or a Capitalist there would be no reason to want so many people to live such an impoverished life. It is bad economics."
Did I say "fully"? No.
I never said it was.
The Indefaddath was killing enough people to be seriously irritateing so lots of Palestinians have lost their jobs and educational oppurtunitys so that they can live behind a wall.
QuoteDid I say "fully"? No.
Enough that you seem to have no real problem with it. As I said long ago in this discussion, you're the white anglo-liberal in South Africa. You might frown a little at the poor blacks, but it doesn't really affect you any. You'd still vote for the Nationalists when election day came around.QuoteI never said it was.
You most certainly did. I suggest you re-read your statements, even your last paragraph of where you begin with "Israel is no saint" and end with "ball in their court", which by the way is a sports metaphor.QuoteThe Indefaddath was killing enough people to be seriously irritateing so lots of Palestinians have lost their jobs and educational oppurtunitys so that they can live behind a wall.
That's not quite a fair sentence Plane. A lot of Palestinians were forced to live behind a wall, even forced to move behind the wall that had absolutely nothing to do with the intifada and just want to live a normal life. Despite popular myth, not all Palestinians are extremist Muslims (as I've pointed out, not all of them are Muslim at all, many are Christians, Druze, and amazingly even a few Jews).
Believe it or not, not all Catholics in Northern Ireland were Republicans, and not all those who supported unification with Ireland (nationalists) were terrorists. Some were even Protestants. Some of this oversimplification needs to stop, and that is a very sad part of Israel's apartheid policies. A lot of good people are left in privation.
QuoteDid I say "fully"? No.
Enough that you seem to have no real problem with it.
As I said long ago in this discussion, you're the white anglo-liberal in South Africa. You might frown a little at the poor blacks, but it doesn't really affect you any. You'd still vote for the Nationalists when election day came around.
QuoteI never said it was.
You most certainly did. I suggest you re-read your statements, even your last paragraph of where you begin with "Israel is no saint" and end with "ball in their court", which by the way is a sports metaphor.
Not quite, enough that I comprehend why they've done what they've done. Remember I don't but this pure comparable apartheid you've bought into, regardless of how many times or how loudly you keep saying it is.
Yea, you're right there Js, ...call me a liberal will yas.
Seriously though, I'd definately vote for the right for Israel to exist, right where it is, vs not, since that is indeed the foundation to my position.
As I've said in the past, the "Right of return" is an absolute non-starter until the Arab mindset is altered...
specifically how the Muslim population needs to condemn and act in taking out those mutated elements of Islam
The Paestinians willing to blow themselves up amount to enough to build the walls , the rest seem to be intimidated or supportive , is your suggestion for dealing with indefadath to only inconveinience the guilty?
That would be good for me too ,know how to do it?
QuoteThe Paestinians willing to blow themselves up amount to enough to build the walls , the rest seem to be intimidated or supportive , is your suggestion for dealing with indefadath to only inconveinience the guilty?
That would be good for me too ,know how to do it?
Take the more difficult road and work very hard on reaching a peace agreement that all sides can live with. It has generally worked in Northern Ireland, at least thus far in recent history. It has been far more succesful than any of the walls they built in Belfast.
QuoteNot quite, enough that I comprehend why they've done what they've done. Remember I don't but this pure comparable apartheid you've bought into, regardless of how many times or how loudly you keep saying it is.
Of course you don't "buy it", you support it.
Go to Katzir and talk with mayor Sandrov. He talks about "high walls make good neighbors" and "it is a question of social suitability." That's how he defends the fact that his little town of Katzir won't allow Israeli Arabs to live there. You say it isn't apartheid, well you make up a nice little word for it, or a phrase like Sandrov has done.
QuoteSeriously though, I'd definately vote for the right for Israel to exist, right where it is, vs not, since that is indeed the foundation to my position.
I vote for loving your neighbor and your enemies. I vote for human dignity. I vote for not pushing your fellow man into homelands of privation. I vote for not judging men and women based only on their race, religion, or beliefs. I vote for not having 93% of the land reserved for people of a specific religion.
QuoteAs I've said in the past, the "Right of return" is an absolute non-starter until the Arab mindset is altered...
Yet you discuss UN resolutions that were passed "before the UN became so overtly anti-semetic and uncredible." Did you know the UN passed a resolution calling for the right of return for Palestinians in 1948 (after the war)? Did you know that they did so even after an Israeli terrorist murdered UN mediator Folke Bernadotte?
Your medical analogy is a misdiagnoses. Why? It makes an assumption that Israel's existance is in danger in reality because other nations have not acknowledged it on paper. It is not. Israel exists. It is a very powerful nation and as I've explained many times, it is a popular myth that it is a land of underdogs who barely cling to their territory and are constantly invaded by massive Arab armies hellbent on pushing the lovable Jews into the Mediterranean Sea.
The nation's that refuse to recognize Israel only do so because of internal political reasons. They aren't idiots, they know Israel exists and they can't do anything about it.
Quotespecifically how the Muslim population needs to condemn and act in taking out those mutated elements of Islam
And what exactly do you want "the Muslim population" to do?
You seem to continue to gloss right over what has led to israel's harsh policies...
I vote for loving your neighbor and your enemies. I vote for human dignity. I vote for not pushing your fellow man into homelands of privation. I vote for not judging men and women based only on their race, religion, or beliefs. I vote for not having 93% of the land reserved for people of a specific religion.
Good for you. Now, can we get the Arab neighbors to buy into that? When the majority come around to my side, I'll then endeavor to come over to yours.
Yet you discuss UN resolutions that were passed "before the UN became so overtly anti-semetic and uncredible." Did you know the UN passed a resolution calling for the right of return for Palestinians in 1948 (after the war)? Did you know that they did so even after an Israeli terrorist murdered UN mediator Folke Bernadotte? [/color]
Yea.........and?
AlQeada and other like organizations are also pretty small compared to the U.S. A fraction of our population, and highly improbable of carrying out their agenda of converting, subjugating, or killing every non-Muslim, starting with Western Civilization. Yet the mindset, driven by religious fervor, and the belief that even in killing themselves, as long as they kills hundreds, if not thousands of innocents, they bring such an agenda closer to what they believe is absolutely inevitable, requires us to deal with them right here, right now.
The nation's that refuse to recognize Israel only do so because of internal political reasons. They aren't idiots, they know Israel exists and they can't do anything about it.
Boy, how convenient. So bascially you're saying they don't have to do anything. That all this rests on Israel. Amazing. Sad, but amazing. So, what's Israel supposed to do, that will also guarantee their security and remove the threat of Terrorist attacks??
I swore I was going to leave this topic alone, but I simply can't. I have to address a couple of things here.You seem to continue to gloss right over what has led to israel's harsh policies...
And you continue to gloss over what caused the Palestinians to be pissed off in the first place.I vote for loving your neighbor and your enemies. I vote for human dignity. I vote for not pushing your fellow man into homelands of privation. I vote for not judging men and women based only on their race, religion, or beliefs. I vote for not having 93% of the land reserved for people of a specific religion.QuoteGood for you. Now, can we get the Arab neighbors to buy into that? When the majority come around to my side, I'll then endeavor to come over to yours.
See Sirs, you can't "vote" for that - no one can. Because even if the Palestinians start behaving themselves and the walls come down and the Israelis and the Palestinians are kissing and hugging in reconciliation, you will never get that. Israel, by Israeli law, only allows Jews to be citizens. And some Arab Jews don't even get that (the Jews that lived in the region before 1948).Yet you discuss UN resolutions that were passed "before the UN became so overtly anti-semetic and uncredible." Did you know the UN passed a resolution calling for the right of return for Palestinians in 1948 (after the war)? Did you know that they did so even after an Israeli terrorist murdered UN mediator Folke Bernadotte? [/color]QuoteYea.........and?
What do you mean with "Yea... and?" JS was refuting your statement that the UN suddenly became "overtly anti-semitic and uncredible." Perhaps more correctly put, they recognized Palestinian rights a long, long time ago. (In your language that means they've been anti-semitic for a long time.)AlQeada and other like organizations are also pretty small compared to the U.S. A fraction of our population, and highly improbable of carrying out their agenda of converting, subjugating, or killing every non-Muslim, starting with Western Civilization. Yet the mindset, driven by religious fervor, and the belief that even in killing themselves, as long as they kills hundreds, if not thousands of innocents, they bring such an agenda closer to what they believe is absolutely inevitable, requires us to deal with them right here, right now.
You know, I've been reading this line of crap in a few threads recently. What makes you think they want to convert us and subjugate us? First things first... they DON'T WANT US. They are fighting Western interference in the Middle East and interference with the Muslim people. But really, converting us is not an issue. I suppose this is the line of rhetoric used to excite conservative Americans... "They are a threat to our "Christian nation."The nation's that refuse to recognize Israel only do so because of internal political reasons. They aren't idiots, they know Israel exists and they can't do anything about it.
Boy, how convenient. So bascially you're saying they don't have to do anything. That all this rests on Israel. Amazing. Sad, but amazing. So, what's Israel supposed to do, that will also guarantee their security and remove the threat of Terrorist attacks??
No, this is domestic policy that is even recognized by the U.S. The leaders of countries that are sympathetic to Israel, for example, still have to appease their own people or they risk revolution and a severe worsening of the problems in the Middle East. It is a balance they have to play out, recognizing the opinions of their own people while trying to keep the peace.
Henny said: " you continue to gloss over what caused the Palestinians to be pissed off in the first place."
Well, let's see. What is now known as the Jews lived in this land with what is now known as the Palestinians many many years before the Jews were even a people (Abraham et al), but for Palestinians to say they were there first is not entirely accurate. So, if htey are upset from that view, then I simply do not see it. If, however, the yare upset by their treatment by the Jews, then THAT is a different matter. The Jews and Palestininas both have made erros over the years, but to place a majority blame upon one party, I beleive, is not supportable.
Henny said: "See Sirs, you can't "vote" for that - no one can. Because even if the Palestinians start behaving themselves and the walls come down and the Israelis and the Palestinians are kissing and hugging in reconciliation, you will never get that. Israel, by Israeli law, only allows Jews to be citizens. And some Arab Jews don't even get that (the Jews that lived in the region before 1948)."
I would surmsie that the Jews might let Arabs become citizens if they acted more like people invested in the Isreali state and not simply residents there. No way to prove that, of course. But then again, this goes back to other comments by both Sirs and Plane ot the effect that the Muslim community cannot even police themselves. Isreal knows this as well, so why would they do what is uggested here and open themselves up for violence? I can just see it now: Isreal enacts the policy you proposed (everyone live in equal harmony). And then, soon thereafter, resident Islamic fighters blow up a bomb in a marketplace and what do the resident Muslims do? ZIP. So the cycle contimes. Until they can police their own, Isreal would be a fool to do what you suggest. Henny, be realisitc: if "moderate" Muslims cannot contian the more "radical" elements of their society, they will not garner the respect they need and deserve. And, I know, now you're gonig to say it isn't that easy to do that and my reply is "Physician, heal thyself!" You simply MUST do so if your aims are to be realistically furthered!
Henny said: "You know, I've been reading this line of crap in a few threads recently. What makes you think they want to convert us and subjugate us? First things first... they DON'T WANT US. They are fighting Western interference in the Middle East and interference with the Muslim people. But really, converting us is not an issue. I suppose this is the line of rhetoric used to excite conservative Americans... "They are a threat to our "Christian nation."
Well, read your Koran lately? I've read it several times and it is indeed inflammatory toward those not of the faith. This is evidenced by the harsh treatment of Christians in many Muslim lands such as in Saudi Arabia. An example: A friend of mine got arrested and forcefully deported a few years ago by the Saudis because he GAVE WAY Bibles on a street corner (He didn't utter a word). You wanna go on my street corder and give away Korans here? Go for it.
They want MORE than for us to leave them alone, they want to forcefully convert us to the Faith or, if we are not willing, to kill us bad bad infidels. We have a Palestinian here at work and he speaks this policy quite frequently. He does say, though, that he would be merciful and not kill us but we would have to pay add'l taxes, all these funds to go toward Muslim charities.
What you fail to adress, Henny, is why the Jews can't have their little Jewish nation both (as they see it, righteously so I would contest) as a fulfillment of their covenant, a matter of very sober religious importance, and as a refuge and rehabilitation center from a nearly-successful genocide. Further, the religious Muslim states -- notably Saudi Arabia and Iran, and others -- surely fall far short of the Western idea of a liberal democracy. Why is it that they don't draw your condemnation?
And you continue to gloss over what caused the Palestinians to be pissed off in the first place.
QuoteGood for you. Now, can we get the Arab neighbors to buy into that? When the majority come around to my side, I'll then endeavor to come over to yours.
See Sirs, you can't "vote" for that - no one can. Because even if the Palestinians start behaving themselves and the walls come down and the Israelis and the Palestinians are kissing and hugging in reconciliation, you will never get that. Israel, by Israeli law, only allows Jews to be citizens. And some Arab Jews don't even get that.
QuoteYea.........and?
What do you mean with "Yea... and?" JS was refuting your statement that the UN suddenly became "overtly anti-semitic and uncredible." Perhaps more correctly put, they recognized Palestinian rights a long, long time ago.
You know, I've been reading this line of crap in a few threads recently. What makes you think they want to convert us and subjugate us? First things first... they DON'T WANT US. They are fighting Western interference in the Middle East and interference with the Muslim people. But really, converting us is not an issue. I suppose this is the line of rhetoric used to excite conservative Americans... "They are a threat to our "Christian nation."
QuoteBoy, how convenient. So bascially you're saying they don't have to do anything. That all this rests on Israel. Amazing. Sad, but amazing. So, what's Israel supposed to do, that will also guarantee their security and remove the threat of Terrorist attacks??
No, this is domestic policy that is even recognized by the U.S. The leaders of countries that are sympathetic to Israel, for example, still have to appease their own people or they risk revolution and a severe worsening of the problems in the Middle East. It is a balance they have to play out, recognizing the opinions of their own people while trying to keep the peace.
I would surmsie that the Jews might let Arabs become citizens if they acted more like people invested in the Isreali state and not simply residents there. No way to prove that, of course. But then again, this goes back to other comments by both Sirs and Plane ot the effect that the Muslim community cannot even police themselves. Isreal knows this as well, so why would they do what is uggested here and open themselves up for violence? I can just see it now: Isreal enacts the policy you proposed (everyone live in equal harmony). And then, soon thereafter, resident Islamic fighters blow up a bomb in a marketplace and what do the resident Muslims do? ZIP. So the cycle contimes. Until they can police their own, Isreal would be a fool to do what you suggest. Henny, be realisitc: if "moderate" Muslims cannot contian the more "radical" elements of their society, they will not garner the respect they need and deserve. And, I know, now you're gonig to say it isn't that easy to do that and my reply is "Physician, heal thyself!" You simply MUST do so if your aims are to be realistically furthered!QuoteNo Professor, even if the Muslims stop blowing things up, non-Jews are not allowed to be citizens of Israel. You cannot be a citizen of Israel, I cannot be a citizen of Israel... no one but a Jew can be a citizen. This is the point I was trying to make. It is a religious nation, and although they do allow tightly restricted residency of others, citizenship by Muslims, Christians and all other religions is not allowed.
There are Arab , Druze ,Samaritan and other citizens of Israel that are not Jews , but their minority status is not easy to join in, most of them were resident or decendants of residents of the origional territory of Irsael.
I think tht he laws are as they are because the Jew want a land for Jews , if they made citizenship more availible to non-Jews there could be a wave of immagration that would soon outvote the Isreli Jews .
The Koran does speak very specifically in the need that it be followed, or that non-muslims be subjugated to it.
I want to respond, but I must admit that I don't see this thread as going anywhere productive any longer.
QuoteThe Koran does speak very specifically in the need that it be followed, or that non-muslims be subjugated to it.
Sirs, I'd like to address this point. Professor makes a similar point and I think we should make a comparison to the Old Testament and then discuss the Koran if you like. First of all where does the Koran say this? Now, if we read the Old Testament we can see that it isn't exactly friendly to enemies of the Israeli people either. So, are you making a very fair comparison?
My problem here is that there is apartheid in what is supposed to be a democratic state. There are citizens of Israel who are treated as lesser people because of their race and religion. You may call it by a different name if you wish, you may justify it if you wish. For me, there is no such thing as conditional apartheid or conditional bigotry. It was wrong in South Africa and it is wrong in Israel.
I believe in the Gospel. And while Sirs may put conditions on that belief and others may say it should have died 2000 years ago. I don't believe in placing "conditions" upon it, nor do I believe it is dead (or should be). I believe in the dignity of man, no matter who they are. And yes, I believe in that in all nations, be it Saudi Arabia, Israel, the United States, Iran, or Malta. It is unconditional love for my fellow brothers and sisters, be they oppressors or those being deprived.
And on a completely different note, I do like Miss Henny's idea of making this the saloon's longest thread, both in responses and reads 8)
And on a completely different note, I do like Miss Henny's idea of making this the saloon's longest thread, both in responses and reads 8)
You still have a bit of a way to go to catch up to this thread (http://debategate.com/new3dhs/index.php?topic=917.0) - but I just helped you out.
;D
And my problem is that's not the problem behind Islamofascism and Militant Islam. That's a side note, and as much a problem as you believe it is or how much of apartheid as you believe Israel is running, you yourself keep shooting down the biggest need in addressing not just it, but in dealing with militant Islam.
Yea, I realize that recently the WH changed it's course, and have agreed, thru Iraq to "talk" to messers Syria & Iran. Bad move in my book. Something I can actually criticise Bush for
And my problem is that's not the problem behind Islamofascism and Militant Islam. That's a side note, and as much a problem as you believe it is or how much of apartheid as you believe Israel is running, you yourself keep shooting down the biggest need in addressing not just it, but in dealing with militant Islam.
And militant Islam has become a problem for Israel because...?
Yea, I realize that recently the WH changed it's course, and have agreed, thru Iraq to "talk" to messers Syria & Iran. Bad move in my book. Something I can actually criticise Bush for
And something I applaud the government for, although they're doing it obviously not happy about doing it. I know you're of the "just blow 'em up" mentality Sirs, and with all due respect, I am SO GLAD you're not in charge of any military efforts. :P
And my problem is that's not the problem behind Islamofascism and Militant Islam. That's a side note, and as much a problem as you believe it is or how much of apartheid as you believe Israel is running, you yourself keep shooting down the biggest need in addressing not just it, but in dealing with militant Islam.
And militant Islam has become a problem for Israel because...? (This "chicken and the egg" argument is getting old.)Yea, I realize that recently the WH changed it's course, and have agreed, thru Iraq to "talk" to messers Syria & Iran. Bad move in my book. Something I can actually criticize Bush for
And something I applaud the government for, although they're doing it obviously not happy about doing it. I know you're of the "just blow 'em up" mentality Sirs, and with all due respect, I am SO GLAD you're not in charge of any military efforts. :P
We are not to form any covenant relationships or alliance with unbelievers and to share in their activities that violate the covenant obligations a Christian has with God
Ephesians chapter 5:7-8 "Be not ye therefore partakers with them. For ye were sometimes darkness, but now are ye light in the Lord: walk as children of light." We are to hate iniquity and to love righteousness as Jesus exemplified in his life (Hebrew 1:9)
For the believer of the gospel of Jesus Christ to have fellowship with God the Father and his Son Jesus is the greatest joy we can have (1 John 1:4).
Jesus is the light of the world (John 8:12), and through the gospel that true light enlightens mankind (John 1:9). Light and fellowship work together. Light and darkness cannot share the same space. Not only is darkness devoid of any light but also of love. 1 John 2:11 "But he that hates his brother is in darkness, and walks in darkness, and knows not where he goes, because that darkness has blinded his eyes."
1 So be imitators of God, 1 as beloved children,
2 and live in love, as Christ loved us and handed himself over for us as a sacrificial offering to God for a fragrant aroma.
3 Immorality or any impurity or greed must not even be mentioned among you, as is fitting among holy ones,
4 no obscenity or silly or suggestive talk, which is out of place, but instead, thanksgiving.
JS, was Gnosticism as great a problem for the early, Pauline Church as Judaism, and were not the intellectual attitudes of Christians toward them, if not their very social practices, ones of separatism, which could actually, for those groups and many others, be considered an early form of apartheid, especially as the Church matured into Empire? I find the Church's holier-than-thou preaching to be greatly at odds with the living religion it spawned, which makes cries for humanity emanating from that base suspect, at least, and evil, at worst, as embodied in the terrible descent of Christian Europe into a frenzy of annihilation. Kumbaya.
QuoteWe are not to form any covenant relationships or alliance with unbelievers and to share in their activities that violate the covenant obligations a Christian has with God
Ephesians chapter 5:7-8 "Be not ye therefore partakers with them. For ye were sometimes darkness, but now are ye light in the Lord: walk as children of light." We are to hate iniquity and to love righteousness as Jesus exemplified in his life (Hebrew 1:9)
For the believer of the gospel of Jesus Christ to have fellowship with God the Father and his Son Jesus is the greatest joy we can have (1 John 1:4).
Jesus is the light of the world (John 8:12), and through the gospel that true light enlightens mankind (John 1:9). Light and fellowship work together. Light and darkness cannot share the same space. Not only is darkness devoid of any light but also of love. 1 John 2:11 "But he that hates his brother is in darkness, and walks in darkness, and knows not where he goes, because that darkness has blinded his eyes."
Ephesians is specifically referring on how to act. That would be more obvious if you included verses 1-4.Quote1 So be imitators of God, 1 as beloved children,
2 and live in love, as Christ loved us and handed himself over for us as a sacrificial offering to God for a fragrant aroma.
3 Immorality or any impurity or greed must not even be mentioned among you, as is fitting among holy ones,
4 no obscenity or silly or suggestive talk, which is out of place, but instead, thanksgiving.
Verse six is conveniently left off which is directly associated with Ephesians 2:2, which is very much a warning against gnosticism. "Age of this world" or "aeon" (see Ephesians 2:2) is a common term in gnosticism, which was already a problem facing the early church.
2nd Corinthians 6:14 is Paul's attack on Paganism (actually it is 6:14 - 6:18).
The most important part of that chapter is certainly 6:1-13. Verses 14-18 are a very sudden shift away from the rest of the chapter, which is the real fluid argument of Paul to the Corinthians.
I do not believe, Henny, but correct me if I am mistaken, that you have addressed the issue of why "moderate" Islam does not reign in "radical" Islam? That mgiht get them more in respect and associated corrective actions by the West than not speaking out against the intolerable actions of the Bin Ladens of the world.
You indicated in previous posts that many communities in the Moslem world are "tight" communities. If so, round up the 'bad guys" for the proper justice processes, or is it, that even "moderate" Islam really cheers the "radicals" on, wishing they had the courage to do what the "radicals" are doing? Do not be grouped with them (light with darkness).
An opinion piece by an Israeli peace activist...
Evil little Israel. If they'd just let the Palestinians re-intergrate and treat them like anyone else, all will be right as rain :-\
Evil little Israel. If they'd just let the Palestinians re-intergrate and treat them like anyone else, all will be right as rain :-\
So, even the point of view of an Israeli is invalid to you if the Israeli disagrees with your view of what "is" and what "isn't?"
Or are Jews who strive for peace through activism and working both sides of the issue "self-loathing Jews?"
This is similar to what the Bible indicates about marrying an unbeliever:
2 Corinthians 6:14: "Do not be unevenly yoked with unbelievers. For what do righteousness and lawlessness have in common? What fellowship has light with darkness?"
If you go into a dark room where does the darkness go? It disappears it must leave. It can only return when the light is removed or the light switch is turned off. Darkness and light cannot occupy the same space. So is the same in the life of someone who belongs to Jesus.
We are not to form any covenant relationships or alliance with unbelievers and to share in their activities that violate the covenant obligations a Christian has with God
Ephesians chapter 5:7-8 "Be not ye therefore partakers with them. For ye were sometimes darkness, but now are ye light in the Lord: walk as children of light." We are to hate iniquity and to love righteousness as Jesus exemplified in his life (Hebrew 1:9)
For the believer of the gospel of Jesus Christ to have fellowship with God the Father and his Son Jesus is the greatest joy we can have (1 John 1:4).
Jesus is the light of the world (John 8:12), and through the gospel that true light enlightens mankind (John 1:9). Light and fellowship work together. Light and darkness cannot share the same space. Not only is darkness devoid of any light but also of love. 1 John 2:11 "But he that hates his brother is in darkness, and walks in darkness, and knows not where he goes, because that darkness has blinded his eyes."
That (your marriage) is your matter, between you and God (not Allah).
The "unbeliever" angle was an attempt to provide another perspective on two perspectives living together ("radical" terrorist Muslims and "moderate" peace-loving Muslims). They shouldn't be matched up together.
And, all this intriguing discussion centering around the concept of "moderates" not being able to control their own radical elements is not intellectually or realistically valid. Until they do, true credibility for them will not be obtained. No one says they have to round up the radical elements and stone them or even turn them over to secular officials. Just sit them down and make it clear that if they do not cease and desist, then that will indeed happen. Even the Bible says that of someone continually sins you are to bring them up before the elders of the church so discipline can be considered.
When moderate Islam speaks out en masse against the radicals, then perhaps, just perhaps, the West will believe them and their assertions. Until then, it's all just feldercarb.
When moderate Islam speaks out en masse against the radicals, then perhaps, just perhaps, the West will believe them and their assertions. Until then, it's all just feldercarb.
Ever wonder WHY the West doesn't put much stock on "moderates" over there? Read the last few posts. Clean up your own backyard. I would postulate that Huddling together in fear form the more radical elements in your society and not doing anything about it will not progress your civilization. But you know that already, don't you?
When moderate Islam speaks out en masse against the radicals, then perhaps, just perhaps, the West will believe them and their assertions. Until then, it's all just feldercarb.
Interesting. Something that is recognized by religious scholars of multiple faiths worldwide is "feldercarb" to you.
When moderate Islam speaks out en masse against the radicals, then perhaps, just perhaps, the West will believe them and their assertions. Until then, it's all just feldercarb.
Interesting. Something that is recognized by religious scholars of multiple faiths worldwide is "feldercarb" to you.Ever wonder WHY the West doesn't put much stock on "moderates" over there? Read the last few posts. Clean up your own backyard. I would postulate that Huddling together in fear form the more radical elements in your society and not doing anything about it will not progress your civilization. But you know that already, don't you?
Hmm. You do realize that I am a "white" (non-Arab) Christian American who happens to be living in the Middle East? Yes, you know that already, don't you?
I sincerely dislike your selective dashes of judgment and nastiness. I haven't once personally insulted you, Professor, even while I disagree with nearly everything you post. But by all means, do continue on this path if it makes you feel better about your positions in the debate.
Rather than lecturing and demanding, as Professor, Sirs and the Prototypical Right are wont to do, we might try to figure out how to join common cause with moderate Muslims, perhaps to exhort them but much more importantly to establish an understanding of our common purpose.
Sirs, you've got to get over this "Israel is evil" hyperbole. I don't think anyone here has suggested that. The point is that Israel does have apartheid policies in place. You scoff at it because of the name "apartheid" and the connotations that brings, but you've yet to provide any proof to the contrary.
Look at it this way. An citizen of Israel is being denied the right to live in a city based only on the fact that he's an Arab. He isn't too poor to purchase the land in the city. He's a physician and bizarrely enough he treats many of the people from the very city he wishes to move to. He has never been considered a threat by the Israeli Government. He isn't a practicing Muslim, though he comes from a Muslim family. Now, how do you defend that?
And you can call it by another name, but it is apartheid, though not the worst example that Israel has.
So, while I am being saddled with 2000 years of anti-Semitic behavior and current "evil Israel" sentiments, please no that none of that is true. It is telling that because I point out a serious injustice in the Israeli Government's treatment of Palestinians and her own citizens that I receive such a backlash.
it's not possible for mass condemnation of those radical elements within your own religion. I do it all the time myself when its Christian radicals, and it's done adnauseum to Christianity, even when there's nothing radical being used as an example, while it's being bashed. Point being the radical elements of Christianity are frequently marginalized and condemned for their actions that obviously are counter to what God would have us do. It's not done to prevent their uprising, it's done because it's an effort by those radical elements to try and push some mutated version of Christianity, which most of us won't stand for.
And everytime it's referenced how such an approach could actually have the greatest effect at marginalizing and demeaning the message of radical Islamists, and not involve military intervention at all, I keep getting explanations how I just don't know enough about Islam and its culture to understand how it's apparently not possible............brings us right back to the other option, military intervention. Yet that approach is condemned by folks like yourself, because of the collateral damage effect. To be honest, you're pretty much trying to tie our hands on this one. You don't see that?
Muslims do speak out - Muslims in America and Muslims worldwide, individually and in groups. I read about it and hear about it all the time. This is where my frustration lies in this part of the debate - what else should they do? Arm themselves and go blow the radicals up (becoming radicals themselves)?
But it's important to make a certain clarification. Al-Qaeda and groups like them are radical religious elements. Hamas and Hizbollah and other groups like them are political groups. Don't sit and hold your breath waiting for the moderate Muslims to condemn Hamas and Hizbollah based on religion, as they are not religious groups.
And everytime it's referenced how such an approach could actually have the greatest effect at marginalizing and demeaning the message of radical Islamists, and not involve military intervention at all, I keep getting explanations how I just don't know enough about Islam and its culture to understand how it's apparently not possible............brings us right back to the other option, military intervention. Yet that approach is condemned by folks like yourself, because of the collateral damage effect. To be honest, you're pretty much trying to tie our hands on this one. You don't see that?
Diplomacy, diplomacy, diplomacy.
I'm being bluntly honest here Miss Henny, I don't see such supposed mass condemnation, and I sure as hell don't see the Muslim leaders in the Middle East, outside of Jordan, doing anything pro-active to take down those elements inside their own religion. What I do see has been the frequent references by yourself and Js how these governments can't really do that. They have to appease their populace in some way, and apparently coming down hard on militant Islam isn't an appropriate thing to do.
But lets get even more basic. Is it your position that "violence" (which I would refer to as military intervention) should not be used in dealing with militant Islam? Are you saying that trying to take them down using force makes those individuals "radicals"?? Any and every military is simply a bunch of radicals?? ???
They still are using Islam as the foundation for their hatred of Israel, and why they need to be driven into th sea. They still are using the same tactics, and are still targeting and killing innocent men, women & children, in populated areas, such as marketplaces, discos, buses, and schools. And moderate Muslims aren't going to condemn THAT?
I think you misunderstood something way back in the thread. First, leaders of any nation DO have to appease their own citizens. Some do a fantastic balancing act of appeasing their own citizens AND taking down radical groups.
But lets get even more basic. Is it your position that "violence" (which I would refer to as military intervention) should not be used in dealing with militant Islam? Are you saying that trying to take them down using force makes those individuals "radicals"?? Any and every military is simply a bunch of radicals?? ???
No. If you remember way back when, I strongly supported going into Afghanistan, and I still support our efforts there to take down the Taliban. However, pre-emptively going into Iran or Syria is foolish, IMO, just a I believed going into Iraq was foolish.
I also believe that as Hamas was voted into power in Palestine, it's time to talk to them too. It was a democratic election, after all.
Muslims use Islam as the foundation to buy saran wrap and cabbage. If you want condemnation, rather than yelling at the whole Islamic world - which makes no sense at all - how about asking for the condemnation from where it belongs? Ask for condemnation of Hamas from the MODERATE PALESTINIANS. Ask for the condemnation of Hizbollah from the MODERATE LEBANESE. Could you just let go of Islam for a minute and remember that these are groups and people with different political perspectives and needs?
One more thing, JS, you seem to be emboldened by, if not frankly in the thrall of, Jimmy Carter's ill-conceived, politically tone-deaf embrace of the apartheid motif to describe Israel's policy toward the Palestinians, which de-emphasizes security concerns almost to the vanishing point while highlighting inflammatory aspects of the policy, which no one defends but which must be addressed in a security-conscious framework, or not at all. And you and Carter, the choirboys of the modern conscience, or so you would have it, dovetail your sentiments as if on cue with the true evil geniuses of this tableau, Nasrallah, Ahmadinejad et al. Is there a Biblical passage for such brazen righteousness, not in service of transcendent justice but rather a petty propriety?
We broke the record for replies and views several posts ago. Imagine, all that typing and no one can see another perspective any more clearly than when we started.
I'm seeing alot of the former, and pretty much nothing of the latter, outside of certain efforts being made by Jordan. Nothing along the lines of what's necessary, I'm afraid. I sure wish you could post some links to examples outside of Jordan who are actively trying to take down raidcal militant Islamic groups
We broke the record for replies and views several posts ago. Imagine, all that typing and no one can see another perspective any more clearly than when we started.
...it is the height of recklessness to emphasize "apartheid" at this time without consistently and effectively balancing one's perspective with the good and right that Israel brings to the table, as you have recently begun to do as an afterthought.
Now that you've mentioned it, whatever loose-associated link I've made between you and anti-Semitism I now reindorse in clear and unequivocal terms: your myopic righteousness, which can be identified as Catholic-born or -nurtured, exists in a historical vacuum, which denies the far more important reasons one with your adopted heritage should care about Israel's fate.
<<Now, will the Palestinians live in peace with Israel? >>
Nobody can answer that. Some would, some wouldn't.
<<Now, will the Palestinians live in peace with Israel? >>
Nobody can answer that. Some would, some wouldn't.
Would those that "would" enforce the peace on those that wouldn't?
I wanted to add one more comment to the debate over the occupation. It is often presented by apologists for Israel that surrendering the West Bank means giving up a defensive military advantage.
<<You obviously don't understand military tactics.>>
I understand military tactics as well as anyone else here and probably better than most. I've seen "Sands of Iwo Jima" at least twice.
And I suppose you are a five-star general.
I understand military tactics as well as anyone else here and probably better than most. I've seen "Sands of Iwo Jima" at least twice.
Let's pose a hypothetical here. What if we had a conference between the U.S., the Palestinians, Jordan, Syria and of, of course, Israel. Also, hypothetically, an agreement gets hammered out that sets the boundaries back such that no land on the West Bank is included into Israel. The fence is taken down. Israel gets extra Patriot batteries from the U.S. Now, will the Palestinians live in peace with Israel? If so, thne Grrrreat! not, then what stops the cycle?
And I suppose you are a five-star general.
Never made that claim. Though, I'd be happy to take you on using any military simiulation you'd like. I recommend ASL (Advanced Squad Leader) - there is a virtual version that allows people to play online.
Ami......how many miles in width was Israel, at its narrowest, when Jordan controlled the West Bank in '47?
Ami......how many miles in width was Israel, at its narrowest, when Jordan controlled the West Bank in '47?
About 30km (about 18 miles).
Ami...did you ever play the computer simulation Harpoon? I was absolutely addicted to that game 15someodd years ago. Not only entertaining, but highly educational, with its database Is there anything equivalent to it now adays
I wanted to add one more comment to the debate over the occupation. It is often presented by apologists for Israel that surrendering the West Bank means giving up a defensive military advantage. In other words, that Israel is holding these lands for strategic reasons. IMHO this is total bullshit. Israel is holding and settling the West Bank for the oldest and commonest of all reasons for the annexation of territory by a national entity - - expansionism, land-hunger, or in simple terms: greed. Any idea of a great strategic advantage gained by the addition of a few thousand square kilometers of land, even to a state as small geographically as Israel, is just hogwash in the age of missiles. Obviously there is some advantage to the land as a buffer, but the settlement of the land by 240,000 Jewish settlers negates the advantage pretty completely. It's not a buffer if it's full of your own people. It is, however, Lebensraum.
I don't play computer simulations. They become highly predictable in a short period of time. I prefer to play against real humans.
This is one I like to play as well (in addition to ASL), though it takes a staff of controllers and typically 60-100 players. National Security Decision Making Game (http://nsdmg.org/). You'll find me in a bunch of the pictures, including a number of the "Winner's Circle" pictures. This game was designed by the military for executive chain of command training. I guess Pelosi will be going through it in the near future.
<<Most notably that the attacks on Israel would likely continue, hatred for Israel will remain a fixture in much of the Palestinian population, that Israel handing out more land not only be a sign of weakness to terrorists, as Tee accurately references, but weakens them from a military defensive standpoint. Yet with those realistic assumptions, his idea is that "the Israelis just have to take a chance". Interesting how he apparently has no problem gambling Israeli lives, that includes the above assumptions.>>
Interesting post from sirs. Unconsciously revealing probably the biggest weakness in American political and strategic thought, namely an addiction to the magic bullet, the instant fix, the miracle solution.
sirs doesn't like messy, dangerous solutions. He likes to see RESULTS. Happy endings. Not in this world, sirs. You take what you can get, not what you would like to get.
BTW, I wasn't too pleased with that "gambling with Israeli lives" crap. Some of those lives are my sister-in-law's, my nephews and my great-nephews and great-nieces.
Actually, holding the Golan Heights is, in many ways, more crucial. As an example, northern Israel's water supply comes from there.
I've never played a computer game in my life except for a space-invaders knock-off that I found on my first cell phone. Believe it or not, if I had the time, it's something I'ld love to get into but unfortunately just posting here is taking way more of my time than I can afford.
Actually, holding the Golan Heights is, in many ways, more crucial. As an example, northern Israel's water supply comes from there.
As a side note, Israel's management of water issues is very sophisticated. They employ gray-water systems for toilets (flushing) and are able to recycle something like 75% of wastewater for agriculture. Water used for showering is a mixture of fresh and sea water. Most notably though is the fact that despite all the conflicts in the region, Israel, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon regularly work together to manage water supply issues. Even in the midst of the worst wars, water talks have continued. They are working on a desalination project now with the other three countries.
As a side note, Israel's management of water issues is very sophisticated. They employ gray-water systems for toilets (flushing) and are able to recycle something like 75% of wastewater for agriculture. Water used for showering is a mixture of fresh and sea water. Most notably though is the fact that despite all the conflicts in the region, Israel, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon regularly work together to manage water supply issues. Even in the midst of the worst wars, water talks have continued. They are working on a desalination project now with the other three countries.
(after all, there is really no reason toilet water needs to be potable).
Actually, holding the Golan Heights is, in many ways, more crucial. As an example, northern Israel's water supply comes from there.
As a side note, Israel's management of water issues is very sophisticated. They employ gray-water systems for toilets (flushing) and are able to recycle something like 75% of wastewater for agriculture. Water used for showering is a mixture of fresh and sea water. Most notably though is the fact that despite all the conflicts in the region, Israel, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon regularly work together to manage water supply issues. Even in the midst of the worst wars, water talks have continued. They are working on a desalination project now with the other three countries.
What keeps the all or nothing people from ruining talks on water?
Grey-water is one of those "wacko tree-hugger" environmentalist concepts. It is also an extremely intelligent way for people in that region to recycle water (after all, there is really no reason toilet water needs to be potable).
I remember reading somewhere recently of a joint effort to dig a canal from the Bay all the way to the Dead Sea due to the problem of the Dead Sea continuing to shrink. Is this true?
I remember reading somewhere recently of a joint effort to dig a canal from the Bay all the way to the Dead Sea due to the problem of the Dead Sea continuing to shrink. Is this true?
It is in the planning stages. There are, of course, environmental concerns about how this project would change eco-systems, but it has already been funded. This same internationally funded project is also helping to fund Israel, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon's start-up of water desalination.
sirs: <<What I'm not in league with is gambling the lives of innocent Israeli civilians, by drawing back borders and/or reintegrating the Palestinian population, and then just hope and pray, knowing that from a reality perspective, more Israeli lives will be lost, as terrorists are embolden the weakening position of Israel. I suppose that's the part Tee wishes to ignore, since, well, it's not his life he's gambling, nor that of the Palestinians.>>
Nobody KNOWS that, at most it's a reasonable supposition in certain circumstances that SOME Israeli lives would probably be lost. Since nobody knows how many Israeli lives will be lost if the occupation persists, it's impossible to state that "more" Israeli lives will be lost if the occupation is ended. That's totally idiotic. It's comparing one unknown number with another unknown numbe, each of which depends on a great number of other future factors and declaring one of the two unknown numbers to be the larger.
It seems pretty clear to me that continuing a military occupation of three million Arabs indefinitely is going to grow increasingly more costly in Israeli lives with each passing year. That's pretty evident if you graph the number of Jews killed by Resistance forces since the beginning of the occupation 39 years ago. The trend is only going to grow as the Palestinians and their supporters grow in power and militancy. Only an idiot could object to a solution which removes the primary source of anger and hatred from the equation on the grounds that the solution won't resolve all the built-up hatred immediately. But apparently there is no shortage of idiots.
Might such a project tend to increase rainfall in the area downwind ?
Might such a project tend to increase rainfall in the area downwind ?
Wow, I have no idea. Ami?
sirs: <<What I'm not in league with is gambling the lives of innocent Israeli civilians, by drawing back borders and/or reintegrating the Palestinian population, and then just hope and pray, knowing that from a reality perspective, more Israeli lives will be lost, as terrorists are embolden the weakening position of Israel. I suppose that's the part Tee wishes to ignore, since, well, it's not his life he's gambling, nor that of the Palestinians.>>
Nobody KNOWS that, at most it's a reasonable supposition in certain circumstances that SOME Israeli lives would probably be lost.
UN committee: Israel should let Palestinians return to their land
By Yoav Stern, Haaretz Correspondent
Maybe the moderate Muslims are waiting for the moderate Israelis to crack down on militant Zionism in all its forms incl the American and European factions of it. Crack down, as in: END THE MILITARY OCCUPATION OF THREE MILLION ARABS PRISONERS IN THEIR OWN HOMES FOR 39 YEARS. Crack down as in END THE ILLEGAL JEWISH SETTLEMENTS OF ARAB LANDS.
<<And Moderate Muslims thru-out the middle east should crack down on militant Islam, in all it's forms, incl Palestinian & Lebonese factions of it>>
Maybe the moderate Muslims are waiting for the moderate Israelis to crack down on militant Zionism in all its forms incl the American and European factions of it. Crack down, as in: END THE MILITARY OCCUPATION OF THREE MILLION ARABS PRISONERS IN THEIR OWN HOMES FOR 39 YEARS. Crack down as in END THE ILLEGAL JEWISH SETTLEMENTS OF ARAB LANDS.
Maybe the moderate Muslims are waiting for the moderate Israelis to crack down on militant Zionism in all its forms incl the American and European factions of it. Crack down, as in: END THE MILITARY OCCUPATION OF THREE MILLION ARABS PRISONERS IN THEIR OWN HOMES FOR 39 YEARS. Crack down as in END THE ILLEGAL JEWISH SETTLEMENTS OF ARAB LANDS.
Bravo. Couldn't have been said better.
<<since ONE MORE TIME, much of what has transpired in Israel is as a result of actions taken over the years, because of militant Islam and the military actions taken by its Arab neighbors, in all its forms and factions. >>
Nice attempt to fudge over the issue. Since a great many things have "transpired in Israel," it is easy to confuse the issue with a reference to "much of what has transpired in Israel." We are not speaking of "much of what has transpired in Israel." I am speaking of one very particular event, which eclipses everything else in the picture, and that one event is, of course, the military occupation of three million Arabs for 39 years.
<<And Moderate Muslims thru-out the middle east should crack down on militant Islam, in all it's forms, incl Palestinian & Lebonese factions of it>>
Maybe the moderate Muslims are waiting for the moderate Israelis to crack down on militant Zionism in all its forms incl the American and European factions of it. Crack down, as in: END THE MILITARY OCCUPATION OF THREE MILLION ARABS PRISONERS IN THEIR OWN HOMES FOR 39 YEARS. Crack down as in END THE ILLEGAL JEWISH SETTLEMENTS OF ARAB LANDS.
<<Ironically speaking, "if you knew anything about their history", you'd grasp that this so-called "occupation" begain when Israel had to take lands in defense of their country, as every one of their border neighbors, Jordan included was massing its military along their borders, and Egypt's President declaring their intentions of taking on Israel. >>
You obviously know next to nothing about he Six Day War. The events you are describing are a fairy tale. I suggest you go to Wikipedia and look up "Six Day War." The idea that you are trying to sell us on, that the Six Day War was a purely defensive war on Israel's part, is ludicrous.
<<They didn't simply "occupy 3 million Arabs" >>
Plain and simple, since the Six Day War ended, that is EXACTLY what they have done.
<<Everything that Israel has done has been in RESPONSE to something being done or about to be done to them. >>
Well, once again you are fogging the issue, muddying the waters. What do you mean by "Everything that Israel has done?" Israel has done a lot of things.
I do not propose to discuss each and every one of them.
Of all the things that Israel has done, ONE THING - - the 39-year occupation of the West Bank and its three million Arab inhabitants - - stands out massively over every other thing.
If you mean to say that THE OCCUPATION "has been in response to something being done or about to be done to [Israel]" then that is a vertitable crock of shit and you ought to know that by now. Israel was the aggressor in the Six Day War as the results clearly show and the history of it clearly demonstrates.
<<Nearly every one of Israel's military incursions into Gaza or the West Bank was as a result of some attack directed at Israel. >>
I have already demonstrated that at least with respect to the original seizure of the West Bank and the very start of the occupation, that is just one big lie.
Nice trick, sirs, ....
What was laughable was your attempt to pass off as "Actual history for those that wish to check it out" an obviously heavily-edited and censored page that appears to have been based on the original Wikipedia article but minus all of the facts and references which implicate Israel as contributing to the cause of the war. The one-sided Israeli view of the causes of the Six Day War is totally out of joint with reality,
sirs: <<Yea, [my alleged "neat trick" was in] actually providing an objective summary of historical events, from your own wikipedia suggestion.>>
Your neat trick was in proceeding to the Wikipedia article that I cited and then providing us with a version of it from which you or some other Zionist flack had cleverly cut out every reference to the Israeli acts of aggression that preceded the Six Day War; and then presenting the edited article as my own source.
<< Yea, cute trick, in being able to refute the notion that Israel wasn't really provoked in any way, and just decided to attack all it's Arab neighbors, taking over lands & occupy Palestinians.......just for the hell of it apparently. >>
The cute trick was in presenting the Arab "provocation" for the Six Day War as something that originated from the Arab side alone without any initial Israeli provocation and/or escalation. By going to my source and editing out all of the Israeli provocation and escalation. That was the "neat trick."
And BTW sirs, there was nothing done "just for the hell of it." The Zionists had their eye on that land from the very start of the Zionist movement - - as I'm sure even you must realize.
<< . . . that won't negate the actions Israel took in RESPONSE to threat and attacks made upon Israel>>
Bullshit. The occupation has continued for thirty-nine years, long after Jordan has signed a peace agreement with Israel. To pretend that the occupation today is still is "in response" to "threats and attacks made upon Israel" in 1967 is just self-seeking and unbelievable garbage. You know better. Or should.
<<With Palestine free and independant peace will ensue?>>
Israel would still have a legitimacy problem, at least for the foreseeable future. Many Arabs would reject the "two-state" solution and press for a "one-state" [with Arab majority] solution.
The issue is, could this rejectionist faction come to power (democratically or otherwise) in the new Palestine? In Jordan, Egypt or Saudi Arabia? Odds in each case are better than 50% against, but who can really tell? Ideally, the rejectionists could be kept out of power, if not in all of Israel's neighbours and Palestine itself, then at least in enough of them so that a working coalition of rejectionist states will not arise.
What I see as the likeliest scenario is that the rejectionists will be kept out of power in all or almost all of the Arab states (including Palestine) neighbouring Israel, limiting the rejectionist factions to guerrilla strikes and similar deadly but manageable incursions, which should diminish over time as Israeli defence tactics improve, as the peaceful relations and the benefits thereof begin to take hold, and as the passage of time lessens the anger and need for revenge that are so vivid today in the hearts of Israel's victims. Again, and I keep coming back to new leadership, but new Israeli leadership is really crucial here - - it will have to take a credible role in bridge-building and reaching out, and these things, as intangible as they are, would be essential to the creation of a lasting peace. All or most of the hostile action against Israel is fuelled by anger, anger generated by real grievances, and that anger has to be addressed, has to be acknowledged, has to be brought under a kind of control that will at the very least keep it from adding to the cycle of violence and hatred. The dead can't be brought back to life, but visionary, eloquent, courageous leadership can make a start in reaching at least some of the persons whose actions fuel the violence.
<<With a Palestinian majority in Israel election the government peace will result?>>
A Palestinian majority in Israel would result either in the anihilation of the Jewish state or else in an apartheid Jewish state analogous to the Union of South Africa in its White Supremacist days. This is a totally different issue from the occupation. If the occupation is ended, the day when a Palestinian majority in Israel threatens to anilhilate the Jewish State will be postponed, but the problem will nevertheless remain. It is a problem to which I see no solution.
<<It isn't what I expect , I expect this is a formula for disaster.>>
I think you just failed to separate the issues properly.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six-Day_War
THAT'S the link to the REAL Wikipedia article, sirs. The garbage you posted was the same article with some heavy editing done either by you or some other Zionist flunky. For example, the preceding incidents of the Samu Incursion and the National Water Carrier were not even mentioned in your fraudulent version of the Wikipedia article. The quote from Menachem Begin, <<"The Egyptian army concentrations in the Sinai approaches do not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him." >> was also missing. Your article was a fraud.
Casus belli: Egyptian naval blockade and military buildup in the Sinai Peninsula as well as Syrian support for Fedayeen incursions into Israel.
The summary as given, devoid of context, is meaningless. Were the Egyptians and their allies blameless and innocent? Of course not. Nor was Israel.
<<I never said - and neither has Sirs - that Israel is totally innocent.>>
sirs claims Israel was merely defending itself in the Six Day War, without acknowledging the numerous provocations that Israel gave in the run-up to that war; and, much more importantly, claims that the occupation continues because of Arab actions that caused the Six Day War, which is patently absurd, given the time lapse, not to mention the flagrant breach of the Fourth Geneva Convention which Israel itself has signed over fifty years ago.
I'll likely leave this thread after this, since Tee's currently in broken record mode....look at the parts of Wikipedia I want you to look at, but not the summary, because that's obviously been doctored by some Zionist sympathiser.
Bull... poop. Sirs, MT is just trying to get you to read beyond the summary. You're a smart guy, I imagine that when you're reading a book, you don't choose the Reader's Digest abridged version. Read the whole thing!
Actually, MT claimed that the summary was a fraud perpetuated by Zionists.
No, that's not how he said it.
Actually, MT claimed that the summary was a fraud perpetuated by Zionists.
No, that's not how he said it. He is saying that Wikipedia is community edited and that someone with Zionist sympathies summarized the article. He is saying that there is MORE TO THE ARTICLE than the summary, regardless of who summarized it. It seems that Sirs has chosen to accept the summary of the article as all there is to it. Hence my reference to abridged books. Or perhaps, let's all read book reviews instead of reading the books ourselves?
With regard to Wikipedia, it IS edited, as Henny points out. I believe that there are two Wikipedia articles, one (that is called up by a Google of Six Day War) is fairly comprehensive, summarizes along the lines favoured by Ami and sirs, but then provides a lot of the background showing the lead-up to the war, and implicating the Israelis a lot more heavily than the summary would indicate. The other Wikipedia article is the one quoted by sirs - - it is the same as the first article, MINUS all of the stuff indicating that Israel was not exactly blameless in setting the stage for the war. Indicating, basically, the role that Israeli aggression and provocation may well have played in the troop movements that sirs would like to pretend was the sole cause of the war.
It was never my intention to blame either the Jews or the Arabs exclusively for the war, only to point out the deliberate suppression of facts implicating the one side and thereby casting blame entirely on the other, as sirs tried to do.
obviously heavily edited by Zionist supporters to remove any sign pointing towards the Israelis as contributors to the causus belli.
sirs chose to quote from an article which in summary deleted any and all facts indicating that previous acts of aggression by Israel had taken place before the aggressive Arab acts that purportedly led Israel to launch a pre-emptive strike. This was obviously misleading as without the earlier Israeli aggression mentioned, one could easily conclude that Israel was the sole innocent party to the war and that it was merely responding to unprovoked aggression.
sirs chose to quote from an article which in summary deleted any and all facts indicating that previous acts of aggression by Israel had taken place before the aggressive Arab acts that purportedly led Israel to launch a pre-emptive strike. This was obviously misleading as without the earlier Israeli aggression mentioned, one could easily conclude that Israel was the sole innocent party to the war and that it was merely responding to unprovoked aggression.
I guess you didn't bother to read the entire article.
You should both try to express yourselves more clearly. If you feel that the article contained something that I missed, lay it out for me. What's in the article that you think I missed? I'm not perfect. I can make mistakes. If I made one, I'll note it and apologize for it. But bullshit posts like yours are impossible to deal with in any reasonable or intelligent manner. You are like little kids with something up your sleeves. Grow the fuck up.
The original Wikipedia article referred specifically to incidents related directly to the run-up to the Six Day War, for example, the National Water Carrier raid, the Samu Incursion, the Israeli warplanes' flight over Damascus; sirs' article referred to none of these.
sirs should either have cited the full article and not the excerpt or been a little more honest in his original post and not pretended that Israel was an innocent victim of unprovoked aggression.
The war was brought up by sirs as the reason for the occupation.
The war was brought up by sirs as the reason for the occupation.
Actually, Sirs originally only mentioned a history of Arab aggression toward Israel. You brought the year 1967 into the discussion, and later brought up the Six Days War, recommending he look it up in Wikipedia.
sirs: <<Ironically speaking, "if you knew anything about their history", you'd grasp that this so-called "occupation" begain when Israel had to take lands in defense of their country, as every one of their border neighbors, Jordan included was massing its military along their borders, and Egypt's President declaring their intentions of taking on Israel. They didn't simply "occupy 3 million Arabs" Everything that Israel has done has been in RESPONSE to something being done or about to be done to them. Nearly every one of Israel's military incursions into Gaza or the West Bank was as a result of some attack directed at Israel. What part of the math are you not understanding here, Tee?>>
This is not a courtroom, where the prosecution is required to make a full disclosure to the defense. It's a debate club where both sides are expected to do the requisite research in support of their own position and are not required to provide support for their oppsition.
That's interesting, because in another thread Sirs accused me of "ommission and innuendo" for not providing a complete and detailed history of the Six Day War and for <gasp> accusing Israel of making a pre-emptive strike (which they did!).
QuoteThis is not a courtroom, where the prosecution is required to make a full disclosure to the defense. It's a debate club where both sides are expected to do the requisite research in support of their own position and are not required to provide support for their oppsition.
That's interesting, because in another thread Sirs accused me of "ommission and innuendo" for not providing a complete and detailed history of the Six Day War and for accusing Israel of making a pre-emptive strike (which they did!).
Let me help you, Ami. I highlighted the words in red.
Just putting it on record that while I can criticize Israel's apparent harsh immigration policies for non-Israelis, neither will I support any measure for Israel to unilaterally just give up land for a "promise of peace", nor will I condemn them for occupying lands they took in defense of their country.
QuoteJust putting it on record that while I can criticize Israel's apparent harsh immigration policies for non-Israelis, neither will I support any measure for Israel to unilaterally just give up land for a "promise of peace", nor will I condemn them for occupying lands they took in defense of their country.
What a bold stand. If there was any other way to straddle that fence I fear it might become impregnated with your child. My problem Sirs is that I cannot justify racism and especially institutionalized policies. Here you ignore the fact that many of these policies affect those who live in Israel and are not just "immigration policies."
<<Tee advocates unilateral Israeli action & pull back, and then pray the killings of Israelis by terrorists and other Islamofascists, which even Tee concedes is likely to happen, having embolden the terrorists, I guess is not so bad, that Israel can absorb those deaths.>>
I don't believe I recommended prayer as a means of keeping down the killing of Israelis by "terrorists," and like most of your delusional bullshit, I'm sure you have no hope in hell of substantiating what you say I said.
<<Then what do you expect? You actually already answered that question. You expect there to be more violence, and more killing of Israelis, with the embolden position affored the terrorists, with the pull out. >>
No, I said if the pull-out were conducted now by the present Israeli leadership, it would be taken as evidence of weakness by most Arabs. This could result in more attacks but it could also result in stronger defences because the IDF has less territory to defend, so the end result is unknown.
I also expect continuing bloodshed if the current situation does not change. An opinion which you prefer to ignore.
<<If you call on aggressively defending themselves & fighting back, then you're a hypopcrite, since that's precisely what they're doing now, they simply have more defensible positions. >>
According to that logic, Hitler was just "aggressively defending himself" by invading Poland and France, and "acquiring more defensible positions."
Although you are probably completely unimpressed by Arab deaths, they are also a factor to consider, and the occupation and resistance to the occupation have cost many thousands of Arab lives as well as a much smaller number of Jewish lives.
This is what has me boiling. All of the Arab lives lost for so many years, long before there were any intifadas... and no one cares. As long as an Israeli doesn't die, who cares, right?
Although you are probably completely unimpressed by Arab deaths, they are also a factor to consider, and the occupation and resistance to the occupation have cost many thousands of Arab lives as well as a much smaller number of Jewish lives.
This is what has me boiling. All of the Arab lives lost for so many years, long before there were any intifadas... and no one cares. As long as an Israeli doesn't die, who cares, right?
<<Given the "common sense" you apply to how Bush lied us into war and stole the election(s), pretty much demonstrates the folly of how much you'd be able to apply it to how "unimpressed" I am with the loss of Arab lives>>
You've never been impressed by logic and common sense before.......,
<<would you mind demonstrating for me how I'm so "unimpressed" with Arab lives lost? >>
The proper way, of course, would be to review all your posts on the subject, and count the number of references you've made to Jewish lives lost and the number of references you've made to Arab lives lost. The number of times you have condemned the killing of Arabs by Jews and the number of times you've condemned the killing of Jews by Arabs. Call me paranoid, call me irrational, call me a blithering idiot - - but I've got a feeling that a pattern would emerge, a very clear and unmistakeable pattern.
Not having the time to conduct such a laborious analysis, and knowing in advance what the result would be, I will just say that I have enough common sense and knowledge of people to glean from the general tenor of your correspondence here (which I've seen quite a bit of) that you are almost totally indifferent to the loss of Arab life whether that occurs in Israel, Lebanon or Iraq.
<<would you mind demonstrating for me how I'm so "unimpressed" with Arab lives lost? >>Sirs, per your earlier request for clarification on my comment about Arab lives lost... MT answered it here fore me.