Those troublesome Jews

[Calabrio]

sure. just like the creation of israel in the first place.

Elaborate on this point because there have always been Jews in Israel.
The country was set up with as much legality and legitimacy as any other state in that region of the world.
That tiny country has been under constant attack for most of this century because they have been used as a political scapegoat.

it takes heavy handedness to keep down a people that are only trying to regain what was stolen from them.

No. The so-called Palestinians have no more valid a claim on any of the land than the Israelis who have either lived there for centuries, or immigrated there over the over the past 65 years, and actually made something out of that arid wasteland. If the debate in international circles were honest, the anger would be directed at countries like Jordan and Egypt that continue to exploit that population while fueling racial anger and international instability while stealing the territory original designated for them.

The Israelis have an open society. Non-jews, including Muslims, Christians, atheists, or any other denominations, are free to openly practice their religions and participate in the Israeli society and politics. The standard of living for a Muslim in Israel is infinitely better than that of one living in any of the Muslim states.

Any discussion of what is going on there has to be started with some established truths, not the frequently perpetuated lie that Israel is no different or no better than it's neighbors.

It also needs to be pointed out that they have supported a two-state solution since the beginning, however after over a half century of constant security threats and assault, they are rightfully reluctant to give up their security in a futile effort to make peace with Arabs who have demonstrate their lack of good faith and that publicly express their desire for a holocaust.

Frankly, I think it's amazing how much restraint the Israeli's have displayed.
If we had terrorists launching tens of thousands of rocket attacks from the baja peninsula, I'd support a much more aggressive military response than I've ever seen from Israel.

And if terrorist tried to run a blockade, I'd support the air force flying over head and just sinking the ships- not sending in the army with paintball guns.

 

[shagdrum]

Heck, if you want to save the money on a plane ticket, just try tuning in a station other than fox news for news, and exercising this "critical thinking" that you are insisting you are so good at. Cheap excuses? Really? LAME. I would have thought you would have something better than this cheap canned response by now....

There you go again with the assumptions concerning where I do and don't get my information. Yes, that is a cheap excuse; a cop out to avoid critical thought on your part. To simply assume that because what I say doesn't line up with your ignorant view, it must come from only one-sided sources is to make a a rationalization; a cheap excuse to justify your ignorance. Your the one turning this into a pissing contest by throwing out inaccurate and baseless accusations like that as a cover for uninformed views.

Frankly, I quickly tire of that kind ignorant petulance and excuse making in dismissing opposing views. I would hope you could do better, but if that is all you have to offer then you only drag down any political discussion, make yourself look like childish and, ultimately, waste everyone's time here. We don't need another man-child on this forum. There have been a number of childish intellectual hacks on this forum through the years and a number of us have gotten good as spotting them.

When you come in here with absurdly ignorant opinions like "Israel is just as bad" or "the bible and the Koran basically say the same crap" or "kill em all and start over again" you show a dangerous ignorance of what you are talking about and a gullibility to disinformation and misleading, emotionally appealing rhetoric that any objective, critical thought and a decent background in this area could spot as fraudulent from a mile away. To then simply dismiss any opposing view (especially a well informed one) and by inference demonize those who espouse those views shows a arrogance and a lack of interest in gleaning any truth or in learning from those views. Instead, politics becomes an ego driven pissing contest; the whole debate become personal and civility and objectivity are the first to go. When politics becomes a means of self-expression, no honesty constructive discussion can be had. That is why that approach is a childish, foolish and even dangerous approach to take in most any intellectual endeavor.

 

[shagdrum]

so you're going to give me some biblical fairytales for evidence?
crawl back under your steel bridge.

Do you not realize how utterly foolish, petty and childish you look when you start dismissing any religious view as a "fairytale" like that? Especially when you cannot justify your own views and instead take them on faith while mocking others for doing the same thing.

Or have you finally found a justification for the materialism which premises all your arguments in this area?

Especially in the context of this discussion, weather or not the biblical stories being cited are true or not is irrelevant. What matters is that the opposing sides, on a cultural level, generally view the stories as true. Not that you would take the time to notice that distinction. Demonizing religion and making snarky attacks is far more important.

 

[shagdrum]

i said that's all there was? where?
i said it was a place to start.
once again, dishonesty. putting thooghts where they aren't.
you are quite a simpleton if that's all you got from what i said.

As usual, there really is not much to what you say. Adding a condescending tone and bitterness to your arguments does not add any substance. In fact, it takes away from your argument.

If your argument didn't assume that is "all there was" it would be obvious. Trying to backtrack now only shows you for the hack and opportunistic troll you are.

It is very easy to make snarky, simplistic comments when you don't understand what you are talking about and then claim that someone "doesn't understand" what you are saying when they call you on your ignorance.

FYI: you did NOT say anything about it being a "place to start". Here is what you said:

sure. just like the creation of israel in the first place.
it takes heavy handedness to keep down a people that are only trying to regain what was stolen from them.

Now you are reduced to misrepresenting your own actions even when they are easily disproven by simply checking.

As usual, in your zeal to "show someone up" you ignore the entire context of what they say and what you said that was being responded to.

 

[FIND]

especially a well informed one

I laughed at that..... Seriously, funny stuff.

Instead, politics becomes an ego driven pissing contest; the whole debate become personal and civility and objectivity are the first to go. When politics becomes a means of self-expression, no honesty constructive discussion can be had.

Do you ever read the stuff you post? WOW!

 

[Calabrio]

your history is lacking. it's been closer to a century.

No, my history is fine.
About "65 years" refers to how long that Israel has been a state formally recognized by the United States and the United Nations. May, 1948.

palestine was also not an empty land, as you seem to suggest

I said it was arid, not uninhabited, And it was largely inhabited by nomadic groups. That doesn't mean there were no settlements, but the impression that there was a "State of Palestine" that was seized from a sovereign people is false impression.

it was occupied by arabs at the time. the population in the late 1800's was almost 1/2 million.
muslim and christian arabs accounted for better than %96.
jews less than 4%.
so they don't have a strong history of occupation in the land.

I see these numbers thrown around constantly, most of the time they are inaccurate, but almost all of the time they are misleading or irrelevant.

There connection with the region is as valid as any other groups. Being an arid, unhospitable place at the crossroads of the world, it has inhabited by Nomads and the passing conquering armies for centuries. The late 1800s was the start of the first mass return by the liberated Jews of Europe to begin returning to the region.

So, what point is it that you are making?
That in a sparsely inhabited region of the world, that a persecuted people with a historic and religious association have no right to settle? The despite their inclusiveness? Also important to note, they Jewish settlers weren't displacing Arabs. They weren't seizing territory through violence.

Also keep in mind, there wasn't much of a problem until the early 20th century where neighboring Arab warlords and tribal leaders began inciting violence and terror for social and political reasons.

t was under british occupation that the jewish immigration escalated. it was to be the answer to european anti semitism. nobody asked palestine if they accepted the agreement.

And the British were concerned about European anti-semitism?
So much so that they wouldn't allow any new immigration during the Nazi reign of World War 2?

You're right- immigration increased during during the British occupation of the region. The colonialism of the the century is an important historical event. And it had begun during the Ottoman Empire as well.

But wasn't the cause, nor was it a contributing factor.
In many ways, it was an obstacle. The British did a very poor job maintaining law and order and preventing the terror inflicted by the Arabs while preventing the Israelis from being allowed to defend themselves.

You also say that no one asked Palestine if they accepted the arrangement. You've fallen into the trap of thinking that a "Palestine" existed. There wasn't. It was not a state. It was a not a nation.

the balfour declaration of 1917 was the beginning.

Note the date.
1917.
When was Israel and Palestine formally offered state hood?
1948.

it is considered to be in contradiction of the mcmahon- hussein agreement of 1915.

This is arguably true.
And what it really demonstrates is that the colonial powers in the region were really interested in securing safe and stable oil supplies for the 20th century and had no interest in the tribal conflicts of a region they considered inhabited by savages.

in 1947, britain turned it over to the u.n.
they were to give arabs 43% of the land, and jews the rest.
yet the arab population still outnumbered the jews almost 2/1 at this time.
arabs also owned 92% of the land.
so, it wasn't taken away from them? (jews being given most of the fertile land as well)

I don't think some of the numbers you are providing are accurate at all, except for your population number. It was about 2:1 in the region.

43% of what? Not of the area that was being divided into the two Paletinian/Israel states. The Arabs didn't own 92% of the land. And the "fertile" land wasn't just given to Jews.

The 2-state solution was a political compromise and the lands were divided largely based upon where existing settlements were located. The Israelis were actively engaged in farming and irrigation and they had bought a significant amount of the land as well.

So lands were not seized displacing people. The Israeli communities were and remain a tolerant society with people of all religions and national origins.

you must remember, in 1917 this wasn't a palestinian problem, it was an euorpean "jewish" problem. and zionistic ideals were thought to be the cure. and today we see the problem created.

I don't think that the establishment of Israel is the "problem" as, I think, you're implying.

I think there are plenty of other problems that were exploited by European colonialists, but I don't think that absolves the local populations of their fault either.

As I said before, the borders of Israel are every bit as valid and defensible, if not more, than any other country in that region. They have a successful, inclusive, small country that does not engage in acts of territorial conquest to expand it's regional power. It has made repeated efforts and gestures, often times undermining it's security, in the pursuit of a sustainable peace.

And, unlike the other countries and territories of the region, people of all faiths and nationalities are free to exercise their religion and go about their lives in peace with equal protection under the law.

The standard of living for a Muslim living in Israel is infinitely higher than one living in any of the other muslim/arab states.

These are significant points. The same kind of tolerance and inclusion isn't offered Jews or Christians in that region.

So arguments that all parties involved are equal are simply untrue- regardless the region and European politics that took part before their formal recognition as a state.

 

[foxpaws]

When politics becomes a means of self-expression, no honesty constructive discussion can be had.

I would love to hear what you mean by this statement shag...

 

[cammerfe]

You're missing the point---on purpose from the looks of it

so you're going to give me some biblical fairytales for evidence?
crawl back under your steel bridge.

Aside from the religious ramifications, the Bible is history---with many independent historical supports.

Are you seriously suggesting that Jews have not resided in the area for thousands of years?

And you seem to be ignoring the fact that there never has been a country called Palestine. Palestine is the appellation for a region, not a country.

In any case, Egypt and other countries chose to attack the legitimate country of Israel. They got their A S S E S kicked, in the war THEY started, and have been whining ever since. Asking for the return of area they lost in the war, and that Israel has used as a buffer.

If you can't beat 'em, whine and moan at 'em! And idiots listen to the moaning instead of paying attention to facts.
KS

 

[FIND]

Aside from the religious ramifications, the Bible is history---with many independent historical supports.

Are you seriously suggesting that Jews have not resided in the area for thousands of years?

And you seem to be ignoring the fact that there never has been a country called Palestine. Palestine is the appellation for a region, not a country.

In any case, Egypt and other countries chose to attack the legitimate country of Israel. They got their A S S E S kicked, in the war THEY started, and have been whining ever since. Asking for the return of area they lost in the war, and that Israel has used as a buffer.

If you can't beat 'em, whine and moan at 'em! And idiots listen to the moaning instead of paying attention to facts.
KS

Just for clarification purposes, do you think the Jews were the only ones there these past few thousand years? Plenty of other Arab races too. It is basically in the cradle of civilization. Nearly every culture on the face of the earth can trace some roots to that area if they go back far enough.



Like I said before, anyone who uses the argument that someone stole the land from someone else is living a fairy-tale. Arab muslim races have no more right to the land than the Israelis do historically speaking, and vice versa.

 

[shagdrum]

I would love to hear what you mean by this statement shag...

People can approach a political discussion civilly, as a way to glean truth(s). People can also approach politics as a means of self-expression, where the focus is more selfish; to describe their point of view and perpetuate it.

For most people, it is a combination of the two, however it is in which one is the primary focus that changes the dynamic of a conversation.

When the focus is more on gleaning truth(s), the discussion is more civil; not a pissing contest. People are simply interested in learning and educating; not on convincing one to adopt an opposing point of view. Under this dynamic, people are capable of civilly disagreeing and a more honest, less contentious discussion takes place.

When the focus is on self-expression, the debate is personal; people are more focused on "winning" the debate and convincing others to adopt their positions by any means necessary. Debates are much more contentious and intellectual honesty and good faith are irrelevant to the debate.

As I stated, most people are not exclusively one or the other, but instead a combination of the two. The question is in which perspective dominates their thinking; where they lie on that dichotomy.

A person's perspective changes (in regards to that dichotomy) throughout the debate due to any number of factors. the problem is that, once the discussion goes far enough toward the "self-expression" end of the spectrum, the discussion is personal and becomes uncivil at which point the it can almost never go back to an agreeable, impersonal focus on the truth; on learning and educating.

 

[TheDude]

Some of the comments on this board [continue to] prove that Israel is held up to a standard that no other country/nation is, just cos.

I'm not a fan of Bibi and his (imo) overly aggressive policies, but if any other other country was surrounded by nations who declare a "you need to be obliterated" policy, the world and the UN (aka useless) wouldn't flinch at most of the measures Israel has taken.

 

[shagdrum]

Some of the comments on this board [continue to] prove that Israel is held up to a standard that no other country/nation is, just cos.

I'm not a fan of Bibi and his (imo) overly aggressive policies, but if any other other country was surrounded by nations who declare a "you need to be obliterated" policy, the world and the UN (aka useless) wouldn't flinch at most of the measures Israel has taken.

Holy $H!T!

We actually (kinda) agree on something!!!

 

[Calabrio]

Understandably, I don't have the time to read a 1200 page political document over coffee this morning, but I HAVE done a considerable amount of reading and study of the region in the past.

There was no formal government or State of Palestine, regardless how they present it in the interesting book you've just posted (and I've bookmarked). At a glance, the "government" to which the book speaks appears to be an example of British bureaucracy and not indigenous, 19th century leadership.

And, you need realize, that the material that comes from that region is not credible due to it's fierce political and "anti-zionist" agenda. The book, as it is presented, is a formal response to PREVENT the recognition of a state of Israel.

But most importantly, you've seemingly ignored some of the more important points.

The Israeli claim to the land is valid.
If you want to argue historic ownership, then the Jews have a historic claim as credible as any other. You don't have to be religious to recognize that the Jews were inhabitants of the regions. That's not a statement of faith, it's geographic fact. Whether you think such a historic association is important is subjective.

But the Israelis SETTLED uninhabited land and they BOUGHT land.
They built communities and farms.
They established a government, albeit a mostly socialist one, and an inclusive culture.
And they offer the highest quality of life and opportunity to their citizens, of all races and religions, than all of the neighboring countries.

As I mentioned, the muslims and Christians within the state of Israel are not denied the protections of government or the benefits of citizenship. They are not forced to flee the country due to persecution.

And, despite their military and economic power, Israel has not engaged in military conquests or campaigns to expand their territory or power. They have engaged in wars of defense and they have returned the lands they have conquered in defensive wars, with the exception of a small, reasonable amount that they have felt is necessary for their security.

Framing Israel as "equally bad" is wrong.
It speaks to some kind of anti-Jew bias from the person making the claim, or, as is more often the case, the effectiveness of the propaganda. Either way, it's untrue.

Furthermore, it's ridiculous for any group in that region to claim any kind of historic association with the land. It's a region dominated by tribal warfare and conflict. The so-called Palestinians aren't petitioning Jordan for "their land" back. If nothing else, the fact that Israel has defended it's territory on several occasions in war should establish that it is the rightful possessor of the land, in the Arab mind.

This is about expelling the Jew from the region.
Whether that's do to a pure hatred of the Jew, or possibly, a desire to purge the Western influence out, is a matter of debate. But it's not because any group in that country cares about the lowly "Palestinian" or that those countries really believe that historic associations with the land exist.

 

[Calabrio]

it is nothing more than a pure historical document.
it's not an "historic" claim to the land at question. it's an "at present" claim to the land.

That doesn't make it pure.
That doesn't even make it accurate or truthful.
It just made it current (at the time) and historic in retrospect- and it should be viewed with a firm understanding of the regions history and the purpose for which it was written.

There was no Palestinian state or government at the time of that report.
I don't claim to have read that entire report, but it appeared to be implying as much and that's simply not true.

whether in future they bought or purchased land, israel was not created on all unoccupied land. the arabs had lived there for centuries, with very little jewish population left.

You seem to have a desire to dismiss all of the historic evidence that doesn't conveniently support your false construct based upon anti-zionist propaganda.

1. The Israelis didn't seize land or create their settlements through the seizure of land. They either already had settlements there, settled uninhabited areas, or purchased a significant amount.

2. Your point that there was "very little population left" betrays your point because it essential acknowledges that a population, though small, still remained.

3. The nomadic tribes that we call "Palestinians" now were mostly nomadic. The future Israelis did not displace them. And even after Israel was formed, they were not expelled, persecuted, ethnically cleansed, or denied opportunity.

taking away the religious historocity, just because a group of people have an ancient tie to a land, doesn't give them the right to just take it.

So, what you're arguing is that the people who settle, build, develop, and establish a thriving civilization and economy that improves the quality of life of all the people living with it's borders give the group of people right to a land?

none of these people had lived there, nor thier ancestors for many generations. they're europeans, not arabs.

Actually, there is no religious test needed to live in Israeli.
While a jewish state, it is an open society. As for the Jews who live there- they aren't necessarily "European." The vast majority of them are displaced and persecuted Jews fleeing Muslim regimes in the region or in Northern Africa.

And as I pointed out before, the standard of living and quality of life for Jews and non-jews alike, is higher in Israel than in any of it's neighbors.

it was forced expropriation for zionist ideals. i mean, if europe had a "jewish problem", why didn't they just section off a piece of europe?

Do you even understand the arguments your making, or are you just repeating things hoping something sticks? You start of speaking trying to speak of the regions history but then quickly devolve into lame, century old anti-zionist propaganda.

It implies that the creation of Israel and the decision for jews to move there was directed by the UN due to it's benevolent, Jewish friendly response. That's just not what happened. The increased re-population of what was to become Israel started BEFORE the 20th century. The Balfour Agreement was signed BEFORE World War 2. And, perhaps you didn't know this, but the U.N. is not a Jewish friendly organization.

that is a viewpoint. just like first nations have a claim to north america. and they still reside here, and aren't immigrating from another continent.

No, your analogy doesn't work.
It would be like if "first nations" decided NOW that the United States were occupying them.

I've argued that Israel has a historic tie to the land valid as anyone else, but that isn't the argument to defend their right to continued existence or right to defend their borders. They have been formally recognized as a state since the 1940s. They have been a nation for about a century. And they have built a successful and responsible country.

The borders int he Middle East are almost all arbitrary, designed by early 20th century colonialists after the wars. Israel, without interjecting religion, ancient history, or religious sensitivities and protection, is just another state the formed during that process, one with a stable population, a formal, government created with democratic principles, and a successful population.

Are people like you arguing that they should stop defending themselves?
That they should all just pack up their stuff and move?
That they should just abandon their government, allow themselves to devolved into a sharia/palestinian puppet government and then tolerate their genocide?

why?

I don't know why I waste my time discussing this with you when you don't even consider what's being said. "Why not?" I just said why not, repeatedly.
The Israeli society is vastly different than any other society within that region. Muslims, as well as people of all faiths, have full rights in that country. And the standard of living for a muslim citizen in Israel is infinitely higher than the standard of living in any other Arab country in the region.

Do Jews have such freedom in Muslim states?
Do Jews have the ability to openly practice their religion outside of Israel as Muslims do in Isreal? No.

And is Israel calling for the genocide of the Muslim populations as the Muslims have called for Israel?

it's not from an anti jewish ideal, just from a view that what they are doing or how they are going about it is seen as wrong. they run palestine like a prison camp. the final hope is that the palestinians will migrate away.

A prison camp with their own government?
The reality is that the Israelis have attempted, despite the security risks involved, to create a two-state solution. They have been desperate to find an honest broker of peace. As they surrender land in an effort to buy peace, the Muslims use the territory to launch attacks on the Israeli population.

If Palestine is like a "prison camp" that due to the gross and negligent corruption and incompetence of the autonomous Palestinian authority, NOT Israel.

maybe recently, but an awful lot was given to them that was forcibly taken away from resident arabs over the past century.

Your history is simply wrong.
Recently, the Isrealis have surrendered land, not seized it.
Even after their defensive wars, Israel has given back the vast majority of the territory, keeping only areas of land they felt were necessery for their strategic security.

If Israel were a country interested in expanding it's power through military force, they would have taken over Egypt. Not only did they refrain from taking Cairo, they returned the territory they controlled in the name and pursuit of peace.

it's a little late for that now.

If it's too late for that now.
And ancient ties aren't important, the ONLY thing to consider is which countries have a stable, productive and FREE society and government.

If this issue were really about the Palestinians, we'd see greater scorn and hostility directed towards countries like Jordan, countries that seized most of the land designated for the Palestinians. We don't. The Palestinians are of no importance to the powers within the region, they are merely exploited pawns. They are considered expendable nomadic refuge by the powers of that region.

This isn't about historic ties to the land, ancient claims, or human rights- it's about hatred of the Jews and Muslim and old-European intolerance.

how things were before 1948 should have let them know it wasn't going to work. it is something that never should have happened.

I disagree with your conclusion, and I might even argue that the establishment of Israel would have taken place even with the sanction of the U.N.

But, I think the real question is, so what.
Whether you think it should or shouldn't have happened is irrelevant.
It did. It is.
Now, the question that remains is do these people, many from Europe, many displaced and persecuted jews who fled the neighboring Muslim countries in the Mid East and Africa, as well as Christians, Atheists, and other religions, have a right to defend their country. Do they have a right to protect their borders and a reasonable expectation to live in peace, provided they don't engage in militaristic actions to expand their territory?

We can have an academic discussion over whether or not something should or shouldn't have happened. But it's purely academic. Now that it's settled, sovereign, and established- does it have the right to defend itself when the ONLY argument against is a weak and, frankly, false claim, that nomads were displaced at the end of the 19th century.

 

[cammerfe]

Defense

...but at the end, it does exist, and they do have a right to defend thier border.
it's the tactics occasaionally employed that are questionable.

Yeah, what they SHOULD do is to line up their kids on the border and arm each of them with a feather. And threaten that anyone shooting at them will be soundly tickled.
KS

 

[Calabrio]

and you dismiss any evidence that doesn't support your false construct of having an historical claim to the land.

I don't dismiss anything that is valid.
I addressed each and every one of your points, regardless how inconsequential or contradictory I find them to be.

I've addressed the issue of "historic claim to the land" repeatedly. While I would be willing to argue that one exists, I don't think that it's particularly important either.

that is what they did after the land was given to them. that is not why they got the land.

The Israelis began this process prior to the UN formally recognizing them as a state, nearly 65 years ago, but they have continued to do so since then. And you clearly appear to acknowledge this.

I asked that question because the 2000 year old history of the land is secondary to that point.

Do the people that settle, build, develop, and establish a thriving civilization and economy that improves the quality of life of all the people living with it's borders give the group of people right to a land? What about if they defend it from repeated military invasion and define it's territorial borders through military victory?

If that isn't justification, then you don't have anything else but the "historic" argument that you have previously dismissed.

the fact still remains you cannot dismiss religion as the reason for the land grab.
without it you would never have immigrated a bunch of europeans to the middle east.

I can argue in defense of the State of Israel without interjecting religion, however all of your attacks on it seem to involve it. The religious connection to the land is interesting and maybe even a bit romantic, but it's not important to this conversation since you agree that the ancient history of the land isn't important, and I don't think it's necessary to make my argument.

And to address another point, while the population of Israel does include many people with ties to Europe, it also includes displaced Jewish refugees escaping persecution from other Arab and African countries as well. So it's not all Eastern Europeans, I think the majority right now may actually be from the Middle East and North Africa.

again, without religion, it would not have happened, so the point is moot.

Again, you keep interjecting religion.
It doesn't matter. They could have initially been there looking for the fountain of youth, but their right to exist would be every bit as valid.

but at the end, it does exist, and they do have a right to defend thier border.

Then we are in agreement.

it's the tactics occasionally employed that are questionable.

It's a wonderful luxury we have to sit back and deem the tactics "questionable." We don't live in a tiny country surrounded by enemies who have publicly called for another holocaust. We don't live in a country that has to constantly stay prepared for a state of war. Nor do we live in a country where rocket attacks launched from territory we recently turned over in the pursuit of peace destroy our cities and kill our loved ones.

So, what tactics do you really think are "questionable" or more importantly, indefensible?

The recent blockade of Gaza? Boarding those terrorist ships last week?


Because I can say with certainty, if La Raza were launching rocket attacks from an elevated position on our cities, I wouldn't support our government responding with the same kind of restraint that Israel has shown. And I wouldn't even support our military boarding those hostile ships armed with paintball guns.