If you truly think that is all the Israel issue is about, you are more ignorant and naive then I thought you were.
And, no, you snarky condescension doesn't cover up your ignorance. Troll.
Those troublesome Jews
- Thread starter Calabrio
- Start date
If you truly think that is all the Israel issue is about, you are more ignorant and naive then I thought you were.
And, no, you snarky condescension doesn't cover up your ignorance. Troll.
FIND
Dedicated LVC Member
Really? You think so? Do I see someone only applying American principles of justice where it is convenient for them?
When?
Now you are really out there on this one. You think you can try a man for murder because he buys a gun?
And if it were only facts and the truth, we would be fine. BUT.... there is a lot of exaggeration and mistruths there too.
We could also reduce gang violence in america by killing everyone in impoverished inner city neighborhoods.
I'm at a loss as to where you got that idea. Sounds to me like you are grasping for straws here.
Excuses.
I don't recall that article, but I would love to see it. Sounds like it would be great fun to read. Terrorists are dumb, I love reading anything about them getting pwned.
I'm sorry, I am not familiar with Islamic terrorism. I never saw instructions in the copy of the Koran I have read. Maybe it is something that is lost in the translation to english.... but honestly, bible, koran, whatever. They all say basically the same crap. How some of their followers may twist the message or use it to manipulate other followers has nothing to do with the religion.
The most effective intelligence service in the world relies on sketchy gut feelings of informants and inconclusive leads.
I wonder why?
Never said that. I said we should kill em all and start over again.
where are you getting this crap from?
WHETHER or not that is true is most certainly not irrelevant.... But there are other paths....
Then obviously, as usual, you have learned everything you think you need to know about life from conservative news services and conservative web sites. I think you REALLY don't know much about what goes on over there.....
cammerfe
Dedicated LVC Member
Hey Shag---
I thought that trolls lived under stone-and-timber bridges. Only bums live under steel bridges!
KS
I thought that trolls lived under stone-and-timber bridges. Only bums live under steel bridges!
KS
FIND
Dedicated LVC Member
I honestly hate this argument. Both sides uses that to no extent.
Everyone wants to say the holy land was stolen from them. Christians, Jews, Muslims.... Heck, maybe some day hindu people will be trying to lay claim there.
Justice is not simply an "American" principle. But the Constitution only has any authority domestically and in governing how elected and appointed officials representing America conduct themselves. It has no say in foreign nations or how those nations conduct their affairs.
Where are you getting that?
Yes, and that is why separating the truth from them is very important. That is where critical thought comes in.
Is that an attempt at reductio ad absurdum?
It seems you don't understand what I am saying.
Again with the generalizations. The bible and the Koran are very different on a number of levels. Fosten would be the best one to explain that, though.
Depending on the circumstances, yes. This is not a courtroom. There is no "controlling legal authority", no rules and/or procedures in gaining and acting on evidence.
The international community is analogous to Hobbe's state of nature. Not to a Constitutional Republic, like America.
Take a guess.
Which is an exceedingly ignorant thing to say and a very dangerous and foolish suggestion. Unless you meant it facetiously.
Then you should be able to show why it is relevant.
You have absolutely no clue what sources I gleaned my information from. However, it is rather clear that you are exceedingly ignorant about Israel and the Middle East.
FYI: espousing cheap excuses to justify your out-of-hand dismissal of opposing views only hurts your credibility. It is childish. But that seems to be what you are going for. I suspect your excuses are based on lies foxy is perpetuating about those of us who disagree with her in private. I would say she is playing off your ignorance of this forum and those on it, but your ego likely prevents you from considering anything I have to say at this point.
FIND
Dedicated LVC Member
Wow..... you are really paranoid aren't you. What does foxy have to do with this discussion? She has never talked to me about you guys in private messages.... Some of us have enough integrity to speak in public...
As far as me being ignorant of the middle east..... well if it makes you feel better to say that, go right ahead. But, no matter how many times you say it, it isn't going to make me ignorant of the goings-on over there. Maybe you should fly out there some time and spend a few weeks or a couple months out there. 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....
Well, since you want to turn this into a pissing contest, I am going to bow out of this thread before I have to continue to deal with such silliness.
cammerfe
Dedicated LVC Member
Ancient times
Lets see---
First you have Abraham, who, through second wife Hagar created Ishmael. Other sons became what are now Jews and the Hagar side became Arabs.
All started on the ground at the same time.
How was the area 'stolen from them'?
KS
Lets see---
First you have Abraham, who, through second wife Hagar created Ishmael. Other sons became what are now Jews and the Hagar side became Arabs.
All started on the ground at the same time.
How was the area 'stolen from them'?
KS
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.
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.
Last edited by a moderator:
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.
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.
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: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
Dedicated LVC Member
I laughed at that..... Seriously, funny stuff.
Do you ever read the stuff you post? WOW!
your history is lacking. it's been closer to a century.
palestine was also not an empty land, as you seem to suggest. 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.
it 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.
the balfour declaration of 1917 was the beginning.
it is considered to be in contradiction of the mcmahon- hussein agreement of 1915.
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)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Note the date.
1917.
When was Israel and Palestine formally offered state hood?
1948.
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.
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.
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.
cammerfe
Dedicated LVC Member
You're missing the point---on purpose from the looks of it
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
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
Dedicated LVC Member
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.
Last edited by a moderator:
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
Dedicated LVC Member
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.
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.
it seems to be a promise more made in hopes of another front against the ottomans of the day.(it is from 1915)
http://www.palestineremembered.com/Acre/Maps/Story574.html
the nomadic bedouins aren't even in this population map, taken from british mandate for the u.n. so, even without the nomads, they are still clearly a majority of almost 2/1 at this time.(1948, after large jewish immigration)(bedouins were estimated at about 100,000, which is a minority, not "mostly", like you suggest)
if it wasn't a state, why did they have thier own government?
http://www.palestineremembered.com/Acre/Books/Story831.html
got some time to read? there is the british mandate made for the u.n.
there were christians and jews before british occupation in 1917 as well. things seem to be tolerated until british occupation changed the course.
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.
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.