First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next  Last
Post Reply Israel and Palestine
2106 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Guess
Offline
Posted 6/28/13 , edited 6/28/13

Syndicaidramon wrote:


Come on now. Is that really necessary?

And the simple answer to this is that these are not issues that innocent people are getting murdered over every single day. Unlike the Israel v. Palestine conflict.
And that is what makes the big difference.


If you insist on racism, then yes, it is necessary. As for 'innocent people getting murdered every single day', you don't suppose that no Israeli citizens are innocent, hence why they should be slaughtered by the Palestinian, or else renounce their ability to live under the Israeli state.



longfenglim
Here's the thing though... Israel DOES have its own land. It was assigned it by the UN.
The reason that this conflict exists is because the israelian government violated the UN agreement and started taking over the arabic side, which they had no right to do.

I'm sure you'll agree that just because the native Americans once ruled the American land, it doesn't give them the rights to start murdering people now in order to win it back. Or that the Sami should be killing people in order to win their land back. History decides who gets to keep what. And the israelians lost their country. That's how things work. And even though they didn't have any political right to have it, the UN was kind enough to grant them their own land.

But that wasn't enough for the israelian government. They wanted more, and started taking more land.
Any way you slice it, Israel are at fault for starting this war. They are the ones who violated the UN agreement, and they are the ones that started the war by trying to take more land that they don't have any political right to have.
And that is also why Hamas are shooting at them. Because they are trying to take palestinian land.

But hey, how about we put all the blaming aside? Pointing fingers won't get us anywhere. What really needs to be done is find a solution. And the most likely solution would be a compromise.
What would be the most fair thing, politicly speaking, would be for Israel to revert back to the land they were assigned, and let the Palestinians have their share. However that will obviously not happen, so how about this?
All land that Israel CURRENTLY has, will belong to them, and all the land that the palestinians still have, will belong to them.
Does that seem fair to you?



It does have its own land, and that land is legitimately theirs, so any solution that involves 'lets all the Israelis leave' is idiotic.

As for being sure that I'll agree that just because the Native Americans and the Sami shouldn't fight to keep their land, I am also pretty sure that the U.S. government or the Norwegian government has the right to punish those Native Americans or Sami people who do fight to 'get their land back', like the Palestinians.

As for the Israeli being at fault for the war, I'm not sure if you know t, but the latest round was not started by the Israeli attacking Palestinian civilians, but the Palestinian terrorists attacking the Israelis. It is all well to say that 'the Evil Israelis are trying to take Palestinian land', but it is just as true that the Palestinians are trying to kill off all Israelis as well- and they both violate the UN laws.

But, you are right, let not point fingers, let's look at this in terms of some abstract concept of 'justice', is it fair for Palestinian terrorists, who are openly at war with Israel and killing Israeli citizens, to be let off? Is it fair that Israel should forfeit the land what it has won to the Palestinians, for the Israeli citizen born their to forfeit their homes because the Palestinians once owned the land? Is it fair for you to accuse Israel of claiming having the right to all the land the Palestinians have, when that is simply untrue and unsubtantiated? I don't care for justice, fairness, or any of those things- you, for your part, have yet to provide an ample definition of what 'fair' and 'just' means. They are all abstractions that can be used to justify any number of positions, for my part, I believe rights, the right of Israel to its current land, the right of Israel to protect its own citizen, the right of Palestine and Israel to war against each other if their democratically elected government has ran on this pledge, and the right of the victor to their land.




I think you've misunderstood. I don't want people to abandon their heritage. I love the various different cultures around the world. They are what makes the world colorful, varied and unique, and I want them to keep existing.
And that is part of why I think that people who immigrate to other countries should adapt to that country's customs, culture and rules.
Because I fear that if they don't, countries with high immigration could have their culture watered out, to the point of near extinction, just like what happened with the culture of the native americans. Which, in my opinion, is tragic, because that culture is really interesting and fascinating. And I just don't want that same thing to happen to other cultures.

Every culture (as far as what sets the culture apart from the rest of the world, namely language, clothing, music, art, architecture etc.) that is lost is a loss for the world as a whole. In my opinion. And that is why I think we must do what we can to prevent them being watered out. To prevent them from going extinct.


I love the Towel-heads, just as long as they stay back in the Orient, or else, make themselves white so as to adapt to that country's customs, culture, and rules. Because if Ali wants to get a job to send money to his wife and children back home in Algeria, he had better start eating pork, drink wine, go to Church, and abandon every thing about himself to adapt to that nation's customs, culture, and rules. Just like what happened to the Native Americans... they want to be a part of American society, they had better learn English, stop worshipping the sky and start worshipping Jesus, and stop it with the funny dress. Which is tragic, because now, in America, we have lost, because Injuns, east and west, are allowed to keep their culture, as well as other cultures- we have become a disgusting melting pot, where once it was the purest of white.
3420 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / Pandemonium
Offline
Posted 6/28/13 , edited 6/28/13

longfenglim wrote:


Syndicaidramon wrote:


Come on now. Is that really necessary?

And the simple answer to this is that these are not issues that innocent people are getting murdered over every single day. Unlike the Israel v. Palestine conflict.
And that is what makes the big difference.


If you insist on racism, then yes, it is necessary. As for 'innocent people getting murdered every single day', you don't suppose that no Israeli citizens are innocent, hence why they should be slaughtered by the Palestinian, or else renounce their ability to live under the Israeli state.


But I don't insist on racism. If it seems that way it's either because you've misunderstood, or that I have either expressed myself incorrectly or misunderstood something.

And yes I do think the israeli citizens are innocent. I absolutely sympathize with them.
It is the actions of the israelian government that I have a problem with, not its citizens. They are just caught in a conflict that should've never happened.



longfenglim
It does have its own land, and that land is legitimately theirs, so any solution that involves 'lets all the Israelis leave' is idiotic.

Not from a political point of view it's not. Except for the land that was granted to them by the UN of course.
But they have no political right to the land that they have taken from the palestinians.



longfenglim
As for being sure that I'll agree that just because the Native Americans and the Sami shouldn't fight to keep their land, I am also pretty sure that the U.S. government or the Norwegian government has the right to punish those Native Americans or Sami people who do fight to 'get their land back', like the Palestinians.


They do. Because it is not in the native americans' or the sami's place to fight to take back those areas. They lost those areas to history, just like Israel did with its land.
Remember that it's Israel encroaching on Palestinian land, not the other way around. The palestinians are merely fighting against Israel's attempt to take even more.



longfenglim
But, you are right, let not point fingers, let's look at this in terms of some abstract concept of 'justice', is it fair for Palestinian terrorists, who are openly at war with Israel and killing Israeli citizens, to be let off?

No. Hamas is a terrorist group. And everyone who has contributed to the bloodshed must be held accountable for their actions. On both sides.



longfenglim
Is it fair that Israel should forfeit the land what it has won to the Palestinians, for the Israeli citizen born their to forfeit their homes because the Palestinians once owned the land?

Partly yes but mostly no.
Yes because Israel violated a UN agreement and started a needless war based on greed.
But no because obviously, the israelians have built their homes and their lives on that land.

Overall, I'd say no. Because I feel the lives and rights of the people that have settled their lives within their boarders should come first. Which is why I am also against Israel taking more land.
In a way it would be unfair to the palestinians who were driven away from that land, but what's done is done, and we must take action based on the present, not the past. Which is why I think the israelians who live there now should be able to keep living there.



longfenglim
Is it fair for you to accuse Israel of claiming having the right to all the land the Palestinians have, when that is simply untrue and unsubtantiated?

It is? Then why are they selfishly taking the land from the palestinians, causing the death of civilians on both sides in the process?
If anything, if that is the case, it only makes the israelian government even more despicable, does it not?



longfenglim
I don't care for justice, fairness, or any of those things- you, for your part, have yet to provide an ample definition of what 'fair' and 'just' means. They are all abstractions that can be used to justify any number of positions, for my part, I believe rights, the right of Israel to its current land, the right of Israel to protect its own citizen, the right of Palestine and Israel to war against each other if their democratically elected government has ran on this pledge, and the right of the victor to their land.


While I do not agree that Israel has the "right" to the land they currently has, due to the way they've obtained it, I do think, like I said earlier, it is the right of the israelian people to be able to keep living where they have settled down.
Which, again, is also why I think Israel should stop taking more land, something that would also (most likely) put an end to the conflict and thus serve as a protection of its own citizens. If Israel refuse to stop taking land, then it is they that chose to continue the ongoing conflict.




longfenglim
I love the Towel-heads, just as long as they stay back in the Orient, or else, make themselves white so as to adapt to that country's customs, culture, and rules. Because if Ali wants to get a job to send money to his wife and children back home in Algeria, he had better start eating pork, drink wine, go to Church, and abandon every thing about himself to adapt to that nation's customs, culture, and rules. Just like what happened to the Native Americans... they want to be a part of American society, they had better learn English, stop worshipping the sky and start worshipping Jesus, and stop it with the funny dress. Which is tragic, because now, in America, we have lost, because Injuns, east and west, are allowed to keep their culture, as well as other cultures- we have become a disgusting melting pot, where once it was the purest of white.




Please don't put words like that in my mouth. It's dishonest and insulting.
First of all because I don't hate anyone based on religion, ethnicity or any such things, and would never refer to anyone as "towel-heads". That you even think that I would do such a thing actually hurts me.

I never said they should not be allowed to practice their culture in their home either. I do think however think that yes, they should adapt to the nation's customs and rules. Because while it may not be the case over there, in Scandinavia, culture clash is a very real problem. And everone, both politicians and otherwise agree to that. On both sides. It's not something that is up for debate, it's pure and simple fact.

And yes, if someone wants to be a part of the society they immigrate to, that means that they have to learn a new language. It doesn't mean they can't speak their native language at home. With their friends and their relatives. But it does mean that they have to be able to actually communicate with the rest of society. If they want to be a part of it that is. I don't see why that is such a big thing to demand.

It seems only logical to me. If you moved to a foreign country, would you not learn the country's language? Would you not learn its customs and rules so that you know how to function socially with your new peers? It doesn't mean you have to abandon everything about your own culture. It just means that you have to be able to adapt to your new environment.

As for the religious part, I have no idea where you're getting that from. Most likely you are just being ridiculous with it, seeing as I am generally not in favor of any religion, and couldn't care less about who people worship so long as it doesn't affect others in a negative way.

I also think you are deliberately misunderstanding me on the last part there. About the native americans. Did I not point out that I think it was the loss of the native american culture that was so tragic? Last time I checked, native americans aren't typicly referred to as "white".
2106 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Guess
Offline
Posted 6/28/13

Syndicaidramon wrote:
But I don't insist on racism. If it seems that way it's either because you've misunderstood, or that I have either expressed myself incorrectly or misunderstood something.

And yes I do think the israeli citizens are innocent. I absolutely sympathize with them.
It is the actions of the israelian government that I have a problem with, not its citizens. They are just caught in a conflict that should've never happened.


So, the Israeli government should be faulted for protecting its own citizens?




Not from a political point of view it's not. Except for the land that was granted to them by the UN of course.
But they have no political right to the land that they have taken from the palestinians.


Only they do have the right to rule over the land, politically, no matter how you look at it. That's how wars usually work.





They do. Because it is not in the native americans' or the sami's place to fight to take back those areas. They lost those areas to history, just like Israel did with its land.
Remember that it's Israel encroaching on Palestinian land, not the other way around. The palestinians are merely fighting against Israel's attempt to take even more.


1. So, it is not the Palestinian's place to take back their land, that they have lost to Israeli military might. See how illogical your argument is?

2. And, Palestinian terrorists firing at Israeli civilians is a shining example of how the Evil Israeli government are entroaching on the Poor Palestinian land, and how they are only fighting to keep what little they have, those poor Freedom Fighters.




No. Hamas is a terrorist group. And everyone who has contributed to the bloodshed must be held accountable for their actions. On both sides.


HAMAS is also a democratically elected government, making all of the West Bank accountable by your own definition.




Partly yes but mostly no.
Yes because Israel violated a UN agreement and started a needless war based on greed.
But no because obviously, the israelians have built their homes and their lives on that land.
Overall, I'd say no. Because I feel the lives and rights of the people that have settled their lives within their boarders should come first. Which is why I am also against Israel taking more land.
In a way it would be unfair to the palestinians who were driven away from that land, but what's done is done, and we must take action based on the present, not the past. Which is why I think the israelians who live there now should be able to keep living there.


So, you agree that your original position, 'let's kick the Jews out' is completely infeasible.



It is? Then why are they selfishly taking the land from the palestinians, causing the death of civilians on both sides in the process?
If anything, if that is the case, it only makes the israelian government even more despicable, does it not?


Maybe because they are not? Maybe because they aren't going in to the Palestinian land to steal it, but to punish those that have attack their citizen, as any state should? Maybe because most of your propaganda is unsubstantiated, and that the Illegal Settlements on the West Bank are not sanctioned by the government, but are the initives of individual Israeli citizens gathering together. You should read up on this affair before painting a Manichean picture of it all.



While I do not agree that Israel has the "right" to the land they currently has, due to the way they've obtained it, I do think, like I said earlier, it is the right of the israelian people to be able to keep living where they have settled down.
Which, again, is also why I think Israel should stop taking more land, something that would also (most likely) put an end to the conflict and thus serve as a protection of its own citizens. If Israel refuse to stop taking land, then it is they that chose to continue the ongoing conflict.


Maybe because the 'Israelian government' (its 'Israeli' by the way) isn't stealing land, and that the illegal settlements are founded by individual Israeli citizens, and not by the fiat of the Israeli government.

Even if the Palestinian elects candidates running on 'Kill all the Kikes' and the Israelis those running on 'Let's run these Palestianians to Egypt and Jordan, and kill every last one we can get our hands on' (and it rings more true for one side than the other), then they are obligated to fulfill their promise to their electorate, and it is ultimately the electorate of both the Palestine and the Israel who are collectively responsible for electing them. And if one side is more successful at it, I see no reason to begrudge them for their victory.




Please don't put words like that in my mouth. It's dishonest and insulting.
First of all because I don't hate anyone based on religion, ethnicity or any such things, and would never refer to anyone as "towel-heads". That you even think that I would do such a thing actually hurts me.


If I make explicit the racism and xenophobia implicit in your position, then your pain is only seeing the truth.


I never said they should not be allowed to practice their culture in their home either. I do think however think that yes, they should adapt to the nation's customs and rules. Because while it may not be the case over there, in Scandinavia, culture clash is a very real problem. And everone, both politicians and otherwise agree to that. On both sides. It's not something that is up for debate, it's pure and simple fact.

And yes, if someone wants to be a part of the society they immigrate to, that means that they have to learn a new language. It doesn't mean they can't speak their native language at home. With their friends and their relatives. But it does mean that they have to be able to actually communicate with the rest of society. If they want to be a part of it that is. I don't see why that is such a big thing to demand.


Both politicians and Scandanavians agree, that ragheads are an Eye-sore, and if they want to live in your beautiful nation, they should stop being so araby. Is that what you are getting at, is that the problem there? It isn't up for debate that it is a problem that arab people exist, and they are an eye-sore, and should start getting themselves less araby.

They don't want to be a part of your society, maybe they are only there for the money. And if you and your xenophobic politicians keep preaching tolerance, while scorning them for being too different, then you are all nothing but hypocrites. I believe this is the sort of people Sartre had in mind when he famously said, 'It's okay to be Jewish, just not too Jewy.'


It seems only logical to me. If you moved to a foreign country, would you not learn the country's language? Would you not learn its customs and rules so that you know how to function socially with your new peers? It doesn't mean you have to abandon everything about your own culture. It just means that you have to be able to adapt to your new environment.


It isn't logical, because the only thing that they need to follow are the laws, and that is the end of it. Your nation has no national custom, only particularities varying with regions and ethnic groups.


As for the religious part, I have no idea where you're getting that from. Most likely you are just being ridiculous with it, seeing as I am generally not in favor of any religion, and couldn't care less about who people worship so long as it doesn't affect others in a negative way
.

No, but if you continue to preach a doctrine that implicitly prevents moslems from practicing their religion (your previous support for the Minaret ban) or from asserting their culture (your previous support of the Burqa ban), in favour of an assimiliation into 'Western' society, and thus, eliminating the 'Arab', your position is implicitly, and explicitly, xenophobic and borderline racist.


I also think you are deliberately misunderstanding me on the last part there. About the native americans. Did I not point out that I think it was the loss of the native american culture that was so tragic? Last time I checked, native americans aren't typicly referred to as "white".


I don't remember Arabs being white either. But, your argument- if they want to live in a society, they should adopt their custom, habits, rules, and manners. Since European American society was, and still is, the dominant culture in the United States, then it follows, from your theory, that Native Americans should abandon their culture to join in the larger White American society, in effect, your proscription for the Moslem immigrants is exactly what lead the Native American culture to near destruction.
3420 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / Pandemonium
Offline
Posted 6/29/13 , edited 6/29/13

longfenglim wrote:


Syndicaidramon wrote:
But I don't insist on racism. If it seems that way it's either because you've misunderstood, or that I have either expressed myself incorrectly or misunderstood something.

And yes I do think the israeli citizens are innocent. I absolutely sympathize with them.
It is the actions of the israelian government that I have a problem with, not its citizens. They are just caught in a conflict that should've never happened.


So, the Israeli government should be faulted for protecting its own citizens?



Of course not. But they should be faulted for not ending the conflict when they have the power to do so and yet still refuse to do it.





longfenglim
Only they do have the right to rule over the land, politically, no matter how you look at it. That's how wars usually work.



What I meant is they had no right to take it.






longfenglim
1. So, it is not the Palestinian's place to take back their land, that they have lost to Israeli military might. See how illogical your argument is?

2. And, Palestinian terrorists firing at Israeli civilians is a shining example of how the Evil Israeli government are entroaching on the Poor Palestinian land, and how they are only fighting to keep what little they have, those poor Freedom Fighters.


1. Not at this moment, no. What matters now is to end the war. If the palestinians want their land back, they can do what Israel SHOULD'VE done if they truly thought they had the right to the palestinians' land, and do it in a peaceful way, through negotiation. Not through war.

2. I don't agree with their methods at all. But the plan, as far as I understand it, is to lay pressure on Israel to stop.
And like I've said before, Israel does have the power to stop it. All they have to do is end the conflict.




longfenglim
HAMAS is also a democratically elected government, making all of the West Bank accountable by your own definition.


Doesn't matter. They are still the ones deciding and taking the actions, and therefore, they are the ones who should be held accountable.
When electing new leadership, mistakes can be made. In all of democratic history, that has always been the case.





longfenglim
So, you agree that your original position, 'let's kick the Jews out' is completely infeasible.


I never held that position.
I said that was what would be most fair towards the palestinians and international politics, again, Israel did have their own land, and yet started taking more land from the palestinians anyways.






longfenglim
Maybe because they are not? Maybe because they aren't going in to the Palestinian land to steal it, but to punish those that have attack their citizen, as any state should?


Again, that can be done without waging war. Without needlessly murdering civilians.
And even if not, then is it really worth the lives of those innocent civilians just to punish someone? Is revenge more important than the lives of the innocent?




longfenglim
Maybe because the 'Israelian government' (its 'Israeli' by the way) isn't stealing land, and that the illegal settlements are founded by individual Israeli citizens, and not by the fiat of the Israeli government.


Source?




longfenglim
Even if the Palestinian elects candidates running on 'Kill all the Kikes' and the Israelis those running on 'Let's run these Palestianians to Egypt and Jordan, and kill every last one we can get our hands on' (and it rings more true for one side than the other), then they are obligated to fulfill their promise to their electorate, and it is ultimately the electorate of both the Palestine and the Israel who are collectively responsible for electing them. And if one side is more successful at it, I see no reason to begrudge them for their victory.


Politicians have been decieving their people since forever. There's nothing in the way of the government going behind the people's backs and negotiating their way to a peace treaty.



longfenglim
If I make explicit the racism and xenophobia implicit in your position, then your pain is only seeing the truth.


No. It means that I wouldn't do so and I don't like it when people say that I could do so. Because I value people more than that.
It would've hurt me if you said I could be a murderer or a rapist or any such thing as well.




longfenglim
Both politicians and Scandanavians agree, that ragheads are an Eye-sore, and if they want to live in your beautiful nation, they should stop being so araby. Is that what you are getting at, is that the problem there? It isn't up for debate that it is a problem that arab people exist, and they are an eye-sore, and should start getting themselves less araby.


You are just hell bent on twisting my words into the most racist things possibly aren't you? Why? You also repeatedly choose to ignore that I have repeatedly stated that this is something that goes both ways. It would go just as much for norwegians if they were to move down to the arabic countries.

And you are obviously ignorant towards the situation. These are things that has caused big division between the people, and that breeds a lot of prejudice in the northern countries. And that divide and that rapid breeding prejudice IS a problem. It has nothing to do with thinking that they are inferior (at least not for those that are blinded by their prejudice), but merely incompatibility between the cultures.
And it IS because of culture clash, wheather you like it or not.
Acknowledging a real problem is not racism.




longfenglim
They don't want to be a part of your society, maybe they are only there for the money. And if you and your xenophobic politicians keep preaching tolerance, while scorning them for being too different, then you are all nothing but hypocrites. I believe this is the sort of people Sartre had in mind when he famously said, 'It's okay to be Jewish, just not too Jewy.'


It has nothing to do with hypocricy. It has to do with acknowledging what works and what doesn't work. We had open minds and we really tried on the whole "all out multiculturalism" thing. And it failed. That's not our fault.
And if they don't want to be a part of society, that's fine. But that also means that they have to stop demanding societal changes and influence in politics.





longfenglim
It isn't logical, because the only thing that they need to follow are the laws, and that is the end of it. Your nation has no national custom, only particularities varying with regions and ethnic groups.


And thus, you adapt to the region you've moved to.
That's how it works if you want to be able to function socially in a new country. There are countries where social protocols are vastly different. Learning and adapting to those things is important if you want to be a part of society.
If you don't want to be a part of society, that's fine. But not learning the language and social customs will severely limit your abilities to interact with the new place you've moved to. Really, NOT adapting to them out of some sort of weird pride would be rather stupid.

And again, that goes for all countries and all people. No matter who it is has moved wherever.





longfenglim
No, but if you continue to preach a doctrine that implicitly prevents moslems from practicing their religion (your previous support for the Minaret ban) or from asserting their culture (your previous support of the Burqa ban), in favour of an assimiliation into 'Western' society, and thus, eliminating the 'Arab', your position is implicitly, and explicitly, xenophobic and borderline racist.



If christianity, a religion that has been the dominant religion in Norway for nearly a thousand years had a similar tradition of oppressing women in such a fashion, I would've called for the banning of that as well. It has nothing to do with it being a foreign thing.





longfenglim
I don't remember Arabs being white either. But, your argument- if they want to live in a society, they should adopt their custom, habits, rules, and manners. Since European American society was, and still is, the dominant culture in the United States, then it follows, from your theory, that Native Americans should abandon their culture to join in the larger White American society, in effect, your proscription for the Moslem immigrants is exactly what lead the Native American culture to near destruction.


There's a difference. For one, the arabic culture is not in any danger of dying out, unlike the native american culture.
Second, the practice of native american culture is usually practiced within the borders of america, which is where it belongs, regardless of wheather it has become the minority or not.

Not saying european american culture has no place in the US, because it certainly does. It has become a piece of history and to abandon it completely would be both silly and unrealistic. And while I do have problems with it, it also has its charms.
But I sure would like to see native american culture flourish again...

If the arabic culture ever comes close to dying out, then that is when we must take steps in order to preserve it. Make sure it survives.
And right now, that is what we have to do in Norway. With our own culture. Because our culture is in the danger of dying out. And introducing more outside influence will not help that.
It has nothing to do with xenophobia, but merely the desire to make sure our own culture does not die out. Just the same as with the native american one, and maybe some time in the future, the arabic culture.
2106 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Guess
Offline
Posted 6/29/13 , edited 6/29/13

Syndicaidramon wrote:
Of course not. But they should be faulted for not ending the conflict when they have the power to do so and yet still refuse to do it.


So their fault is that they aren't capitulating.






What I meant is they had no right to take it.


Take what land. As I said, read up on the issue before commenting on it because the Israeli government has not taken the land, but that Israeli citizens are illegally building settlements beyond the Israeli pale. If they should be attacked, then the Israeli government is in all right to punish the people who are attacking their citizen.







1. Not at this moment, no. What matters now is to end the war. If the palestinians want their land back, they can do what Israel SHOULD'VE done if they truly thought they had the right to the palestinians' land, and do it in a peaceful way, through negotiation. Not through war.

2. I don't agree with their methods at all. But the plan, as far as I understand it, is to lay pressure on Israel to stop.
And like I've said before, Israel does have the power to stop it. All they have to do is end the conflict.



1. End the war? Don't pretend to be the enlightened outsider who only know what is best for these ignorant Israelis and Palestinians- not only did you lie about the Israeli government stealing Palestinian land, and covetous for more, but that both side should continue to support organisations and political party who wants to perpetuate this is reason enough to allow for this war to continue.

2. What power do they have to stop Palestinian terrorists, whose avowed goal is to drive all Israeli from Israel, from wanting to further their goal?




Doesn't matter. They are still the ones deciding and taking the actions, and therefore, they are the ones who should be held accountable.
When electing new leadership, mistakes can be made. In all of democratic history, that has always been the case.



Who decided to elect them knowing their policies?

One does not make mistakes in elections, one votes according to what one believes is the best course for the nation, and if one votes for a party that openly advocate the murder of all jews, one is responsible for electing them and providing them power.





I never held that position.
I said that was what would be most fair towards the palestinians and international politics, again, Israel did have their own land, and yet started taking more land from the palestinians anyways.


Yes you did. Refer to the first post.







Again, that can be done without waging war. Without needlessly murdering civilians.
And even if not, then is it really worth the lives of those innocent civilians just to punish someone? Is revenge more important than the lives of the innocent?



It is, by any standards, fair- to punish those that attack your citizen. Israel can't very well go to the Palestinian authority, staffed with these people, and ask them to hand over the murderers for trial and punishment.

As for the whole 'is revenge more important than the lives of innocents', well, they are after the lives of the murderers, and the IDF does all that is possible to reduce civilian casualty, which is quite hard, given that these terrorists use the innocent as human sheilds. So, this last bit is not so much a point as a cheap attempt to bolster your position with pathos.




Source?


Cite your source first, because all account of the West Bank Settlement agrees with what I have just said.

From Wikipedia:


Israeli settlements in the occupied territories (commonly referred to as simply Israeli settlements) are the Jewish civilian communities built on lands occupied by Israel during the 1967 Six-Day War. Such settlements currently exist in the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and in the Golan Heights. Settlements also existed in the Sinai and Gaza Strip until Israel evacuated the Sinai settlements following the 1979 Israel-Egypt peace agreement and unilaterally disengaged from the Gaza Strip in 2005. Israel dismantled 18 settlements in the Sinai Peninsula in 1982, and all 21 in the Gaza Strip and 4 in the West Bank in 2005, but continues to both expand its settlements and settle new areas in the West Bank in spite of the Oslo Accords, which specified in article 31 that neither side would take any step that would change the status of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip pending the outcome of the permanent status negotiations. However, Israeli settlement expansion has continued unabated





Politicians have been decieving their people since forever. There's nothing in the way of the government going behind the people's backs and negotiating their way to a peace treaty.


Only, they aren't fulfilling their promise to the electorate. I'm not sure how your democracy work, but democracy usually work on the principles of running on a platform and keeping to it. And if they don't keep to it, we try to keep them accountable.



No. It means that I wouldn't do so and I don't like it when people say that I could do so. Because I value people more than that.
It would've hurt me if you said I could be a murderer or a rapist or any such thing as well.


Only that is irrelevant, given that your position is implicitly xenophobic and racist. You don't value people, just leave it at that.






You are just hell bent on twisting my words into the most racist things possibly aren't you? Why? You also repeatedly choose to ignore that I have repeatedly stated that this is something that goes both ways. It would go just as much for norwegians if they were to move down to the arabic countries.

And you are obviously ignorant towards the situation. These are things that has caused big division between the people, and that breeds a lot of prejudice in the northern countries. And that divide and that rapid breeding prejudice IS a problem. It has nothing to do with thinking that they are inferior (at least not for those that are blinded by their prejudice), but merely incompatibility between the cultures.
And it IS because of culture clash, wheather you like it or not.
Acknowledging a real problem is not racism.


There is only a problem, because if your people cannot stand Arabs keeping their, and your politicians cannot stand Arabs their culture, then the problem is that your society is fucked up.

You are obviously ignorant of the situation, because your only argument is that because people are different, we must make them change so that we would hate them less, rather than accustom ourselves to them, so that we can be more open. The reason why there is a divide is that it is because of your prejudice, and not because they are making you prejudiced by being different. It is just the same as the standard, old-timey argument against raped women...if women didn't want to get raped, they shouldn't have incited the man's lust to begin with, so they must do all in their power not to incite the man's lust against them. Victim blaming at its finest. If this is the society you live in, I fail to see how it should be held as a model to the world.





It has nothing to do with hypocricy. It has to do with acknowledging what works and what doesn't work. We had open minds and we really tried on the whole "all out multiculturalism" thing. And it failed. That's not our fault.
And if they don't want to be a part of society, that's fine. But that also means that they have to stop demanding societal changes and influence in politics
....
And thus, you adapt to the region you've moved to.
That's how it works if you want to be able to function socially in a new country. There are countries where social protocols are vastly different. Learning and adapting to those things is important if you want to be a part of society.
If you don't want to be a part of society, that's fine. But not learning the language and social customs will severely limit your abilities to interact with the new place you've moved to. Really, NOT adapting to them out of some sort of weird pride would be rather stupid.

And again, that goes for all countries and all people. No matter who it is has moved wherever.
...
If christianity, a religion that has been the dominant religion in Norway for nearly a thousand years had a similar tradition of oppressing women in such a fashion, I would've called for the banning of that as well. It has nothing to do with it being a foreign thing.



No, you only need to know the law, and that's the end of it. If you want to move to another nation, you only need to follow their laws, that is all that is necessary to function. You don't adapt to the customes of the region when you move there. Someone from Boston or Georgia, for example, don't go about changing their accents once they move to Los Angeles or New York, nor does an Englishmen forsake his Englishness once he buys a country house in France. If someone from Paris moves to Nantes, they don't go about learning Breton and donning regional clothing. Nobody adapts beyond what is necessary, following the law, learning the rudiments of the language so that you may buy your groceries, etc. And it doesn't matter where.

If everyone hates you because you saw through your food with your knife, rather than practicing neat cuts, then there is something seriously wrong with that society, which is so narrowminded that intolerant that even a slight deviation would incur such hatred. If your society is thus unenlightened, then you may very need to change your society. Because, like it or hate it, there will be more immigrants, and they are in no way bound to go beyond following the law of the land to live in your country.

I think this illustrate the fragility with which you paint your society- is it so weak that it cannot accomadate a few Arabs without it, apperantly, falling apart, usually, if a Car cannot accomadate more than two passengers without breaking down, we naturally assume that it is not the extra passanger who is at fault, but that the car is in major need of repair. I don't suppose that if your society cannot accomadate someone from a different culture, and who insist keeping this difference, it should be left at it is, so as to be rightly scorn as a primitve and reactionary thing, like the current Church is.

It is simply prejudice, pure and simple. Had you been born in a time before secularism, and where the Church ruled along side the King, you would be making a similar argument against the Catholics, they have left Spain, France, Austria, Italy, etc. They should abandon all Spanish-ness, French-ness, Italian-ness, etc. including being a Catholic, and accept the Official Church. It is teh result of a common prejudice against the Arabs- if women choose to assert their own Moslem heritage and wear a Hijab, or else call fellow moslem to prayers from a Minaret, I don't see how that is different from carrying a Rosary or ringing Church bells.






There's a difference. For one, the arabic culture is not in any danger of dying out, unlike the native american culture.
Second, the practice of native american culture is usually practiced within the borders of america, which is where it belongs, regardless of wheather it has become the minority or not.

Not saying european american culture has no place in the US, because it certainly does. It has become a piece of history and to abandon it completely would be both silly and unrealistic. And while I do have problems with it, it also has its charms.
But I sure would like to see native american culture flourish again...

If the arabic culture ever comes close to dying out, then that is when we must take steps in order to preserve it. Make sure it survives.
And right now, that is what we have to do in Norway. With our own culture. Because our culture is in the danger of dying out. And introducing more outside influence will not help that.
It has nothing to do with xenophobia, but merely the desire to make sure our own culture does not die out. Just the same as with the native american one, and maybe some time in the future, the arabic culture.


It is everything about xenophobia. For one, your doctrine is what is killing off Native American culture, no matter how much you protest that your position is 'fundamentally different'. It isn't. If an Arab immigrant chooses to live in Israel for purpose of pay, you would, no doubt, agree that he should try to assimilate to Israeli culture- I suppose that would mean abandoning all thing Arab, convert to Judaism, etc. If your culture is so weak that a few Arabs is enough to kill off that culture, in a society where they are not even the majority, if it is that weak, and if it cannot survive them, then it deserves to die. There is nothing beautiful about a culture that needs to barricade itself to protect itself against a few people, who aren't even dominant, and who aren't a military power, it is a weak, and hideous and odious culture, it is a culture that, in former times, had to feed off civilisation, from Anglo-Saxon England to Ireland to France, to make up for its poverty, and which cannot stand a few Arab immigrants. If it cannot adapt, then it should be killed off immediately.
3420 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / Pandemonium
Offline
Posted 6/29/13

longfenglim wrote:


Syndicaidramon wrote:
Of course not. But they should be faulted for not ending the conflict when they have the power to do so and yet still refuse to do it.


So their fault is that they aren't capitulating.


Depends on what the closest thing that can end the conflict will be.



longfenglim

1. End the war? Don't pretend to be the enlightened outsider who only know what is best for these ignorant Israelis and Palestinians- not only did you lie about the Israeli government stealing Palestinian land, and covetous for more, but that both side should continue to support organisations and political party who wants to perpetuate this is reason enough to allow for this war to continue.

2. What power do they have to stop Palestinian terrorists, whose avowed goal is to drive all Israeli from Israel, from wanting to further their goal?


1. I did not lie. Or at least I did not intend to. If what I said was wrong, then it was because of my ignorance on the matter, not a wish to deceive.

2. What exactly is Israel's goal in this conflict?


longfenglim
Who decided to elect them knowing their policies?.


Okay. You're right.
So what do you propose they do? Punish all the palestinians?




longfenglim
Yes you did. Refer to the first post.

More intended as in "leave it where it is". Since obviously none will want to give up more of their land either way.




longfenglim
As for the whole 'is revenge more important than the lives of innocents', well, they are after the lives of the murderers, and the IDF does all that is possible to reduce civilian casualty, which is quite hard, given that these terrorists use the innocent as human sheilds. So, this last bit is not so much a point as a cheap attempt to bolster your position with pathos.


No, I am simply asking if murdering these men is so important that killing far more innocent people in the process is justified.
Especially since it is a revenge-plot that cannot be won, as there will always be new people joining in, and thus always more people that needs to be "gone after". Would it not be better to just let it lie?



longfenglim
From Wikipedia:
Israeli settlements in the occupied territories (commonly referred to as simply Israeli settlements) are the Jewish civilian communities built on lands occupied by Israel during the 1967 Six-Day War. Such settlements currently exist in the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and in the Golan Heights. Settlements also existed in the Sinai and Gaza Strip until Israel evacuated the Sinai settlements following the 1979 Israel-Egypt peace agreement and unilaterally disengaged from the Gaza Strip in 2005. Israel dismantled 18 settlements in the Sinai Peninsula in 1982, and all 21 in the Gaza Strip and 4 in the West Bank in 2005, but continues to both expand its settlements and settle new areas in the West Bank in spite of the Oslo Accords, which specified in article 31 that neither side would take any step that would change the status of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip pending the outcome of the permanent status negotiations. However, Israeli settlement expansion has continued unabated


Hmmm, I see. Well it seems I will have to reconsider my view on this debacle.



longfenglim
Only that is irrelevant, given that your position is implicitly xenophobic and racist. You don't value people, just leave it at that.

What did I ever do to make you hate me so much that you would write something like this?



longfenglim
There is only a problem, because if your people cannot stand Arabs keeping their, and your politicians cannot stand Arabs their culture, then the problem is that your society is fucked up.

You are obviously ignorant of the situation, because your only argument is that because people are different, we must make them change so that we would hate them less, rather than accustom ourselves to them, so that we can be more open. The reason why there is a divide is that it is because of your prejudice, and not because they are making you prejudiced by being different. It is just the same as the standard, old-timey argument against raped women...if women didn't want to get raped, they shouldn't have incited the man's lust to begin with, so they must do all in their power not to incite the man's lust against them. Victim blaming at its finest. If this is the society you live in, I fail to see how it should be held as a model to the world.


Fine reasoning, provided it was a one-sided issue. Which it isn't.



longfenglim
No, you only need to know the law, and that's the end of it. If you want to move to another nation, you only need to follow their laws, that is all that is necessary to function. You don't adapt to the customes of the region when you move there. Someone from Boston or Georgia, for example, don't go about changing their accents once they move to Los Angeles or New York, nor does an Englishmen forsake his Englishness once he buys a country house in France. If someone from Paris moves to Nantes, they don't go about learning Breton and donning regional clothing. Nobody adapts beyond what is necessary, following the law, learning the rudiments of the language so that you may buy your groceries, etc. And it doesn't matter where.


Fine in theory. Works different in reality. Such giant things may alienate others. Just ask westerners who have moved to Japan for instance. Not easy.
Sure, it is messed up, and it shouldn't be like that. But it still is.



longfenglim
If everyone hates you because you saw through your food with your knife, rather than practicing neat cuts, then there is something seriously wrong with that society, which is so narrowminded that intolerant that even a slight deviation would incur such hatred.

And yet that is still how it is. People are getting discriminated against every day. For far less. Be it for the way they talk, the way they dress, their sexual orientation, whatever. And you find that in all societies. It sucks, sure, and it must be changed as best as possible, but it is by no means a change that happens overnight.




longfenglim
It is simply prejudice, pure and simple. Had you been born in a time before secularism, and where the Church ruled along side the King, you would be making a similar argument against the Catholics, they have left Spain, France, Austria, Italy, etc. They should abandon all Spanish-ness, French-ness, Italian-ness, etc. including being a Catholic, and accept the Official Church. It is teh result of a common prejudice against the Arabs- if women choose to assert their own Moslem heritage and wear a Hijab, or else call fellow moslem to prayers from a Minaret, I don't see how that is different from carrying a Rosary or ringing Church bells.


No, it has to do with hija, burqa and niqab being oppressive clothing, designed to suppress women's individuality and enforce their male-supremist views on them. In fact, the very same victim-blaming view that you yourself spoke against.



longfenglim

It is everything about xenophobia. For one, your doctrine is what is killing off Native American culture, no matter how much you protest that your position is 'fundamentally different'. It isn't. If an Arab immigrant chooses to live in Israel for purpose of pay, you would, no doubt, agree that he should try to assimilate to Israeli culture- I suppose that would mean abandoning all thing Arab, convert to Judaism, etc. If your culture is so weak that a few Arabs is enough to kill off that culture, in a society where they are not even the majority, if it is that weak, and if it cannot survive them, then it deserves to die.

Again with the convert thing. Will you stop shoving that in there? I already told you I don't give a shit.



longfenglim

There is nothing beautiful about a culture that needs to barricade itself to protect itself against a few people, who aren't even dominant, and who aren't a military power, it is a weak, and hideous and odious culture, it is a culture that, in former times, had to feed off civilisation, from Anglo-Saxon England to Ireland to France, to make up for its poverty, and which cannot stand a few Arab immigrants. If it cannot adapt, then it should be killed off immediately.



The thing is, a culture dies out if no one preserves it. And in today's society, where globalization and idolozong the US are commonly held high, cultures may die out simply because people forget about them. And added outside culture will do more harm to that. It's not just the outside culture that is at fault. Not even mostly. But it certainly doesn't help.
And you seem to be saying that the native American culture deserves to die out, with this reasoning. Do you really mean that?


2106 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Guess
Offline
Posted 6/29/13

Syndicaidramon wrote:
Depends on what the closest thing that can end the conflict will be.


Who said anything about ending this conflict. I am all for it continuing, seeing as both side are thoroughly committed to perpetuating it.




What exactly is Israel's goal in this conflict?
...
No, I am simply asking if murdering these men is so important that killing far more innocent people in the process is justified.
Especially since it is a revenge-plot that cannot be won, as there will always be new people joining in, and thus always more people that needs to be "gone after". Would it not be better to just let it lie?



To protect its citizen from Palestinian terrorists. The IDF seeks to defeat the terrorists and protect its citizen while minimising casaulty, on the other side are the Palestinian Terrorists, who seek to hide behind their civilians. This war can end, they can establish peace, they can negotiate, but both side, as shown by their elections, choose war.







Okay. You're right.
So what do you propose they do? Punish all the palestinians?


Let them have their little blood fest- if both side want war, they should be allowed to experience the full consequence of it.



More intended as in "leave it where it is". Since obviously none will want to give up more of their land either way.


Your original post was basically 'let's the Israelis leave'.









What did I ever do to make you hate me so much that you would write something like this?


Your position is xenophobic, and it is racist. If you want to preach liberal humanism, you are being hypocritical about it.



Fine reasoning, provided it was a one-sided issue. Which it isn't.

....


Fine in theory. Works different in reality. Such giant things may alienate others. Just ask westerners who have moved to Japan for instance. Not easy.
Sure, it is messed up, and it shouldn't be like that. But it still is.

...


And yet that is still how it is. People are getting discriminated against every day. For far less. Be it for the way they talk, the way they dress, their sexual orientation, whatever. And you find that in all societies. It sucks, sure, and it must be changed as best as possible, but it is by no means a change that happens overnight.
....

No, it has to do with hija, burqa and niqab being oppressive clothing, designed to suppress women's individuality and enforce their male-supremist views on them. In fact, the very same victim-blaming view that you yourself spoke against.


1. Please explain what you mean by 'it isn't a one-sided issue' because it sure as hell is.

2. So, basically, victim-blaming.

3. Victim blaming. It means that the society change, not the individual. That's why people don't tell gay people to stop with their gayness, but start trying to be more receptive towards them.

4. No, you assume that because a lady wears a hijab she must be oppressed, and therefore seeing as she is wearing a hijab, she is being oppressed. It is simply circular reasoning. It is an a priori assumption on your part, whereas there are a variety of reason why someone may wear the Hijab, for example, they can wear it as a statement of Arab identity, to openly declare themselves Moslems, just as a Catholic may be inclined to carry a rosary.



longfenglim
Again with the convert thing. Will you stop shoving that in there? I already told you I don't give a shit.


It is only the logical extension of your theory, to adapt to the culture where you move to, and if that nation is cutlurally and predominately Jewish, I suppose you would support conversion for the sake of 'assimilation'. I only chose Religion because, knowing that you are an atheist, you would have to face up to this contradiction between your firmly held belief that there is no God, and your staunch secularism and Laicity, and, on the other, the fact that if you so choose to move to a place that is culturally religious, you would be forced, by your own doctrine, to abandon these principles.



The thing is, a culture dies out if no one preserves it. And in today's society, where globalization and idolozong the US are commonly held high, cultures may die out simply because people forget about them. And added outside culture will do more harm to that. It's not just the outside culture that is at fault. Not even mostly. But it certainly doesn't help.
And you seem to be saying that the native American culture deserves to die out, with this reasoning. Do you really mean that?





The thing is, if a culture dies out because no one preserves them, then it is the weakness of that culture which prevents people from retaining it.

Native American culture didn't die out, because it is a way of life many Native Americans have retain on the strenght of those culture. Many are, however, killed off by American might, and their lifestyle was incompatible, for some tribes, with the Industrial Age. I have purposefully excluded military might forcing one culture upon another in my critique of your position, however, I will say that if Native American culture fail to adapt to changing time, such as the Industrial Revolution, then, yes, it does not deserve to continue on.
3420 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / Pandemonium
Offline
Posted 6/30/13

longfenglim wrote:


Syndicaidramon wrote:
Depends on what the closest thing that can end the conflict will be.


Who said anything about ending this conflict. I am all for it continuing, seeing as both side are thoroughly committed to perpetuating it.


So you would not prefer it if the conflict could just end tomorrow?




longfenglim
To protect its citizen from Palestinian terrorists. The IDF seeks to defeat the terrorists and protect its citizen while minimising casaulty, on the other side are the Palestinian Terrorists, who seek to hide behind their civilians. This war can end, they can establish peace, they can negotiate, but both side, as shown by their elections, choose war.



What if one of them were to capitulate? What would happen then?





longfenglim
Let them have their little blood fest- if both side want war, they should be allowed to experience the full consequence of it.


Seems rather cold-hearted to me...




longfenglim
Your original post was basically 'let's the Israelis leave'.


I think you read way too much into things.






longfenglim
Your position is xenophobic, and it is racist. If you want to preach liberal humanism, you are being hypocritical about it.


Not at all. My position is based on experience on what has happened so far.
If I was racist, it would mean I hated other cultures and ethnicities generally. Which I have stated many times before that I don't.





longfenglim
1. Please explain what you mean by 'it isn't a one-sided issue' because it sure as hell is.

2. So, basically, victim-blaming.

3. Victim blaming. It means that the society change, not the individual. That's why people don't tell gay people to stop with their gayness, but start trying to be more receptive towards them.

4. No, you assume that because a lady wears a hijab she must be oppressed, and therefore seeing as she is wearing a hijab, she is being oppressed. It is simply circular reasoning. It is an a priori assumption on your part, whereas there are a variety of reason why someone may wear the Hijab, for example, they can wear it as a statement of Arab identity, to openly declare themselves Moslems, just as a Catholic may be inclined to carry a rosary.



1. Well one easy example is the attitude that especially the middle easterns have. It has practicly become a stereotype that middle easters are aggressive and extremely easy to provoke, often getting up in people's faces for no seemingly reason what so ever.
They also seem to feel a sense of entitlement, as they sometimes demand ridiculous things, such as banning piggie banks.

2. Partly and partly not. If one steadily refuse to adapt to one's new society, one really cannot expect to be embraced into it.
Of course, society should be more accepting than it is, but one has to acknowledge what is the reality of the situation.

3. How is that victim blaming? I think those things are horrible things and that it is a fault of socity, not the victim.

4. Well it depends on how you look at it.
Of course, a woman doesn't necessarily FEEL oppressed when wearing a hijab. Many women wear hijabs completely by choice, as they have a desire to follow what they think is (but not really) a garment demanded by the islamic faith. Though it still serves that same purpose, even if they don't have a problem with it.

This is something I have experienced myself when I was a christian, where we had rules about how we could dress and look or not. And I went along with it, often with glee, because I thought it was the right thing to do.
But despite that, deep inside, I knew I was not allowed to express myself the way I wanted. Even though it was my choice to go along with it, I was still being oppressed. Just because the victim is happy to go along doesn't mean it doesn't still effectively serve the same purpose.

And the thing is that many muslim women are FORCED to wear it. And when it comes to that, it is simply gender based discrimination.
And this is a scenario that while already common, is only becoming more and more common as more and more young muslims are adapting to the secular society.
Not to mention that the mindset that demands this garment is inherently linked to the "victim-blaming" mindset, which you have spoken against.




longfenglim
It is only the logical extension of your theory, to adapt to the culture where you move to, and if that nation is cutlurally and predominately Jewish, I suppose you would support conversion for the sake of 'assimilation'. I only chose Religion because, knowing that you are an atheist, you would have to face up to this contradiction between your firmly held belief that there is no God, and your staunch secularism and Laicity, and, on the other, the fact that if you so choose to move to a place that is culturally religious, you would be forced, by your own doctrine, to abandon these principles.


Not unless the country was a theocracy, demanding that I follow the same faith.
Daily social behaviour is seperate from private religious worship.




longfenglim
Native American culture didn't die out, because it is a way of life many Native Americans have retain on the strenght of those culture. Many are, however, killed off by American might, and their lifestyle was incompatible, for some tribes, with the Industrial Age. I have purposefully excluded military might forcing one culture upon another in my critique of your position, however, I will say that if Native American culture fail to adapt to changing time, such as the Industrial Revolution, then, yes, it does not deserve to continue on.


It has been effectively killed off. Despite that many native americans retain it on their own and sometimes in social gatherings, doesn't change the fact that it has effectively been reduced to the point where the biggest expression of the culture is nothing more than what amounts to a small local party. And that's a shame.

Still, I pondered my position and I realized that the situation of european impact the native americans can't really be compared to the arabic impact on the norwegian culture. After thinking about it, I have probably been overly paranoid in that regard.


3050 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
101 / F
Offline
Posted 7/2/13
I think everyone here needs to go watch Promises.
5139 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 8/3/14 , edited 8/3/14
Well, bluntly put, what's currently happening in that region is atrocious, and anyone supporting this kind of devastating eradication of human lifes should be put to shame publically and then thrown into jail.
62198 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / M / Michigan
Online
Posted 8/5/14 , edited 8/5/14
What do I think? No one deserves to die just because of the political climate they were born into. It's really unfortunate and pretty offensive.

All in all, there's just too much power on the Israeli side. They have money, weapons, an army, are friends with US politicians (which most US citizens aren't), and have lots of media influence. I've been reading a few articles here and there over the years that make it seem like the Palestinians can't even pay their workers and don't have enough clean water at this point.

The difference is clear. The Palestinians are basically being stomped into submission and no one is ever coming to help. I think their politicians should think about ways to mitigate their losses and achieve small wins at the negotiating table. Pay your workers. Figure out how to get your people enough clean water finally. It's a hard line to take that you won't agree to anything until you agree to everything. Especially when you lack even those basic means.
2877 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
33 / Up there ^
Online
Posted 8/6/14
On one hand, you have Hamas, which is hiding their weapons and fighters among the civilian population of Gaza. Rockets have been discovered in schools, hospitals, and homes occupied by civilian noncombatants. Hamas wants the blockade of Gaza lifted.

Hamas fires rockets indiscriminately into Israel with no warning whatsoever. They dig tunnels across the border from Gaza into Israel, and all across Gaza itself. They use these tunnels to attack Israelis--civilian and military.

On the other hand you have the Israeli Defense Force, one of the most capable and effective military organizations in the world. Doubt it? Look up the Six Day War. Their weapons and tactics are precise, and aided by renowned Israeli Intelligence. Israel wants the Gaza tunnels destroyed.

The Israelis often drop leaflets and send mass text messages providing warning of a strike. And yet civilians still die. The Israelis know the civilians are possibly still there when they strike, and they strike anyway. They have little choice...the only alternative would be to not fight back at all.

Now, why might that be?

Gaza nearly two million population in only 139 square miles of territory. At that kind of density civilian casualties are pretty much unavoidable. But surely, the civilians flee when warned of an impending strike.

Surely.

Right?
6183 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
17 / M / Cardiff,Wales
Offline
Posted 8/6/14
Just going to leave this 8 minute video that explains/summarizes the entire current situation up.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nltL23SdyVY
I share a similar view however mine is different in that I do not agree with allowing the continued existence of a state of Israel, I always find it funny how people allow Israel to continue to 'acquire' land whilst they say that Hitler was evil for doing so himself (The double standard is huge in that one).

And this is, next to A.J.P. Taylor, pretty much my most favourite historian.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ilan_Papp%C3%A9
Read some of his books, amazing historical work.
669 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
42 / M
Offline
Posted 8/6/14 , edited 8/6/14
One thing is no matter how people feel about Jews and Israel if the extremist Muslims take control of Jerusalem, Jerusalem will be the center for all extremist Muslims for Jihad. No more than back throughout history between Rome and Muslims fought over Jerusalem many many times. Jerusalem is considered a sacred site in Sunni Islamic tradition, along with Mecca and Medina. Jerusalem became irrefutably holy to Muslims as the place from which it is believed Muhammad rose to heaven and received instructions regarding the Muslim prayers. Physical space associated with a divine revelation becomes a religious trust and the occupants its guardians. Muslims today regard Jerusalem as a waqf (a religious foundation), which cannot change ownership, which is the problem. Lets say if New York was a waqf they would claim ownership to it and many extremist would do everything in their control to take it over. If you dont want Israel to exist, sure go ahead and give it to the Hamas, lets see what happens after that in the few years after they have it.
6183 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
17 / M / Cardiff,Wales
Offline
Posted 8/7/14

JuJuRoll wrote:

One thing is no matter how people feel about Jews and Israel if the extremist Muslims take control of Jerusalem, Jerusalem will be the center for all extremist Muslims for Jihad. No more than back throughout history between Rome and Muslims fought over Jerusalem many many times. Jerusalem is considered a sacred site in Sunni Islamic tradition, along with Mecca and Medina. Jerusalem became irrefutably holy to Muslims as the place from which it is believed Muhammad rose to heaven and received instructions regarding the Muslim prayers. Physical space associated with a divine revelation becomes a religious trust and the occupants its guardians. Muslims today regard Jerusalem as a waqf (a religious foundation), which cannot change ownership, which is the problem. Lets say if New York was a waqf they would claim ownership to it and many extremist would do everything in their control to take it over. If you dont want Israel to exist, sure go ahead and give it to the Hamas, lets see what happens after that in the few years after they have it.


The amount of BS here is totally ridiculous, you realize that both the Israelis and Palestinians have the right to live under 1 rule in the current Israel ('The Holy Land') and that in the past they lived in peace under Islamic and non-Islamic rule right? Right? Right?

It all comes down to who is in power, the current right-wing extremist Israeli government is just as bad as the Nazi government of the late 30s/early 40s. Hamas was created by Israel for the sole purpose of 'ethnically cleansing' palestine (You can read some books that Ilan Pappé wrote) so any of this 'jihadist terrorist' bullshit can be blamed straight onto Israel. Inb4HamasIsEvilAndWantTheDestructionOfIsrael (As if Israel doesn't want the destruction of all Arabs) and if you play the Holocaust card then you can go and sod off.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.