Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Gaza: What Am I Missing?

Gaza: What Am I Missing? (Page 5)
Thread Tools
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 6, 2014, 08:22 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
I think what you're missing here is that there is no natural claim to a region. Things work out the way they work out. If you choose never to relent and to live out a perpetual jihad, you will have eternal strife; as the Palestinian is experiencing today. If a Native American tribe for example, insisted on lobbing missiles into your community rendering you and your family in shelters much of each day, you'd see things differently.
But that part in bold above is PRECISELY what Israelis claim to justify their political control of the Palestinian lands in questions.

Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
Really? Do you have a historian with some differing view of the region in the late 19th, early 20th century?
Well we have the San who are an aboriginal hunter-gatherer people in Southern Africa. In fact, one of the oldest peoples on the planet in terms of genetic diversity. IOW, they've been around for nearly as long as humanity itself has existed. We have the Khoikhoi who are an aboriginal people in Southwestern Africa who have lived in the Cape Colony region for the last 2000 years. They were practicing pastoral agriculture at the time of European colonization and open warfare erupted between them and the Boers when the Dutch East India company enclosed their traditional grazing lands for European controlled farms. We have the Bantu-speaking people who immigrated to Southern Africa from other parts of the continent approximately one millennium prior to European colonization of the area. The two largest groups being the Zulu and the Xhosa who lived in KwaZulu-Natal and the Eastern Cape Province regions respectively. And again, open warfare erupted when the British began displacing them and establishing settlements in those territories. And we have the Sotho-Tswana people who resided in the interior of Southern Africa. The Boers encountered them as they migrated north inland to rid themselves of British rule in the Cape region. They were able to carve out the Orange Free State and Transvaal regions but they never could conquer the region now called Lesotho which is why it is completely surrounded by but never has been officially a part of South Africa.

So if "South Africa" ... which is what I said for the record ... was "sparse and largely unpopulated" and essentially low hanging fruit for European settlers to pick, then why all the warfare? It's hard to fight with people who don't exist. Now it is true that in 1821 Mzilikazi, a general of King Shaka of the Zulu, rebelled in the western portion of KwaZulu-Natal and formed his own kingdom of the Matabele. He soon made plenty of enemies not only of the Zulu to the east, but of the Sotho-Tswana people in the area itself, and of the Boers migrating up from the south. A string of military defeats at the hands of these various groups that were surrounding him, especially the Boers who were moving north, caused him to move further northward with what was essentially a "scorched earth" military policy and eventually settle in what is now southern Zimbabwe. So while this particular AREA within South Africa was significantly weakened and less populated due to this ongoing warfare ... that by no means applied to South Africa as a WHOLE.

Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
So... at what ambiguous year does your compassion for the dispossession of indigenous peoples begin? Again, dig deep into that region and you'll find Davidian artifacts and other evidences of a dispossessed people. Surely you know this so you must have a very specific year at which your compassion begins and ends.
My point is that there are also Canaanite, Phoenician, Egyptian, Arab, etc. artifacts there as well. So again, why this particular affinity for Jewish artifacts? Perhaps because of a shared Biblical tradition?

Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
Couple of problems with the above. First, I'm not sure you're giving proper regard for the fact that the region/Canaanites were primarily non-semitic people.
And? I am well aware that the Canaanites were linguistically a "Hamitic" people. I never suggested otherwise.

Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
Canaan was essentially divided in two regions; Phoenician-Canaan (coastal) and Israelite-Canaan (mountain). There was no "Arab". Canaan were otherwise, Israelites with the only "Arab" presence being tied to Lebanese. It should be noted, Lebanese generally do not consider themselves Arab. You're playing so fast and loose with this notion as to damn-near conclude that Arab = other people. This particular bloc stemming from a Mediterranean people.
I'm doing nothing of the sort. All I said was that the region known has "Palestine" has been populated and controlled by a variety of peoples over time. Some of whom I listed. And that the Jews have controlled it for only approximately 400-500 years out of its 5000 year recorded history. IOW, they aren't even in the TOP THREE! At no point did I say or even suggest that every non-Jewish people who lived there or controlled the area were Arab. Arab control didn't even begin until the Battle of Yarmouk in 636 AD. But my point is that the Arabs have lived in area for more than TWICE AS LONG as the Jews ever did. So I just don't see how the Jews can credibly claim they have more right to the land than the Arabs who have been there for the last 1300 years. Of course, there are those whose religious orientation causes them to set basic arithmetic aside. Which only serves to exacerbate the issue IMO. But I for one don't read the Old Testament as some sort of real estate document so the issue of who has more claim to the land NOW is a fairly simply matter for me.

Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
The good news is, none of this matters. If you have a high regard for facts in searching out the truth, you'd be able to avoid the pitfall of trying to produce a specific year or era for your compassion. Israel was formed in part by all those human behaviors that create any enduring society and we are here, today. There are winners in this and losers. As it turns out, Arabs (by any definition you so choose) control the overwhelming majority not only of the entire region, but of its most fertile and lucrative elements. Israelis have landed their own tiny sliver of territory in the vast region and have the allies and resources to maintain it. The only route to peace is relent. That's the painful, unavoidable factor in all this. If the Native Americans were bent on perpetuating a sort of jihad, you can bet that life would be exponentially more difficult for them than even today. Had they been lobbing missiles into your community, you'd want it no other way.
I agree with 90% of what you said here. Except for the part about the only route to peace is to relent. Because that would mean simply laying down and accepting continued occupation. There are other options beside that.

Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
No, I don't. A. Because none of it matters. and B. Because "white people shit" is nothing more than an indictment against human nature through a racist prism. White people, by virtue of their skin color, have been no more or less capable of influencing human folly than any other race. This is just racist bs. Seriously, man.
You are starting to exhibit the habit of some my less worthy adversaries around here by arguing a point that is not in dispute. When I say "white people shit" I'm in no way suggesting that other people can't do the same shit. What I'm saying is that the "particular shit" that fostered the development of Zionism is wholly European in origin. You are indeed correct. Human nature is what it is. So there is "black people shit" and "Arab people shit" and "Chinese people shit". The point that I'm making is that this conflict is rooted in "white people shit" .... NOT "Arab people shit". So perhaps it would have made more sense to solve the problem by carving out a Jewish nation in Europe where they all were ... instead of solving it on the backs of Arabs who had nothing to do with it? I'm not sure if you know this or not but at one point UGANDA was even considered as a place to setup a Jewish homeland. I imagine that would have went over real well with the Hutu and the Tutsi who lived there about as well as it did with the Arabs in Palestine. And arguments about "Africans have the entire continent so why can't the Jews have this tiny sliver of land" would have rang just as hollow to the particular Africans who were impacted.


Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
Also, what does conservatism have to do with this? Conservatives believe we have a very fundamental math problem and that someone has to be the adult in the room, even when it's not fashionable or doesn't make a bunch of fair-weather friends. Democrats are just buying votes the only way they've ever been able.
My point is that if you read King Abdullah's comments carefully he expressed that same "fundamental math problem". Substitute Arabs for Americans and Hispanics for Israelis and the arguments are interchangeable.

Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
No, actually you cannot say the same about Netanyahu. There is no Israeli jihad. No such thing. No jizya tax, no hanging of gays or dissenters, no suppression of the female vote, denials of freedom of speech or assembly, human shields...
But there is continued Occupation of the West Bank and Blockade of Gaza. Surely you must realize that Israel will never know peace as long as they both persist?

Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
Wrong. 20+% of the Israeli population is Arab. They serve in the Israeli government, deputy-mayor of Tel Aviv, ambassador to Finland, and are among the most prosperous, freedom-loving, and peaceful Arabs throughout the entire ME.

That's your recipe for peace, should you choose to accept this over distaste for white people, the US specifically, or for capitalism in general.
So fine. Then formally annex the West Bank and Gaza, grant full citizenship to all of its inhabitants, and institute a "one person - one vote" policy. Problem solved! Oh but wait, that doesn't allow for a permanent Jewish majority because the Palestinians are popping out more babies than the Israelis. So you see that "only democracy in the Middle East" shit only goes so far! Kind of like when minorities start moving to the suburbs. It's cool as long as their numbers don't go beyond a certain percentage. But once they do ... a sociological phenomenon known as the "tipping point" ... to this very day the cycle of white flight continues. Even when there is no appreciable change in the crime rate of the area. Truth, I do speak.

OAW
( Last edited by OAW; Aug 6, 2014 at 08:32 PM. )
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Aug 6, 2014, 11:43 PM
 
Do you think the Palestinians would be happy with being formally annexed?

What would race relations and white flight be like if white people actually thought black people were trying to kill them?


Edit: "thought" isn't really the right word. White people probably think that already. The proper question is how would white people react if a significant portion of black people were genuinely trying to kill them?
( Last edited by subego; Aug 7, 2014 at 12:53 AM. )
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 7, 2014, 07:29 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Do you think the Palestinians would be happy with being formally annexed?

What would race relations and white flight be like if white people actually thought black people were trying to kill them?


Edit: "thought" isn't really the right word. White people probably think that already. The proper question is how would white people react if a significant portion of black people were genuinely trying to kill them?
I don't know if I would use the word "happy". But I think that Israel's incessant foot dragging will eventually cause the Palestinian Authority to be "resigned" to annexation and simply throw in the towel and disband ... putting the administration of the West Bank and Gaza back into Israel's hands. Clearly the peace process isn't going anywhere because Israeli policy seems to be to continue the Occupation indefinitely, refuse to address the final status issues, while steadily expanding settlements. IOW, it's creating facts on the ground that will determine the final borders not at the negotiating table with the PA now ... but with permanent settlements that can't be moved in the future. Even in Gaza, let's not forget that since the last cease fire in 2012 Hamas has essentially kept its end of the deal. The occasional rocket was launched here and there by smaller and more militant factions like Islamic Jihad ... but things have been really quiet until the Israeli government decided to initiate this latest conflict after falsely blaming Hamas for the kidnapping and killing of those 3 Israeli teens in the West Bank when it already knew that wasn't true. But the thing is as part of the last cease fire Israel was supposed to ease up on the blockade of Gaza ... which it NEVER did. In fact, it only tightened it.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. The fundamental issue is the Occupation. Even the blockade in Gaza is just occupation from a distance. That can be only be eliminated by setting up a real, viable Palestinian state ... or by annexation. Period. Alternatively, Israel can maintain the status quo and continue to pretend that the reason why 10-20K out of a few million Palestinians are genuinely trying to kill them is based solely on its presence and not its actions.

OAW
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 9, 2014, 12:24 PM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
But that part in bold above is PRECISELY what Israelis claim to justify their political control of the Palestinian lands in questions.
No, in fact Israelis control the "Palestinian lands in question" because they are repeatedly used to launch aggression against Israel-proper. Again, Israel is a tiny sliver of a country -- smaller than New Jersey; one-third the size of a single Native American reservation. You may believe there is enough room for jihad somewhere in there, but I do not.

Well we have the San who are an aboriginal hunter-gatherer people in Southern Africa. In fact, one of the oldest peoples on the planet in terms of genetic diversity. IOW, they've been around for nearly as long as humanity itself has existed. We have the Khoikhoi who are an aboriginal people in Southwestern Africa who have lived in the Cape Colony region for the last 2000 years. They were practicing pastoral agriculture at the time of European colonization and open warfare erupted between them and the Boers when the Dutch East India company enclosed their traditional grazing lands for European controlled farms. We have the Bantu-speaking people who immigrated to Southern Africa from other parts of the continent approximately one millennium prior to European colonization of the area. The two largest groups being the Zulu and the Xhosa who lived in KwaZulu-Natal and the Eastern Cape Province regions respectively. And again, open warfare erupted when the British began displacing them and establishing settlements in those territories. And we have the Sotho-Tswana people who resided in the interior of Southern Africa. The Boers encountered them as they migrated north inland to rid themselves of British rule in the Cape region. They were able to carve out the Orange Free State and Transvaal regions but they never could conquer the region now called Lesotho which is why it is completely surrounded by but never has been officially a part of South Africa.

So if "South Africa" ... which is what I said for the record ... was "sparse and largely unpopulated" and essentially low hanging fruit for European settlers to pick, then why all the warfare? It's hard to fight with people who don't exist. Now it is true that in 1821 Mzilikazi, a general of King Shaka of the Zulu, rebelled in the western portion of KwaZulu-Natal and formed his own kingdom of the Matabele. He soon made plenty of enemies not only of the Zulu to the east, but of the Sotho-Tswana people in the area itself, and of the Boers migrating up from the south. A string of military defeats at the hands of these various groups that were surrounding him, especially the Boers who were moving north, caused him to move further northward with what was essentially a "scorched earth" military policy and eventually settle in what is now southern Zimbabwe. So while this particular AREA within South Africa was significantly weakened and less populated due to this ongoing warfare ... that by no means applied to South Africa as a WHOLE.
Are you ready to provide the dissenting historical accounts of the population and condition of the land now occupied by Israel? i.e. I wasn't asking for you to discredit Boer's account of South Africa.

My point is that there are also Canaanite, Phoenician, Egyptian, Arab, etc. artifacts there as well. So again, why this particular affinity for Jewish artifacts? Perhaps because of a shared Biblical tradition?
No, it was merely to establish that they have an ancient tie to the region. One that must be marginalized when expressing the narrative of those who've openly expressed a desire to drive all Jews into the sea. While this may be in dispute to some, I wanted my view to be clear.

And? I am well aware that the Canaanites were linguistically a "Hamitic" people. I never suggested otherwise.
A people neither Arab nor Jew, that's all.

I'm doing nothing of the sort. All I said was that the region known has "Palestine" has been populated and controlled by a variety of peoples over time. Some of whom I listed. And that the Jews have controlled it for only approximately 400-500 years out of its 5000 year recorded history. IOW, they aren't even in the TOP THREE! At no point did I say or even suggest that every non-Jewish people who lived there or controlled the area were Arab. Arab control didn't even begin until the Battle of Yarmouk in 636 AD. But my point is that the Arabs have lived in area for more than TWICE AS LONG as the Jews ever did. So I just don't see how the Jews can credibly claim they have more right to the land than the Arabs who have been there for the last 1300 years. Of course, there are those whose religious orientation causes them to set basic arithmetic aside. Which only serves to exacerbate the issue IMO. But I for one don't read the Old Testament as some sort of real estate document so the issue of who has more claim to the land NOW is a fairly simply matter for me.
Even if I were to accept your historical account of Arabs' existence in the region being somehow TWICE AS LONG as a people with a 3700 year tie to the region -- which I do not, none of this resolves where we are here, today.

What exacerbates the issue is jihad.

I agree with 90% of what you said here. Except for the part about the only route to peace is to relent. Because that would mean simply laying down and accepting continued occupation. There are other options beside that.
You have to be licensed to own a weapon even here in the US. The Palestinian authorities have not shown effective stewards of militarization. When they repeatedly use aid money not for sustenance and peace, but for jihad and war -- they will be raided and weapons eliminated. They will remain occupied not unlike a homeowner will find his property occupied by the ATF when amassing a weapons cache for terror.


You are starting to exhibit the habit of some my less worthy adversaries around here by arguing a point that is not in dispute. When I say "white people shit" I'm in no way suggesting that other people can't do the same shit. What I'm saying is that the "particular shit" that fostered the development of Zionism is wholly European in origin. You are indeed correct. Human nature is what it is. So there is "black people shit" and "Arab people shit" and "Chinese people shit". The point that I'm making is that this conflict is rooted in "white people shit" .... NOT "Arab people shit".
Don't try to turn this around on me somehow. Why was it necessary to invoke skin color? That's what I'm asking. If you can't address this in less than 10 words, you're equivocating. Period. If it quacks like a racist...

So perhaps it would have made more sense to solve the problem by carving out a Jewish nation in Europe where they all were ... instead of solving it on the backs of Arabs who had nothing to do with it?
Why is this perceived as "on the backs of Arabs" when they control the lion's share of the entire region, including the fertile crescent? Why can they not allow this one sect of people, welcomed nowhere else in the region unlike the Arab; a tiny sliver of land one third the size of a single Native American reservation?

I'm not sure if you know this or not but at one point UGANDA was even considered as a place to setup a Jewish homeland. I imagine that would have went over real well with the Hutu and the Tutsi who lived there about as well as it did with the Arabs in Palestine. And arguments about "Africans have the entire continent so why can't the Jews have this tiny sliver of land" would have rang just as hollow to the particular Africans who were impacted.
So... you can't answer the question. Got it.

My point is that if you read King Abdullah's comments carefully he expressed that same "fundamental math problem". Substitute Arabs for Americans and Hispanics for Israelis and the arguments are interchangeable.
The Arabs are responsible for funding the influx of Jews? You're all over the place.

But there is continued Occupation of the West Bank and Blockade of Gaza. Surely you must realize that Israel will never know peace as long as they both persist?
Your home will be occupied by the ATF and they will cordon off the entire area around it as long as you're building a weapons cache and utilizing it for terror. That's how it works.


So fine. Then formally annex the West Bank and Gaza, grant full citizenship to all of its inhabitants, and institute a "one person - one vote" policy. Problem solved! Oh but wait, that doesn't allow for a permanent Jewish majority because the Palestinians are popping out more babies than the Israelis. So you see that "only democracy in the Middle East" shit only goes so far! Kind of like when minorities start moving to the suburbs. It's cool as long as their numbers don't go beyond a certain percentage. But once they do ... a sociological phenomenon known as the "tipping point" ... to this very day the cycle of white flight continues.
Are you equating black people with terrorists? I lived in a predominantly black community for much of my life and they allowed me to live, peacefully among them. I didn't have to pay a "jive" tax or convert to blackness. They weren't actively hanging people by virtue of their sexual orientation, gender, or religion. Jews cannot live peacefully in the ME and they cannot afford to lose it to an entity historically most hostile to them, this is all they've got and it's meager, believe me.

We already have a model of peace and that is among the 20+% of Israeli-Arabs. They can accept this model or not, but as long as they do not -- there will not be peace. I can bring you to water, but if you do not drink -- you will thirst to death. This isn't complicated.

Even when there is no appreciable change in the crime rate of the area. Truth, I do speak.

OAW
Words are what you're speaking. When one side stores and launches their cache of weapons from among civilian homes, libraries, and churches; they are indicating by their own actions who they believe holds the moral high ground on this one. Sorry bro, you can lay down another 45 paragraphs of blather -- I'll just get a taller pair of boots before wading through every new post.
ebuddy
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Aug 9, 2014, 12:32 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
"jive" tax
This needs to become a thing.
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 9, 2014, 09:08 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
You have to be licensed to own a weapon even here in the US.
Not in Arizona. I have owned several weapons, none of them were registered. my current gun is a Beretta 92FS with three 15 round clips I don't even need to obtain a CCW permit anymore. (Arizona has always been on open carry state.)
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Aug 9, 2014, 09:36 PM
 
Yeah. When we need a license here, which I do in my state, IMO that's pretty clear verbiage in the Constitution being ignored.
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 10, 2014, 07:41 AM
 
Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
Not in Arizona. I have owned several weapons, none of them were registered. my current gun is a Beretta 92FS with three 15 round clips I don't even need to obtain a CCW permit anymore. (Arizona has always been on open carry state.)
Okay... so there's that, but the point remains; begin amassing a cache of munitions and occasionally launch a rocket or two into Phoenix. the ATF will occupy your home and likely some area around it. If you do eventually get another home, it will be with the strict understanding that you're no longer allowed to be militarized.
ebuddy
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 11, 2014, 06:05 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
No, in fact Israelis control the "Palestinian lands in question" because they are repeatedly used to launch aggression against Israel-proper. Again, Israel is a tiny sliver of a country -- smaller than New Jersey; one-third the size of a single Native American reservation. You may believe there is enough room for jihad somewhere in there, but I do not.
Not entirely true. As I have stated before, Hamas has largely held up its end of the deal since the 2012 cease fire. Again, the few rockets that have been launched sporadically since have been smaller, more militant factions like Islamic Jihad. The thing is, in that cease-fire the agreement Israel committed to ease the blockade of Gaza, extend fishing rights off the coast, and the re-open the air and seaports. But naturally, Israel never did so the Occupation continues even after years of "calm" that the Israeli government demanded. In fact, the blockade only got worse.

Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
Are you ready to provide the dissenting historical accounts of the population and condition of the land now occupied by Israel? i.e. I wasn't asking for you to discredit Boer's account of South Africa.
Well given the flow of the conversation it sounded that way to me. But in any event, as I said I give the Zionist's account about a "sparsely populated" Palestine about as much credibility as the Boer's account. You want a dissenting historical account? Ok. Well how about the approximately 700 thousand Palestinians that either fled or were expelled from their homes in 1948? Seems kind of difficult to pull of a mass exodus of that size from a "sparsely populated" area.

1948 Palestinian exodus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
No, it was merely to establish that they have an ancient tie to the region. One that must be marginalized when expressing the narrative of those who've openly expressed a desire to drive all Jews into the sea. While this may be in dispute to some, I wanted my view to be clear.
No one is "marginalizing" anything. Again we are talking simple arithmetic and common sense. I have an "ancient tie" to West Africa. Never stepped foot in the Motherland though a day in my life. So I can't just round up a large group of African-AMERICANS, immigrate to Ghana, and act like we have more claim to the land than the people living there! In the ancient world North Africa was NOT populated by Arabs. They didn't show up until the 7th century with the spread of Islam. So the Nubians (aka modern day Sudan) can't just go setup shop in Egypt and stake more claim than the local population because the ancient Egyptians were their descendants. The Bantu people of South Africa can't just go jack the Nigerians in West Africa for their land because they migrated from there 2500-3000 years ago and have "ancient ties" to the area. And if any of these groups tried there would be what I call entirely foreseeable conflict. I fail to see why you think European Jews setting up shop in a land populated by Arabs for the last 1300 years would be any different.

Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
You have to be licensed to own a weapon even here in the US. The Palestinian authorities have not shown effective stewards of militarization. When they repeatedly use aid money not for sustenance and peace, but for jihad and war -- they will be raided and weapons eliminated. They will remain occupied not unlike a homeowner will find his property occupied by the ATF when amassing a weapons cache for terror.
Huh? WTF are you talking about? The "Palestinian Authority" is in the West Bank. Hamas controls Gaza. Hamas does NOT receive any "aid money". Not from Western countries for sure. And the PA in the West Bank is not waging jihad and war. Yet Israel continues to expand settlements in the West Bank. Imagine that.

Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
Don't try to turn this around on me somehow. Why was it necessary to invoke skin color? That's what I'm asking. If you can't address this in less than 10 words, you're equivocating. Period. If it quacks like a racist...
I'm not turning anything around. I was just clarifying my point since you were so busy being defensive that it didn't seem like it really registered with you. Had I invoked ethnicity or nationality in order to make the exact same point would that have been more palatable for you?

Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
Why is this perceived as "on the backs of Arabs" when they control the lion's share of the entire region, including the fertile crescent? Why can they not allow this one sect of people, welcomed nowhere else in the region unlike the Arab; a tiny sliver of land one third the size of a single Native American reservation?
Ummmmm ... because it is.

Since you seem to be all in your feelings about examples based on skin color ... I'll provide another based on nationality. London has a population of about 12-13 million. Imagine if the entire population of Virginia at 8 million strong setup shop in London , assumed political control, and displaced that many Londoners to other areas of Great Britain and continental Europe. They have "ancient ties" to the area so it's cool right? Or do you finally see that it DOES ... NOT ... MATTER ... that the Britons have all the rest of the country. The Britons in LONDON who were displaced are the ones IMPACTED ... and they will not take too kindly to it. Period!

Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
The Arabs are responsible for funding the influx of Jews? You're all over the place.
I'll try this one mo' gin. The Arabs who were concerned about the influx of foreign European Jews into Palestine were making the exact same argument that many Americans, particularly those on the right, make about the influx of foreign Hispanics into the United States.

Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
Are you equating black people with terrorists? I lived in a predominantly black community for much of my life and they allowed me to live, peacefully among them. I didn't have to pay a "jive" tax or convert to blackness.
Of course not and you know it.

Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
We already have a model of peace and that is among the 20+% of Israeli-Arabs. They can accept this model or not, but as long as they do not -- there will not be peace. I can bring you to water, but if you do not drink -- you will thirst to death. This isn't complicated.
This "model of peace" only works to a certain extent. "Democracy" in Israel only applies to a certain extent. Because again ... my point is that these things are cool as long as the Jewish majority is not threatened. So IMO this is no different than those in the US who are down with "democracy" and the "Constitution" and "diversity" as long as white Americans are the majority. But the closer we get to becoming a "majority-minority" country then all of a sudden it's an issue.

But of course, you deflected the point instead of addressing it with that "Are you equating black people with terrorists?" nonsense. So I'll ask you point blank ...

What is your position on Israel 1) formally annexing the West Bank and Gaza, 2. Granting full citizenship to all of its inhabitants, and 3) Instituting a "one person - one vote" policy?

OAW
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 12, 2014, 03:54 PM
 
Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, Alqaeda, Fatah, ISIS/ISIL etc, all are in the end the Muslim Brotherhood.
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 12, 2014, 05:11 PM
 
Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, Alqaeda, Fatah, ISIS/ISIL etc, all are in the end the Muslim Brotherhood.
Spoken by someone who apparently doesn't realize that Hezbollah is Shiite and the others are all Sunni. Yeah. Ok.

OAW
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 12, 2014, 10:42 PM
 
The enemy of my enemy is my friend
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 12, 2014, 11:34 PM
 
Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
The enemy of my enemy is my friend
Perhaps. But if you were going to show the actual relationships between the organizations it would be:

Hezbollah
Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas, Islamic Jihad
al Qaeda, ISIS
Fatah

Do try to be somewhat informed.

OAW
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 13, 2014, 07:47 AM
 
Antisemitism on rise across Europe 'in worst times since the Nazis' | Society | The Guardian

Shocking? Nope. "Europe is fed up with Israel's actions!" More likely is that Europe is becoming overrun with Jihadists, who are drowning out the voices of the people who disagree with them.

Let's just fly a Jihadist flag marking a section of London as a Jew-free zone and verbally assault anyone who looks Jewish when they pass by? Why not? The government will simply ignore it.

'Jihadist' flag flown in east London | World news | The Guardian
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 13, 2014, 09:32 AM
 
A Catholic nun took the ISIS flag down.
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 13, 2014, 07:20 PM
 
^^^

Good for her!

OAW
     
Hawkeye_a
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Apr 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 15, 2014, 08:31 AM
 
A mental marker for the summer of 2014.

It should be remembered as the period during which another religious minority and ancient community predating Islam, in the middle east will most likely be driven to the edge of survival. What we are witnessing in Iraq is mass ethnic cleansing of biblical proportions at the hands of muslims(again).

Iraqi Yazidi MP Breaks Down in Parliament: ISIL is Exterminating my People (YouTube)

While the rest of the world, and specifically the western world does barely anything to intervene.

Of course, it's too much to expect 'moderate muslim' to do anything to intervene and prevent it, either with force of by other financial/logistical means. But their protests in the streets around the world and in mass media, against it is deafening and says volumes.

What is happening in Iraq today, obviously pales in comparison(sarcasm) to ~<2000 Palestinians killed in Gaza during a defensive war waged against constant provocation. That was used as justification for mass demonstrations by them and their supporters from Sydney to London, accompanied by the most vile anti-semitism and attacks on Jews and Jewish businesses seen since 1939 (in Europe specifically).
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 16, 2014, 10:13 AM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
Not entirely true. As I have stated before, Hamas has largely held up its end of the deal since the 2012 cease fire.
BZZZT! Largely held up its end of the deal? You're equivocating again.

Hamas-Israel Ceasefire, 2012
In the very hour after the cease-fire was declared, 12 rockets were launched from Gaza into Israel. Two days later, according to U.S. intelligence officials, American satellites photographed a convoy of more than a dozen flatbed trucks entering Gaza from Rafah (Gaza's border with Egypt), each with Iranian-made Fajr missiles. More ominously, in the next 18 months, according to Israeli and American intelligence, thousands of missiles from or through Iran, Sudan, Syria and Hizballah were smuggled into Gaza, including the long range M-302, M-75 and the Grad capable of hitting nearly 90 percent of the entire Israeli population. During the same time period, Hamas built hundreds of tunnels, some large enough to fit armored personnel carriers, to smuggle weapons or kidnap Israeli soldiers as it did with Gilad Shalit. Hamas also followed the Hizballah model by building extensive labyrinths of underground tunnels and bunkers to store and fire rockets without being detected by overhead Israeli surveillance flights or satellites.

All told, by June 2014, according to Israeli intelligence, Hamas, Islamic Jihad and other Gaza-based terrorist groups had amassed more than 10,000 missiles. The November 2012 agreement with the accompanying pledge by President Obama to prevent Hamas from acquiring new missiles meant absolutely nothing, (a fact not lost on Israel, which has been asked by President Obama to rely on American promises to keep the West Bank secure under an Israeli withdrawal which the U.S. is vigorously promoting). That is why Hamas now is able to fire its long range missiles into Israel from underground bunkers, ironically built with the tons of steel and cement that the United States pressed Israel into being allowed into Gaza.
So what we have here is in fact, Israel largely upheld the cease-fire agreement in spite of Hamas' inability to uphold their end of the agreement. Again, how many rockets being fired into your neighborhoods would you find acceptable, let alone under a "cease-fire" agreement?

And by the way, Russians aren't winning any PR by saying; "BUT THOSE ARE PRO-RUSSIAN REBELS, WE CAN'T CONTROL THEM!" any more than the US would get away with saying; "those whacky Baptists continue launching rockets into Mexico - we have NOTHING to do with it". OAW - your arguments are not only founded on complete fallacy, they're outright ridiculous.

Again, the few rockets that have been launched sporadically since have been smaller, more militant factions like Islamic Jihad. The thing is, in that cease-fire the agreement Israel committed to ease the blockade of Gaza, extend fishing rights off the coast, and the re-open the air and seaports. But naturally, Israel never did so the Occupation continues even after years of "calm" that the Israeli government demanded. In fact, the blockade only got worse.
Revisionist history as usual. Here is an easing of the blockade as reported by Al Jazeera which as you know is a faithful friend to the Israelis.

Al Jazeera - Israel eases ban on Gaza building material
Israel has allowed a shipment of gravel for private construction into the Gaza Strip, easing the blockade it imposed after Hamas seized control of the enclave in 2007, a Palestinian official said... One Palestinian official said Israeli counterparts had promised "other building items" would be allowed into Gaza in the coming days. "Israel has promised to ease the blockade more if the truce continues to hold," said the official, who asked not to be identified.

Given Hamas' interest in upholding this 2012 peace agreement, you must have a wealth of examples where the ruling Hamas government was actively working with Israeli intelligence to identify the elements of Islamic Jihad that were firing rockets and are now detaining them in Palestinian prisons. No? Thought-not.

The fact of the matter is that Hamas and the militant Islamic Jihad of which you speak are virtually indistinguishable. And no this isn't a white-man slur that they all look the same, before the opportunist in you gets adventurist. It's because they both have avowed goals for Israel and among them is jihad.

This is why the 2005 withdrawal of Israel from Gaza didn't work. This is why the 2012 agreement didn't work, and why the most recent cease-fire attempts will not work. Jihad.

Well given the flow of the conversation it sounded that way to me. But in any event, as I said I give the Zionist's account about a "sparsely populated" Palestine about as much credibility as the Boer's account. You want a dissenting historical account? Ok. Well how about the approximately 700 thousand Palestinians that either fled or were expelled from their homes in 1948? Seems kind of difficult to pull of a mass exodus of that size from a "sparsely populated" area.
First you redirect from Israel to South Africa and when you lost that feeble foothold you're now pivoting to 1948 when I was clearly talking about the original immigration of Jews into the region in the late 19th, early 20th Century. I even provided dates for the quotes for crying out loud.

And then of course, you'll breeze right past the fact that these Palestinians were not "refugees". They were asked to leave against their will by their leadership with the promise of returning for all the spoils of a battle they thought they'd win. Well... they lost. This is how it works. Unless you're a capitalist, pro-Western Democracy such as Israel of course -- in this case you must be opposed at all costs.

No one is "marginalizing" anything. Again we are talking simple arithmetic and common sense. I have an "ancient tie" to West Africa. Never stepped foot in the Motherland though a day in my life. So I can't just round up a large group of African-AMERICANS, immigrate to Ghana, and act like we have more claim to the land than the people living there! In the ancient world North Africa was NOT populated by Arabs. They didn't show up until the 7th century with the spread of Islam. So the Nubians (aka modern day Sudan) can't just go setup shop in Egypt and stake more claim than the local population because the ancient Egyptians were their descendants. The Bantu people of South Africa can't just go jack the Nigerians in West Africa for their land because they migrated from there 2500-3000 years ago and have "ancient ties" to the area. And if any of these groups tried there would be what I call entirely foreseeable conflict. I fail to see why you think European Jews setting up shop in a land populated by Arabs for the last 1300 years would be any different.
Your confusion is willful and disingenuous as usual. Jews didn't just "come and set up camp" as if they owned the place. They came and paid EXORBITANT FEES for the land, began cultivating it, drawing in huge numbers of Arabs after the fact.

Quick accounts of immigration -
Changes in towns: The Arab population in predominantly Arab towns rose only slightly (if at all) between the two World Wars: in Hebron—from 16,650 in 1922 to 22,800 in 1943; Nablus—from 15,931 to 23,300; Jenin—from 2,737 to 3,900; Bethlehem—from 6,658 to 8,800. Gaza's population actually decreased from 17,426 in 1922 to 17,045 in 1931.

On the other hand, in the three major Jewish cities the Arab population shot up during this period, far beyond the rate of natural increase: Jerusalem—from 28,571 in 1922 to 56,400 (97 per cent); Jaffa—from 27,437 to 62,600 (134 per cent); Haifa— from 18,404 to 58,200 (216 per cent).

Changes in rural areas: The population of the predominantly Arab Beersheba district dropped between 1922 and 1939 from 71,000 to 49,000 (the rate of natural increase should bave resulted in a rise to 89,000). In the Bethlehem district the figure increased from 24,613 to about 26,000 (after falling to 23,725 in 1929). In the Hebron area it went up from 51,345 to 59,000 (the natural increase rate dictated a rise to 72,000).

Huh? WTF are you talking about? The "Palestinian Authority" is in the West Bank. Hamas controls Gaza. Hamas does NOT receive any "aid money". Not from Western countries for sure. And the PA in the West Bank is not waging jihad and war. Yet Israel continues to expand settlements in the West Bank. Imagine that.
Yes, of course HAMAS doesn't receive aid directly because they are an internationally-recognized terrorist organization. However, you're breezing right past two programs including TIM and PRDP that had pledged some $7.7 billion in aid from Europe, the US, and others directly to Palestinians. Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza Strip receive one of the highest levels of aid in the world.

You don't think the ruling faction is usurping these resources or perhaps you have another means of Hamas commerce that has them affording elaborate, concrete bunkers and miles of tunneling, missiles, and other munitions?

I'm not turning anything around. I was just clarifying my point since you were so busy being defensive that it didn't seem like it really registered with you. Had I invoked ethnicity or nationality in order to make the exact same point would that have been more palatable for you?
Again, please don't turn your blatantly racist-identity-politics-run amok on me. I promise when I'm talking to African-Americans that I won't invoke terms like "black people shit" or the like. Can you please do the same, even when talking to pink-toed crackers? Great, thanks.

Ummmmm ... because it is.
No, it clearly wasn't "on the backs of Arabs". They made out like gangbusters until they simply became greedy and wanted to take back the land they sold to Jews for exorbitant fees.

Since you seem to be all in your feelings about examples based on skin color ... I'll provide another based on nationality. London has a population of about 12-13 million. Imagine if the entire population of Virginia at 8 million strong setup shop in London , assumed political control, and displaced that many Londoners to other areas of Great Britain and continental Europe. They have "ancient ties" to the area so it's cool right? Or do you finally see that it DOES ... NOT ... MATTER ... that the Britons have all the rest of the country. The Britons in LONDON who were displaced are the ones IMPACTED ... and they will not take too kindly to it. Period!
tl;dr

So here we are today, OAW. How many rockets are acceptable in your neighborhood? How many times should your family have to seek shelter in underground bunkers before you conclude that something has to be done about it? How much of your neighborhood are you willing to give up to those hostile to you before you react? How much room for jihad is there in a region the size of New Jersey, 1/3rd the size of a single Native American reservation?

BUT THEY'RE SMALLER ROCKETS - PEACE! ffffnnneerrrrrr

I'll try this one mo' gin. The Arabs who were concerned about the influx of foreign European Jews into Palestine were making the exact same argument that many Americans, particularly those on the right, make about the influx of foreign Hispanics into the United States.
So they're suitable analogs because they both complain? A weaker point I've not seen. If these Hispanics were buying up swaths of land and paying exorbitant fees for them instead of burdening the generous welfare state we provide, they might be suitable comparisons. As it stands, they are not and my "math problem" point remains. The fact is, they're not working jobs Americans won't work, they're working jobs Americans won't work for $8.50/hour and they're taking your jobs too. It's not political. It's not identity. It's math. Something few on the left seem to grasp.

Of course not and you know it.
Well then you probably should not draw comparisons between black people and terrorists who would hang you today, for disagreement.

This "model of peace" only works to a certain extent. "Democracy" in Israel only applies to a certain extent. Because again ... my point is that these things are cool as long as the Jewish majority is not threatened. So IMO this is no different than those in the US who are down with "democracy" and the "Constitution" and "diversity" as long as white Americans are the majority. But the closer we get to becoming a "majority-minority" country then all of a sudden it's an issue.
This is little more than your racist prism and one that I do not share. The overwhelming majority of Americans couldn't give a rat's ass as long as people are functioning, contributing members to society. This would of course become a problem if an organized sect of people, bent on eliminating your way of life; insisted on hanging you because you're gay, beheading you because you're Christian, and charging you special taxes because you're not Muslim.

Of course, by all means lets focus on Israelis lack of social justice!

But of course, you deflected the point instead of addressing it with that "Are you equating black people with terrorists?" nonsense. So I'll ask you point blank ...

What is your position on Israel 1) formally annexing the West Bank and Gaza, 2. Granting full citizenship to all of its inhabitants, and 3) Instituting a "one person - one vote" policy?

OAW
Jews, Christians, and various sects of Muslims have virtually no other place throughout the entire ME where they can live in peace and prosperity. It is essential this system not be overrun by a caliphate, a jihad, or Sharia or other laws that do not grant the freedoms and equality afforded all of the Israeli citizens; 20% of which are comprised of the most prosperous Arabs of the ME. If Palestinians want peace and prosperity, they either cannot elect known terrorist factions bent on jihad to lead them or they must live as Arabs in Israel. It's as simple as that. With everyone looking to and fro for a model of peace, freedom, and prosperity -- we already have one. It's just that simple.

Why can't people accept this? It's becoming clear. Simply put, if you despise America and/or capitalism enough -- you should likewise despise Israel in a double-standard-infested attempt to justify the actions of its enemies and make no pretense about your feigned concern and passion for social justice. You should wholesale abandon any of your spurious causes du jour including gay rights, equality, minority rights, freedom of speech, religion, right to assemble, dissent and on and on...
ebuddy
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 19, 2014, 04:25 PM
 
Feel free to brake this off into its own ISIS thread. I saw this online. This appears to be ISIS's view of the IS Caliphate.



I hope the Spaniards are ready. They want Andalusia back.

ISIS Terror Group: We'll Take Back Spain
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 19, 2014, 04:50 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
I promise when I'm talking to African-Americans that I won't invoke terms like "black people shit" or the like. Can you please do the same, even when talking to pink-toed crackers? Great, thanks.
Point taken. No offense was intended. My apologies nonetheless.

Originally Posted by OAW
So I'll ask you point blank ...

What is your position on Israel 1) formally annexing the West Bank and Gaza, 2. Granting full citizenship to all of its inhabitants, and 3) Instituting a "one person - one vote" policy?
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
Jews, Christians, and various sects of Muslims have virtually no other place throughout the entire ME where they can live in peace and prosperity. It is essential this system not be overrun by a caliphate, a jihad, or Sharia or other laws that do not grant the freedoms and equality afforded all of the Israeli citizens; 20% of which are comprised of the most prosperous Arabs of the ME. If Palestinians want peace and prosperity, they either cannot elect known terrorist factions bent on jihad to lead them or they must live as Arabs in Israel. It's as simple as that. With everyone looking to and fro for a model of peace, freedom, and prosperity -- we already have one. It's just that simple.
So is that a no? Are you equating the "one state solution" I mentioned above with being "overrun by a caliphate, etc."? Or are you continuing to duck the question?

OAW
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 20, 2014, 07:58 PM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
So is that a no? Are you equating the "one state solution" I mentioned above with being "overrun by a caliphate, etc."? Or are you continuing to duck the question?

OAW
I thought I was pretty clear so let me take another angle here. I would be perfectly fine with a two-state solution, but unfortunately reality is the big stumbling block here. If the overwhelming majority of Palestinians polled didn't feel that all of Israel belonged to them, a two-state solution might work. If they didn't insist on voting hostile entities into their leadership, my view would be very different on a two-state solution. But there is a fundamental problem among the Palestinians and it begins with their youth having been absolutely indoctrinated from birth, bolstered inside and outside the confines of their schools and their homes; that Jews are plain evil, damnable, and that the world will be a better place without them. It just won't work. It can't work. This leads me to a one-state solution void of one-person, one-vote... because it won't work. We have a model of peace and prosperity in the Middle East and that is Israel today, compiled of its 20+% Arab population living under the Israeli system as it exists today. This is all Jews in the Middle East have got and anything they do to severely disrupt that system with a huge influx of Palestinians would be nothing short of suicide for at least another 50 years as the older generations perhaps clear out and conditions change. That's the painful reality.

To focus one's ire on this Israeli system is to breeze past the humans rights atrocities being committed on a daily basis against non-Muslims throughout the entire Middle East. IMO, it's agendized thinking of the highest order and is much more Anti-Israel than it is Pro-Palestinian.
ebuddy
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 21, 2014, 04:07 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
This leads me to a one-state solution void of one-person, one-vote... because it won't work. We have a model of peace and prosperity in the Middle East and that is Israel today, compiled of its 20+% Arab population living under the Israeli system as it exists today. This is all Jews in the Middle East have got and anything they do to severely disrupt that system with a huge influx of Palestinians would be nothing short of suicide for at least another 50 years as the older generations perhaps clear out and conditions change. That's the painful reality.
Ok now we are getting somewhere. So what exactly does a "one-state solution void of one-person, one-vote" look like to you? Seriously, I'm very curious about your thinking on this. Is it 20% of the Arab residents have full citizenship? Or second class citizenship for all Arabs? Etc. Naturally anything along this line would be "problematic" for a country that says it's a democracy. So how just how less than ideal would it be?

Please elaborate.

OAW
( Last edited by OAW; Aug 21, 2014 at 04:25 PM. )
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 25, 2014, 07:12 AM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
Ok now we are getting somewhere. So what exactly does a "one-state solution void of one-person, one-vote" look like to you? Seriously, I'm very curious about your thinking on this. Is it 20% of the Arab residents have full citizenship? Or second class citizenship for all Arabs? Etc. Naturally anything along this line would be "problematic" for a country that says it's a democracy. So how just how less than ideal would it be?

Please elaborate.

OAW
The honest answer is that I'm not 100% certain. The fact of the matter is that the overwhelming majority of Arabs outside of Israel-proper deem Israel theirs and have succumb to what is nothing more than a sort of Banana-Republic of corruption under a mix of PNA and Hamas. There is a substantial chunk of Arabs living inside Israel-proper that do not want to live outside of Israel and they consistently opt for the democratic advantages of the Israeli system. How does Israel maintain sovereignty if they do not have a means of protecting themselves against what would quickly become a majority vote in a single-vote system? This is not the difference between Democrats and Republicans, mind you -- I have a difficult time accepting the US as a suitable analog. Rather, this is the difference between a free, democratic society and a caliphate. It will take a great deal of time for Arabs living outside of Israel to appreciate the system as many within Israel do today. I don't know if this occurs though a sort of Reservation-system for a time as they acclimate to the Israeli system, but I know that a Jew has absolutely nowhere else to go.
ebuddy
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 26, 2014, 12:24 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
The honest answer is that I'm not 100% certain. The fact of the matter is that the overwhelming majority of Arabs outside of Israel-proper deem Israel theirs and have succumb to what is nothing more than a sort of Banana-Republic of corruption under a mix of PNA and Hamas. There is a substantial chunk of Arabs living inside Israel-proper that do not want to live outside of Israel and they consistently opt for the democratic advantages of the Israeli system. How does Israel maintain sovereignty if they do not have a means of protecting themselves against what would quickly become a majority vote in a single-vote system? This is not the difference between Democrats and Republicans, mind you -- I have a difficult time accepting the US as a suitable analog. Rather, this is the difference between a free, democratic society and a caliphate. It will take a great deal of time for Arabs living outside of Israel to appreciate the system as many within Israel do today. I don't know if this occurs though a sort of Reservation-system for a time as they acclimate to the Israeli system, but I know that a Jew has absolutely nowhere else to go.
This is the source of my frustration with Israeli policy. The incessant foot dragging and expansion of settlements is precluding a Two-State Solution. But that will only lead to an eventual One-State Solution that carries the risk you just outlined above. Talk about cutting off one's nose to spite one's face.

OAW
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 26, 2014, 12:27 PM
 
Looks like we finally have a long-term cease fire deal ...

Hamas leaders said Tuesday afternoon that Egypt had brokered a long-term cease-fire after 50 days of fighting between Israel and Palestinian militants in the Gaza Strip, though Israeli officials would not say whether they had actually accepted the conditions.

Sami Abu Zuhri, a spokesman for Hamas, the Islamist Palestinian faction that dominates the Gaza Strip, said in a statement, “An agreement has been reached between the two sides and we are awaiting the announcement from Cairo to determine the zero hour for implementation.”

Ismail Haniya, the former Hamas prime minister in Gaza, told Al Aqsa television that “we are at the doors of political understandings that will crown our people’s steadfastness and the performance of our armed resistance,” echoing a similar sentiment posted on Facebook by Moussa Abu Marzook, the Cairo-based political leader of the movement.

Mark Regev, a spokesman for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel, refused to address the statements. Israeli news outlets indicated that the cease-fire might be announced by President Mahmoud Abbas of the Palestinian Authority as he convened a 7 p.m. leadership meeting in the West Bank to present a broader initiative addressing the entire Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

The details of the cease-fire agreement remained unclear, but over the last two days, people familiar with the Cairo-brokered talks said the discussion centered on an easing of both Israeli and Egyptian restrictions on Gazans’ travel and trade, an expansion of the permitted fishing zone off Gaza’s coast, and repairing the vast destruction this summer’s battle has done to the crowded enclave.

Other issues — including Hamas’s demand for a Gaza seaport and airport, Israel’s demand for Gaza’s demilitarization and the return of Israeli soldiers’ remains believed to be in Hamas’s hands — were to be addressed after a month if the truce holds, they said.
Deal Reached on Long-Term Gaza Cease-Fire, Hamas Says | NYTimes.com

OAW
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 26, 2014, 01:06 PM
 
It will last long enough for Hamas to get rearmed from Iran.
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 26, 2014, 03:43 PM
 
Yeah, they're simply out of ammo, it doesn't mean anything.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 26, 2014, 07:55 PM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
This is the source of my frustration with Israeli policy. The incessant foot dragging and expansion of settlements is precluding a Two-State Solution. But that will only lead to an eventual One-State Solution that carries the risk you just outlined above. Talk about cutting off one's nose to spite one's face.

OAW
I disagree. The settlements would cease immediately upon the undisputed nature of the territory. They've pulled out before, like in 2005 when the Palestinians responded with more rocket fire. The reason a two-state solution is not viable is because the overwhelming majority of Palestinians do not want it and the two factions that would otherwise assume this territory are constantly at odds with one another... like most other sects throughout the Middle East.

The problem is that the Palestinians cannot win, but they will not relent.
ebuddy
     
Powerbook
Mac Elite
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: München, Deutschland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 4, 2014, 07:30 AM
 


Aut Caesar aut nihil.
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 4, 2014, 09:31 AM
 
One is ignorant douchebaggery... and the other is a smily face?
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:46 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,