[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

Not sure I see any logic in how you drew that conclusion.

It's an easy conclusion, really. Palestinian leadership since day 1 have sought the death of Israel. It's in their mottos and manifestos. Per polling, nearly 70% of Palestinians see the restoration of all of historic Palestine to Arab control as the only legitimate national goal for their people. As such they will not acknowledge a cease-fire. They will not acknowledge land for peace or a portion of the Israeli capital or a seat in the Israeli Knesset or any other concession offered. They cannot peacefully coexist because one side wants the other dead. Again, it's no more complicated than this. The reason they can exist peacefully in other regions, but not in Israel is because the Palestinians are no more interested in peace than they are a two-state solution.

Maybe, but I've seen other shows including documentaries covering recruitment officers in those states going after school kids whose families were surprisingly enthusiastic about it all.

And I've seen documentaries of European henchmen involved in the wholesale slaughtering of Jews. All things in moderation, Waragainstsleep.

You 've got me there but Atheists are not well liked in the US either.
University of Minnesota Study on American Attitudes Towards Atheists & Atheism

How do gays feel about Christianity? You see, when a sect of people is perceived to be bent in antagonism against another, the subject of that antagonism is likely to view the former unfavorably. It merely follows logically that a people, 80% of which claim belief in a deity, might perceive atheists as hostile. The only thing we can do is ensure, as representatives of our faith be it in a God or no god, that we conduct ourselves in a fair way.

I'm not sure firing rockets into densely packed urban areas when you are fighting hidden terrorists and not obvious military installations is a good example of 'defending yourself in the same manner as everyone else'. Thats why people are being less sympathetic then they were.

You will find collateral damage in every war known to mankind. What you will not find is an aggressor that sends leaflets and literally calls every household in the target area to warn of the coming attack and to evacuate the area as Israel had done. The Palestinians are advised by their leadership to stay. You will see more collateral damage in conflicts where homes, schools, libraries, and churches are stuffed with munitions. I'm not duped and neither are they. One thing is certain, there isn't a resourceful nation on the globe who would put up with what Israel has had to put up with. War is hell, no doubt about it.

I'm pointing out they have a connection and that Christianity used to share the same barbaric and intolerant mindset that Islamic extremism has now. I also said that most of Christianity has moved past all that.

Christianity never shared a barbaric or intolerant mindset with Islamic extremism or Atheistic extremism. Not in practice, not in doctrine, not in principle, and most notably not in numbers of murders committed.

So having taken a swing at my anti-theism, you then demonstrate equal if not greater anti-atheism on the very next line. Doesn't really help your dismissal of my point about the popularity of atheists in America either.

It's not a swing, it's a numerical fact. I never claimed atheists were popular, but perhaps if it were clearer what they are for than what they are against; it might do wonders for their popularity campaign.

Oh and Hitler was not an atheist.

He dabbled in many things, but one thing is without question; it was the Catholic Church who alone stood up to Hitler during his rise and Hitler was vehemently opposed to religion, stating unequivocally that it and a Socialist State cannot exist together.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

It quite clearly demonstrates how much all religious fundamentalists have in common. And the IRA weren't even that fundamentalist compared to some.

Again, balling all religious fundamentalists together. You have issues, and one of them is religious bigotry.

Right. But the leaders of the crusades wouldn't have bothered with nukes because they thought swords made enough of a statement? Sure.

Umm, no, they wanted to take back the Holy Land not demolish it. Dur?

In other words, you know some people in Israel who have clearly given you a completely balanced perspective on the situation.

What makes you think they're all Israelis? As I said before, some are Palestinian Christians.

On the contrary, that was me pointing out that Muslims and Jews can live in the same countries without trying to blow each other up. I have also tried to reason that there will be a majority of Palestinians who are civilians wishing for peace. You are the one calling for the eradication of an entire nation state because they are all evil Jihadists. If one of us is joking, its not me.

They aren't "wishing for peace", they want to butcher Jews, and they're the type of people who hide their weapons where their children stay. It isn't a nation state, it's a terrorist group, and it's past time Israel treated them as such.

Nothing you just quoted even implies this. Quite the opposite in fact.

Hogwash.You were still trying to draw comparisons between Jihadists and mainline Christians, Jews, and Muslims, which is absurd.

This time you quoted something that might have been more suited to your last comeback, but like I said when I addressed this one for Ebuddy, I simply pointed out an obvious and indisputable historical (and to a lesser extent psychological) connection. The fact you don't like it has no bearing on its accuracy. Sorry.

You keep using the word "indisputable", but you don't know what it means. See, when your assertion from the very beginning is dishonest crap, then you invalidate whatever comes after. Do you know how insulting it is to simply lump militant Islam with moderate Muslims? Like here:

There are plenty of places where Jews and Muslims coexist without anyone getting blown up.

That's simply pure ignorance.

Again, the things I've actually said clearly demonstrate that this is not the case. All I have said is that there is a connection between all these religions and that in the past even the ones who have learned to be more civilised behaved just like the ones who still haven't.

Again you're slathering them all with the same broad brush without even trying to see the differences. Do you grasp that there are varying levels of indoctrination? Do you understand that there were, and are, vastly different focuses in emotional conditioning? Personally, I think you've already grasped where you've screwed up, but now it's gone on too long for you to admit you made a mistake.

Perhaps I should also remind anyone reading, that I am the one being mildly critical of a superior military force that is killing a lot of civilians while you are baying for total genocide of those civilians in order to wipe out what I have assumed all along is a minority of terrorists.

"Assumed." Another of your wrong assumptions, it's a culture of murder, revenge, and self-mutilation for glory. This isn't about wanting to kill people who simply look or act different, it's about a subset of radicals bent on destroying everyone who isn't like them. That's what Islamic Jihad is, that's its purpose.

[mattyb]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Christianity never shared a barbaric or intolerant mindset with Islamic extremism or Atheistic extremism. Not in practice, not in doctrine, not in principle, and most notably not in numbers of murders committed.

You need to read more history.

[mattyb]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

He dabbled in many things, but one thing is without question; it was the Catholic Church who alone stood up to Hitler during his rise and Hitler was vehemently opposed to religion, stating unequivocally that it and a Socialist State cannot exist together.

Read Hitler's Pope.

EDIT : Looks like I also have to do more reading : http://www.amazon.com/Pius-XII-Secon.../dp/0809105039

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

It's an easy conclusion, really. Palestinian leadership since day 1 have sought the death of Israel. It's in their mottos and manifestos. Per polling, nearly 70% of Palestinians see the restoration of all of historic Palestine to Arab control as the only legitimate national goal for their people. As such they will not acknowledge a cease-fire. They will not acknowledge land for peace or a portion of the Israeli capital or a seat in the Israeli Knesset or any other concession offered. They cannot peacefully coexist because one side wants the other dead. Again, it's no more complicated than this. The reason they can exist peacefully in other regions, but not in Israel is because the Palestinians are no more interested in peace than they are a two-state solution.

Well ok, it sounded like you were inferring your conclusion from my comment. This is a whole lot of other information.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

And I've seen documentaries of European henchmen involved in the wholesale slaughtering of Jews. All things in moderation, Waragainstsleep.

I'm just going to let this micro thread die now if thats ok.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

How do gays feel about Christianity? You see, when a sect of people is perceived to be bent in antagonism against another, the subject of that antagonism is likely to view the former unfavorably. It merely follows logically that a people, 80% of which claim belief in a deity, might perceive atheists as hostile. The only thing we can do is ensure, as representatives of our faith be it in a God or no god, that we conduct ourselves in a fair way.

The question then is why is that the perception? The majority of atheists are not anti-theists. It seems likely that the theists see all atheists as a threat to their churches in case they persuade members to leave with their pesky logic and reason. It also seems likely that many theists in the US have little or no contact with atheists (knowingly anyway) so is someone is driving that perception on purpose?

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

You will find collateral damage in every war known to mankind. What you will not find is an aggressor that sends leaflets and literally calls every household in the target area to warn of the coming attack and to evacuate the area as Israel had done. The Palestinians are advised by their leadership to stay. You will see more collateral damage in conflicts where homes, schools, libraries, and churches are stuffed with munitions. I'm not duped and neither are they. One thing is certain, there isn't a resourceful nation on the globe who would put up with what Israel has had to put up with. War is hell, no doubt about it.

Funny but I watched a news clip of Israel firing a 'warning mortar' in advance of a rocket strike just the other day. This does not count as a phone call, let alone many phone calls.
Whatever is true about the validity of their targets and the effort they do or don't make to avoid civilian casualties, you cannot reasonably view children as terrorists.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Christianity never shared a barbaric or intolerant mindset with Islamic extremism or Atheistic extremism. Not in practice, not in doctrine, not in principle, and most notably not in numbers of murders committed.

The bible endorses slavery, has a rule for paying compensation to your rape victim's father and has numerous other rules about killing people for adultery and other breaches of various commandments. Barbaric doctrine.
Between the crusades and the inquisition, plenty of people killed for being non-christian or being perceived as different or simply framed as heretics for being non-compliant. Barbaric, intolerant and practiced.
As for the numbers, like Shaddim implied, its only because they couldn't make smaller bombs. Or chemical weapons.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

It's not a swing, it's a numerical fact. I never claimed atheists were popular, but perhaps if it were clearer what they are for than what they are against; it might do wonders for their popularity campaign.

Theists have this odd notion that atheists are all organised together, that we have a playbook we all share. We find things in common, just as any group will but atheism is the lack of a belief in a god. Nothing more than that. Its like saying I don't support any NFL team. Would that make me a rival fan to anyone who does, let alone everyone?

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

He dabbled in many things, but one thing is without question; it was the Catholic Church who alone stood up to Hitler during his rise and Hitler was vehemently opposed to religion, stating unequivocally that it and a Socialist State cannot exist together.

There were at least a few Catholic Nazis though weren't there?

[Waragainstsleep]

[QUOTE=Shaddim;4285700]Again, balling all religious fundamentalists together. You have issues, and one of them is religious bigotry. {/QUOTE]

To continue my NFL analogy, fans of all football teams enjoy watching football. I can say that because its something they obviously share and thus I can justifiably "ball them all together" in that context regardless of their politics, ethnicity, location, nationality or the particular team they like.

Religious fundamentalist extremists:

• Are religious;
• Usually believe things which are out of date and proven to be incorrect;
• Usually have some negative feeling towards anyone who doesn't share those beliefs, and more extreme negative feeling towards anyone who threatens or questions those beliefs;
• Often are prepared to kill and maim indiscriminately to try to get their way or simply make a point;

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Umm, no, they wanted to take back the Holy Land not demolish it. Dur?

They murdered thousands looking for an old cup. Even if they weren't as dumb as that sounds, I'm sure they could have found a few targets either side of their path on the way there.

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

What makes you think they're all Israelis? As I said before, some are Palestinian Christians.

When a good few of them are Palestinian Muslims, then maybe I'll accept that you aren't getting completely one-sided information. Wait a minute, Palestinian Christians? If you see your next comment, you clearly state that ALL Palestinians are terrorists. Hmm.

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

They aren't "wishing for peace", they want to butcher Jews, and they're the type of people who hide their weapons where their children stay. It isn't a nation state, it's a terrorist group, and it's past time Israel treated them as such.

I'm sure at least a few of them are pressured into believing the propaganda or saying the believe it, since the actual terrorists are terrorists, it seems likely that many are following the status quo under extreme duress.
I'm also sure that children (and probably their mothers) will spend at least a few seconds wishing for peace when bombs and buildings are falling all around them.

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Hogwash.You were still trying to draw comparisons between Jihadists and mainline Christians, Jews, and Muslims, which is absurd.

Its really not. Sorry about that.

Since you a Christian, informed by Jewish and other Christian friends have formed an opinion that advocates genocide, you have single-handedly refuted your own complaint about this point. Such a course is no different from a Jihad so my comparison is right on the money.
You're making this too easy really.

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

You keep using the word "indisputable", but you don't know what it means. See, when your assertion from the very beginning is dishonest crap, then you invalidate whatever comes after. Do you know how insulting it is to simply lump militant Islam with moderate Muslims? Like here:

Well sure, I could dispute that the post I'm currently debating was made by someone using the name Shaddim, but its clearly written there for all to see so that would make me ridiculous.
The fact is that extreme fundamentalist Muslims/Christians are still Muslims/Christians. If this simple association makes you ashamed of what you believe, maybe you should reconsider exactly what you believe and how you choose to categorise it.

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

That's simply pure ignorance.

There are Muslims and Jews in my country and yours and in both the extremist Muslims are more interested in blowing up the Brits and Americans respectively than they are in targeting the Jews.

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Again you're slathering them all with the same broad brush without even trying to see the differences. Do you grasp that there are varying levels of indoctrination? Do you understand that there were, and are, vastly different focuses in emotional conditioning? Personally, I think you've already grasped where you've screwed up, but now it's gone on too long for you to admit you made a mistake.

The differences are not relevant when I am only arguing that similarities exist. You are arguing that those similarities do not exist but you really can't which is why you are trying to deflect. I have spelled out the fact that I see the differences more than once now but I'll do it again: You are the one who has written off an entire nation (including young children) as extremist Muslim terrorists, even though you have Christian friends in or from that nation and I am the one arguing that that is highly unlikely to be a fair and accurate view of that population, and that there are reasons why many of them are that way or claim to be that way.
You are repeatedly arguing against yourself in this regard. I don't even need to be here apparently.

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

"Assumed." Another of your wrong assumptions, it's a culture of murder, revenge, and self-mutilation for glory. This isn't about wanting to kill people who simply look or act different, it's about a subset of radicals bent on destroying everyone who isn't like them. That's what Islamic Jihad is, that's its purpose.

That sounds equally assumptive but wholly less reasonable.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by mattyb 

You need to read more history.

Originally Posted by mattyb 

Read Hitler's Pope.

EDIT : Looks like I also have to do more reading : Pius XII and the Second World War: According to the Archives of the Vatican: Pierre Blet, Lawrence J. Johnson: 9780809105038: Amazon.com: Books

Okay, this is bizarre. Shall I engage you on your egregious error above or are you slowly dealing with yourself here?

Though I did find an interesting response, one of which included commentary I'm familiar with from Einstein himself during the turmoil;

Originally Posted by respondent

1. Golda Meir, the former prime minister of Israel, said upon Pius XII's death that " During the ten years of Nazi terror, when our people passed through the horrors of martyrdom, the Pope raised his voice to condemn the persecutors and to commiserate with their victims."
2. Elio Toaff, the Chief Rabbi of Rome during the Nazi terror, said, "More than anyone else, we have had the opportunity to appreciate the great kindness, filled with compassion and magnanimity, that the Pope displayed during the terrible years of persecution and terror."
3. Nahum Goldmann, president of the World Jewish Congress, said that, "with special gratitude we remember all he has done for the persecuted Jews during one of the darkest periods in their entire history."
4. The Chief Rabbi of Jerusalem, Isaac Herzog, sent the Pius XII a personal message of thanks on February 28, 1944, in Holiness and his illustrious delegates, inspired by the eternal principles of religion which form the very foundations of true civilization, are doing for us unfortunate brothers and sisters in the most tragic hour of our history, which is living proof of divine Providence in this world."
5. The New York Times, in its Christmas editorial of 1941, said of Pius would be expected to express in time of war. Yet his words sound strange and bold in the Europe of today, and we comprehend the complete submergence and enslavement of great nations, the very sources of our civilization, as we realize that he is about the only ruler left on the Continent of Europe who dares to raise his voice at all."
6. Former Israeli diplomat and now Orthodox Jewish Rabbi Pinchas Lapide stated that Pius XI "had good reason to make Pacelli the architect of his anti-Nazi policy. Of the forty-four speeches which the Nuncio Pacelli had made on German soil between 1917 and 1929, at least forty contained attacks on Nazism or condemnations of Hitler's doctrines. . . . Pacelli, who never met the Führer, called it `neo-Paganism.' "
7. Lapide, in his book "Three Popes and the Jews," insisted that the Catholic Church saved more Jewish lives than all other relief efforts (such as those of the International Red Cross, the Haganah, and American Jewish organizations) Catholic Church had been the instrument is thus at least 700,000 souls, but in all probability it is much closer to . . . 860,000."
8. Albert Einstein, again someone who fled Hitler personally and lived through the the Hitlerian onslaught on liberty. Up till then I had not been interested in the Church, but today I feel a great admiration for the Church, which alone has had the courage to struggle for spiritual truth and moral liberty."

I'm sorry, but your hand-picked, lone example of revisionist history just doesn't square with well-documented history. As an aside, I wholeheartedly believe you went in search of this example upon this discussion and haven't yourself, read a single page. In this I might add, you need to read from credible historians and not that of sensationalist antagonism.

[subego]

@Waragainstsleep,

I'm having pretty serious issues with the equivalencies you're drawing.

You're not going to catch me supporting the IRA for one second. Terrorism is indefensible in a democracy. That said, you can't compare planting a bomb and warning people of it on the same plane as randomly shooting a rocket.

I'm not going to blame you for seeing a statistic which appears to support your point, and not digging to deep into it (honestly, no snark), but the rapist/atheist thing has... very problematic methodology going on. Survey questions create their own contexts, which this study doesn't attempt to address.

The question is "do you trust X?"

Trust them to do what exactly? Trust them to babysit your kid? Trust them not to commit a crime? Trust them not to be a self-righteous asshole?

What if the question was "who do you trust more, a rapist or an atheist?" Do you think that would come out close to 50-50?

[mattyb]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Okay, this is bizarre. Shall I engage you on your egregious error above or are you slowly dealing with yourself here?

You can see my edit? You notice that I edited my own post before your reply? You notice that I have the balls to critique myself about what I need to read? I didn't just remove my post completely, I added a countering point of view to my recommendation, have you ever done the same?

And as for reading more history, that was in reference to this :

Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
Christianity never shared a barbaric or intolerant mindset with Islamic extremism or Atheistic extremism. Not in practice, not in doctrine, not in principle, and most notably not in numbers of murders committed.

There are many examples that prove you wrong including : the Crusades, the Northern Ireland 'problem', the wars between catholics and protestants in Europe, Manifest Destiny, the New Worlds, Slavery etc.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

Between the crusades and the inquisition, plenty of people killed for being non-christian or being perceived as different or simply framed as heretics for being non-compliant. Barbaric, intolerant and practiced.
As for the numbers, like Shaddim implied, its only because they couldn't make smaller bombs. Or chemical weapons.

The history most people know of the Crusades and the Inquisition was written by Protestants. The Soviets were the origin of "Hitler's Pope" propaganda. (Operation Seat 12)
The Truth About Pope Pius XII | ZENIT - The World Seen From Rome

The Real Story of the Crusades (Encore) | Catholic Answers
The Inquisition | Catholic Answers
BTW, I'm surprised you didn't mention Galileo.
The Galileo Controversy | Catholic Answers

There were at least a few Catholic Nazis though weren't there?

"Catholics" like Pelosi, Kerry and Biden.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

To continue my NFL analogy, fans of all football teams enjoy watching football. I can say that because its something they obviously share and thus I can justifiably "ball them all together" in that context regardless of their politics, ethnicity, location, nationality or the particular team they like.

Religious fundamentalist extremists:

• Are religious;
• Usually believe things which are out of date and proven to be incorrect;
• Usually have some negative feeling towards anyone who doesn't share those beliefs, and more extreme negative feeling towards anyone who threatens or questions those beliefs;
• Often are prepared to kill and maim indiscriminately to try to get their way or simply make a point;

Holy shit, Batman!! You don't know that there's a difference between "Fundamentalist" and "Extremist"? At least I hope it's just simple ignorance. Wow!

They murdered thousands looking for an old cup. Even if they weren't as dumb as that sounds, I'm sure they could have found a few targets either side of their path on the way there.

That was Raiders of the Lost Ark. You seem to get all your historical "facts" from Hollywood films.

When a good few of them are Palestinian Muslims, then maybe I'll accept that you aren't getting completely one-sided information. Wait a minute, Palestinian Christians? If you see your next comment, you clearly state that ALL Palestinians are terrorists. Hmm.

It's a broad enough segment of the population to treat it as a rogue terrorist state, a conservative estimate would be >80% of Palestinian Muslims are dyed in the wool, dedicated Jihadists. That's what they've been taught, that's their indoctrination. Want to see what the USA does to fundamentalist extremists? Check out the history of the Branch Davidians and Ruby Ridge (and those guys were several cuts below Jihadists in their homicidal impulses).

I'm sure at least a few of them are pressured into believing the propaganda or saying the believe it, since the actual terrorists are terrorists, it seems likely that many are following the status quo under extreme duress.

There's not a shred of evidence of that. The partying while they drag Jewsish carcases throught the streets doesn't appear very restrained.

I'm also sure that children (and probably their mothers) will spend at least a few seconds wishing for peace when bombs and buildings are falling all around them.

Because daddy stores his rockets and mortars in the basement? That would prove they have a basic, animal level sense of self-preservation.

Its really not. Sorry about that.

Yes, it's ignorant and absurd to a Colbert level of satire.

Since you a Christian, informed by Jewish and other Christian friends have formed an opinion that advocates genocide, you have single-handedly refuted your own complaint about this point. Such a course is no different from a Jihad so my comparison is right on the money.
You're making this too easy really.

I'm not Christian and haven't been since I was barely a teen. And there's more of your ignorance of the treatment of Christians in Palestine and all of the Middle East (which in some ways has historically been worse than Jews). Until 60 years ago there was a bounty on every Christian ear and tongue that could be brought to the Mullahs, and to this day they still burn down their churches, rape the women, and enslave their children, while being completely ignored under law (they don't have civil rights because they aren't Muslim). They and the Jews have been fighting against being wiped out for thousands of years, where was Leftist Western sympathy over the last century?

Well sure, I could dispute that the post I'm currently debating was made by someone using the name Shaddim, but its clearly written there for all to see so that would make me ridiculous. The fact is that extreme fundamentalist Muslims/Christians are still Muslims/Christians. If this simple association makes you ashamed of what you believe, maybe you should reconsider exactly what you believe and how you choose to categorise it.

Complete twaddle. It's simple stupidity to lump all Christians, Jews, and Muslims together, and just shows that you're being an ignorant bigot. The diversity, even within a single religion, is incredibly diverse, otherwise there wouldn't be 1000 different denominations and sects. Listen, if you don't even have a basic understanding of the subject, don't try to preach about it, it only makes you sound even more prejudiced.

There are Muslims and Jews in my country and yours and in both the extremist Muslims are more interested in blowing up the Brits and Americans respectively than they are in targeting the Jews.

More of the bigotry, rearing its head. Sure, all Muslims, Jews, and Christians are exactly alike, they're all indoctrinated and taught the same things! That must be why we never have religious conflicts to begin with, right? Theologians have missed that for so many centuries, the Protestant Reformation never even happened. Amazing.

The differences are not relevant when I am only arguing that similarities exist. You are arguing that those similarities do not exist but you really can't which is why you are trying to deflect. I have spelled out the fact that I see the differences more than once now but I'll do it again: You are the one who has written off an entire nation (including young children) as extremist Muslim terrorists, even though you have Christian friends in or from that nation and I am the one arguing that that is highly unlikely to be a fair and accurate view of that population, and that there are reasons why many of them are that way or claim to be that way.
You are repeatedly arguing against yourself in this regard. I don't even need to be here apparently.

Apparently not. That is the way those Muslims, in that area, are brainwashed. Jews are demons, they have been since the time of Isaac and Ishmael, and a good Jihadi is rewarded and exalted above all others if they murder them.

That sounds equally assumptive but wholly less reasonable.

Given what you've posted in this thread, and your lack of knowledge regarding religion in general, that means nothing.

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by subego 

@Waragainstsleep,

I'm having pretty serious issues with the equivalencies you're drawing.

You're not going to catch me supporting the IRA for one second. Terrorism is indefensible in a democracy. That said, you can't compare planting a bomb and warning people of it on the same plane as randomly shooting a rocket.

I don't pretend to know the finer details of committing a terrorist act against Israel from Palestine, but if I had to speculate, I would guess that firing rockets is probably one of the easier avenues open to them and that guided rockets are much more difficult to lay your hands on. The IRA didn't always issue warnings by the way.

Originally Posted by subego 

I'm not going to blame you for seeing a statistic which appears to support your point, and not digging to deep into it (honestly, no snark), but the rapist/atheist thing has... very problematic methodology going on. Survey questions create their own contexts, which this study doesn't attempt to address.

The question is "do you trust X?"

Trust them to do what exactly? Trust them to babysit your kid? Trust them not to commit a crime? Trust them not to be a self-righteous asshole?

What if the question was "who do you trust more, a rapist or an atheist?" Do you think that would come out close to 50-50?

I didn't dig into it much either which is why I dropped it when it was pointed out that the respondents were Canadian students, not Americans as I had wrongly assumed (though lets face it, if anything the numbers distrusting atheists would likely be higher if they had been Americans, I just have no study to back that up).

The trust incident was about returning a found wallet, so we can only conclude that respondents don't trust atheists to return peoples property if they find it in the street. Thats sort of a passive moral test, I don't think its fair to infer anything about their trustworthiness as babysitters from that.

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Holy shit, Batman!! You don't know that there's a difference between "Fundamentalist" and "Extremist"? At least I hope it's just simple ignorance. Wow!

I do know there is a difference, thats why I used both words and not just one.

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

That was Raiders of the Lost Ark. You seem to get all your historical "facts" from Hollywood films.

Holy land, holy cup, doesn't matter. You just sidestepped the point entirely by addressing something irrelevant. Again.

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

It's a broad enough segment of the population to treat it as a rogue terrorist state, a conservative estimate would be >80% of Palestinian Muslims are dyed in the wool, dedicated Jihadists. That's what they've been taught, that's their indoctrination. Want to see what the USA does to fundamentalist extremists? Check out the history of the Branch Davidians and Ruby Ridge (and those guys were several cuts below Jihadists in their homicidal impulses).

Whenever I draw these kinds of conclusions in the PWL I get jumped on by several people. I'm a little disappointed that I'm the only one who has a problem with you doing it.

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

There's not a shred of evidence of that. The partying while they drag Jewsish carcases throught the streets doesn't appear very restrained.

What evidence would you expect there to be if this was the case. What evidence would expect to notice?

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Because daddy stores his rockets and mortars in the basement? That would prove they have a basic, animal level sense of self-preservation.

I'm pretty sure my species-wide (and beyond) generalisation about mothers is a whole lot more justifiable than your anti-Palestinian attitude.

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Yes, it's ignorant and absurd to a Colbert level of satire.

Nope.

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

I'm not Christian and haven't been since I was barely a teen.

I have seen you refer to your church on occasion, given which country you are in and the fact you didn't say Mosque or Synagogue or Temple, this seems a fair assumption. Feel free to set me straight if you like.

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

And there's more of your ignorance of the treatment of Christians in Palestine and all of the Middle East (which in some ways has historically been worse than Jews). Until 60 years ago there was a bounty on every Christian ear and tongue that could be brought to the Mullahs, and to this day they still burn down their churches, rape the women, and enslave their children, while being completely ignored under law (they don't have civil rights because they aren't Muslim). They and the Jews have been fighting against being wiped out for thousands of years, where was Leftist Western sympathy over the last century?

I have to wonder how the Mullahs could tell if an ear or tongue was Christian or not.
Sidestepping again though. One minute 100% of the population of Palestine are terrorists and deserve to die, the next there are some Christians in there. If they are also terrorists, then surely they deserve to die too so you shouldn't mind?

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Complete twaddle. It's simple stupidity to lump all Christians, Jews, and Muslims together, and just shows that you're being an ignorant bigot. The diversity, even within a single religion, is incredibly diverse, otherwise there wouldn't be 1000 different denominations and sects. Listen, if you don't even have a basic understanding of the subject, don't try to preach about it, it only makes you sound even more prejudiced.

Its even simpler stupidity to try to deny that they are all derived from the same religion and therefore have a connection in common. There is something about the personalities of all religious people that leads them to believe in their religions or spiritualities, whatever they may be, often in the face of damning historical behaviour and beliefs, or the sheer ridiculousness of those beliefs. Whatever those traits that lead people to want to believe in the absence of any quality evidence, they are exaggerated and compounded with other traits that lead a subset of many religions (regardless of which religion specifically) to take a more fundamentalist approach and ignore even more of reality in favour of nonsensical dogma in one book or another. There is yet another subset which have extra traits again which lead them to kill indiscriminately anyone who does not agree with their interpretation of their favourite book.
This is simple psychology.

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

More of the bigotry, rearing its head. Sure, all Muslims, Jews, and Christians are exactly alike, they're all indoctrinated and taught the same things! That must be why we never have religious conflicts to begin with, right? Theologians have missed that for so many centuries, the Protestant Reformation never even happened. Amazing.

I don't know how many times I have to spell this out for you. There are many differences, but they do all have certain things in common which members of some other religions and non-theists do not.

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Apparently not. That is the way those Muslims, in that area, are brainwashed. Jews are demons, they have been since the time of Isaac and Ishmael, and a good Jihadi is rewarded and exalted above all others if they murder them.

I'm not disputing that this happens. Its not terribly relevant to the point of mine that you were trying to debate but that was several posts back now and you have meandered it out of sight altogether.

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Given what you've posted in this thread, and your lack of knowledge regarding religion in general, that means nothing.

It means that if I'm not allowed to make assumptions, then you are certainly not allowed to make less reasonable ones just because you have declared yourself an expert on religion as well as middle eastern politics.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Why are you more concerned about the Israeli policies? What of the Hamas policies and how they've been affecting the relationship?

Israel is in the driver's seat and has been for a long time. And because Israel is a real state with democratic traditions. If you proclaim moral high ground, you have to accept scrutiny. 10 years ago when Israel dropped a 1000 kilo bomb on a civilian home to kill a Hamas leader, killing 16 innocent people in the process, there was a discussion about it whether this is justified or right. Now this is something that literally happens on a daily basis with large support among the population. I don't consider that progress.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Otherwise, your anecdotes are secular, leftist Jews who believe Judaism is to blame just as Islam.

Please don't put people you haven't met, heard or know anything about into your little boxes. In any case, you're wrong about your assumption that they're »all leftist« or atheists. Your simplistic world view which insists on a left-right division of everything ignores that people of all stripes and backgrounds share some of the criticism of Netanyahu's policies. The former director of Shin Bet (Israel's domestic security service), for instance, arrives at similar conclusions even though through different reasoning.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Here's a poll taken of Israelis by Maagar Mohot Survey Institute showing Israelis oppose a Palestinian State 51% to 32%. Now let's break down their political affiliations;

Do you support or oppose the establishment of an independent Palestinian state in Judea and Samaria?
% Oppose by party:

• Labor 25% (Least opposed. Labor -- no matter what country you're in, this is your left. Without fail. It's just the way it is. It's Big Labor/Centralized Authority vs Private Enterprise/Free Market Capitalism. These are the two sides you're voting for no matter where you are. Period.)
• Kadima 36% (Second-least opposed. Left. Don't take my word for it, ask your Israeli friends.)
• Yisrael Beiteinu 60% (and then we start moving toward the right)
• Likud 72% (it's just the way it is)
• Shas 79% (and yes, I'm correct)

I do understand that public opinion in Israel has shifted, but up until just a few days ago at least officially, the Israeli government was committed to a two-state solution. That is what I was referring to, not public opinion. I'm not surprised by Netanyahu's comment since I never took his commitment to a two-state solution seriously. And the majority is not necessarily right.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

You're asking me should we kill them, let me ask you; if someone had a gun pointed at your face and you had the resources to eliminate the threat -- would you? Does that make you a horrible person? Does it make the people who love you horrible for being thankful and supportive of you for taking this action?

You fabricate a scenario where my only choices are … genocide or genocide? The problem with such ticking-timebomb scenarios (»Would you torture the terrorist for the code? You would, wouldn't you?«) is that they have zero basis in reality, not even figuratively. You're forgetting all these things you can do to avoid this situation in the first place. And forgetting about any sense of morality -- quite »interesting« from someone who is a self-professed religious person. It's always easy to just claim you were »pushed« into this conflict through no fault of your own.

If I put animals in a small cage, starve them of necessities, I am not surprised if they act agitatedly, aggressively and irrationally. Just from a pragmatic point of view it is unrealistic that I'll only release them after they have cooled down and come to their senses. Maybe, because I don't want to commit to anything. You can do a lot to defuse the situation before you have to put the lives of many young people (Israelis and Palestinians alike) on the line.

[OAW]

An interesting piece ....

Originally Posted by Rashid Khalidi - Edward Said Professor of Arab Studies at Columbia University and editor of the Journal of Palestine Studies

Three days after the Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu launched the current war in Gaza, he held a press conference in Tel Aviv during which he said, in Hebrew, according to the Times of Israel, “I think the Israeli people understand now what I always say: that there cannot be a situation, under any agreement, in which we relinquish security control of the territory west of the River Jordan.”

It’s worth listening carefully when Netanyahu speaks to the Israeli people. What is going on in Palestine today is not really about Hamas. It is not about rockets. It is not about “human shields” or terrorism or tunnels. It is about Israel’s permanent control over Palestinian land and Palestinian lives. That is what Netanyahu is really saying, and that is what he now admits he has “always” talked about. It is about an unswerving, decades-long Israeli policy of denying Palestine self-determination, freedom, and sovereignty.

What Israel is doing in Gaza now is collective punishment. It is punishment for Gaza’s refusal to be a docile ghetto. It is punishment for the gall of Palestinians in unifying, and of Hamas and other factions in responding to Israel’s siege and its provocations with resistance, armed or otherwise, after Israel repeatedly reacted to unarmed protest with crushing force. Despite years of ceasefires and truces, the siege of Gaza has never been lifted.

As Netanyahu’s own words show, however, Israel will accept nothing short of the acquiescence of Palestinians to their own subordination. It will accept only a Palestinian “state” that is stripped of all the attributes of a real state: control over security, borders, airspace, maritime limits, contiguity, and, therefore, sovereignty. The twenty-three-year charade of the “peace process” has shown that this is all Israel is offering, with the full approval of Washington. Whenever the Palestinians have resisted that pathetic fate (as any nation would), Israel has punished them for their insolence. This is not new.

Punishing Palestinians for existing has a long history. It was Israel’s policy before Hamas and its rudimentary rockets were Israel’s boogeyman of the moment, and before Israel turned Gaza into an open-air prison, punching bag, and weapons laboratory. In 1948, Israel killed thousands of innocents, and terrorized and displaced hundreds of thousands more, in the name of creating a Jewish-majority state in a land that was then sixty-five per cent Arab. In 1967, it displaced hundreds of thousands of Palestinians again, occupying territory that it still largely controls, forty-seven years later.

In 1982, in a quest to expel the Palestine Liberation Organization and extinguish Palestinian nationalism, Israel invaded Lebanon, killing seventeen thousand people, mostly civilians. Since the late nineteen-eighties, when Palestinians under occupation rose up, mostly by throwing stones and staging general strikes, Israel has arrested tens of thousands of Palestinians: over seven hundred and fifty thousand people have spent time in Israeli prisons since 1967, a number that amounts to forty per cent of the adult male population today. They have emerged with accounts of torture, which are substantiated by human-rights groups like B’tselem. During the second intifada, which began in 2000, Israel reinvaded the West Bank (it had never fully left). The occupation and colonization of Palestinian land continued unabated throughout the “peace process” of the nineteen-nineties, and continues to this day. And yet, in America, the discussion ignores this crucial, constantly oppressive context, and is instead too often limited to Israeli “self-defense” and the Palestinians’ supposed responsibility for their own suffering.

In the past seven or more years, Israel has besieged, tormented, and regularly attacked the Gaza Strip. The pretexts change: they elected Hamas; they refused to be docile; they refused to recognize Israel; they fired rockets; they built tunnels to circumvent the siege; and on and on. But each pretext is a red herring, because the truth of ghettos—what happens when you imprison 1.8 million people in a hundred and forty square miles, about a third of the area of New York City, with no control of borders, almost no access to the sea for fishermen (three out of the twenty kilometres allowed by the Oslo accords), no real way in or out, and with drones buzzing overhead night and day—is that, eventually, the ghetto will fight back. It was true in Soweto and Belfast, and it is true in Gaza. We might not like Hamas or some of its methods, but that is not the same as accepting the proposition that Palestinians should supinely accept the denial of their right to exist as a free people in their ancestral homeland.

This is precisely why the United States’ support of current Israeli policy is folly. Peace was achieved in Northern Ireland and in South Africa because the United States and the world realized that they had to put pressure on the stronger party, holding it accountable and ending its impunity. Northern Ireland and South Africa are far from perfect examples, but it is worth remembering that, to achieve a just outcome, it was necessary for the United States to deal with groups like the Irish Republican Army and the African National Congress, which engaged in guerrilla war and even terrorism. That was the only way to embark on a road toward true peace and reconciliation. The case of Palestine is not fundamentally different.

Instead, the United States puts its thumb on the scales in favor of the stronger party. In this surreal, upside-down vision of the world, it almost seems as if it is the Israelis who are occupied by the Palestinians, and not the other way around. In this skewed universe, the inmates of an open-air prison are besieging a nuclear-armed power with one of the most sophisticated militaries in the world.

If we are to move away from this unreality, the U.S. must either reverse its policies or abandon its claim of being an “honest broker.” If the U.S. government wants to fund and arm Israel and parrot its talking points that fly in the face of reason and international law, so be it. But it should not claim the moral high ground and intone solemnly about peace. And it should certainly not insult Palestinians by saying that it cares about them or their children, who are dying in Gaza today.

Collective Punishment in Gaza - The New Yorker

Funny how the historical record has a way of dismantling cable news show talking points. And in the meantime the IDF has attacked and knocked the only power station in Gaza offline. Initial estimates say that it may take up to a year to get it operational again. So over 1000 civilians killed .... infrastructure wantonly destroyed ... and 1.8 million people are without power for the foreseeable future ... which, for the record, means that Gaza is now also without a fresh water supply ... all because the Israeli government decided to attack Hamas in Gaza when it already KNEW beforehand they had nothing to do with the kidnapping and killings of those 3 Israeli teens in the West Bank. And apparently there are those around here who are quite alright with that.

OAW

[Chongo]

Jordan had control of the West Bank for almost 30 years and did nothing to create a Palestinian state, the same goes for Egypt and Gaza. The Hashemite minority ruled the majority Palestinians with an iron fist.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Jordan had control of the West Bank for almost 30 years and did nothing to create a Palestinian sate, the same goes for Egypt and Gaza. The Hashemite minority ruled the majority Palestinians with an iron fist.

Both the West Bank and Gaza were controlled by Jordan and Egypt respectively from 1948 - 1967 when those areas were captured by Israel in the Six Day War. That's 19 years so I'm not sure where you are coming up with this 30 year number. In any event, Israeli occupation and/or siege of Palestinian land persists to this day. Which was the point of my previous post.

OAW

[Chongo]

Sorry, 19 years and change. Please read the Wikipedia "Black September" article,

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

Israel is in the driver's seat and has been for a long time. And because Israel is a real state with democratic traditions. If you proclaim moral high ground, you have to accept scrutiny. 10 years ago when Israel dropped a 1000 kilo bomb on a civilian home to kill a Hamas leader, killing 16 innocent people in the process, there was a discussion about it whether this is justified or right. Now this is something that literally happens on a daily basis with large support among the population. I don't consider that progress.

How do you know the people were innocent? Do they use a uniformed military? You read it in HuffPo? If I received a phone call advising that my neighborhood was about to be bombed and 10 minutes later a leaflet floats into my yard. I'd leave. Unless of course, I was required to stay. Were birds chirping and the Palestinian people singing Kumbaya when all of a sudden a 1000 kilo bomb came out of Zion with a giant, bloody star of David on it?

I'm no longer interested in analyses that leaves out two-thirds of the story just because one side of the issue is infinitely more unified, resourceful, and productive with their capital. And besides, you haven't answered the question; how do you negotiate with someone who wants you dead?

Please don't put people you haven't met, heard or know anything about into your little boxes.

I'd ask then that you please not cite them in some bogus appeal to authority. My guess is I likely friggin' nailed it and now you're just pissed off that you even brought 'em up in the first place.

In any case, you're wrong about your assumption that they're »all leftist« or atheists. Your simplistic world view which insists on a left-right division of everything ignores that people of all stripes and backgrounds share some of the criticism of Netanyahu's policies. The former director of Shin Bet (Israel's domestic security service), for instance, arrives at similar conclusions even though through different reasoning.

Oh... you mean the well-documented political foe of Netanyahu that became disgruntled when he was passed over as Mossad Chief, now being chastised for not expressing any of these concerns while actively serving? Sounds like the kind of pot-shots political foes take at one another in the US all the time with zero regard for any actual policy. Don't take my word for it, read his interview -- he's got zero novel ideals for resolving the crisis. Land for peace? Fail. Negotiating with Arafat for more in the Oslo Accords? Laughable. Though he's right about one thing, Kerry's role in this conflict has indeed been a joke.

I do understand that public opinion in Israel has shifted, but up until just a few days ago at least officially, the Israeli government was committed to a two-state solution. That is what I was referring to, not public opinion. I'm not surprised by Netanyahu's comment since I never took his commitment to a two-state solution seriously. And the majority is not necessarily right.

Umm... that polling data was from 2009. It has shifted yes, but only with growing pessimism that a two-state solution is plausible, particularly considering 2/3rds of Palestinians don't want it. At some point, we're going to have to deal with reality over political pot-shots. I know you want to call my contribution here "simpleton", but I've provided a great deal more to substantiate my analysis than you have.

You fabricate a scenario where my only choices are … genocide or genocide? The problem with such ticking-timebomb scenarios (»Would you torture the terrorist for the code? You would, wouldn't you?«) is that they have zero basis in reality, not even figuratively. You're forgetting all these things you can do to avoid this situation in the first place. And forgetting about any sense of morality -- quite »interesting« from someone who is a self-professed religious person. It's always easy to just claim you were »pushed« into this conflict through no fault of your own.

Are you ready to answer the questions yet? How do you negotiate peace with someone who wants you dead? How do you offer concessions in land to someone who wants ALL of your land? Will a portion of your land be enough if they want all of your land?

If I put animals in a small cage, starve them of necessities, I am not surprised if they act agitatedly, aggressively and irrationally. Just from a pragmatic point of view it is unrealistic that I'll only release them after they have cooled down and come to their senses. Maybe, because I don't want to commit to anything. You can do a lot to defuse the situation before you have to put the lives of many young people (Israelis and Palestinians alike) on the line.

If you see that the dog next door is starving to death so you offer it food and provisions and the owner of that dog eats all the food and uses the literally millions in provisions you've provided to do nothing more than build a tunnel under your yard -- what do you do? What if you try to address the owner and the dog bites you? Please tell me you have a solution that does not begin with; "because Israel claims the moral high ground." What about the inescapable facts?

My religious sensitivities must first be rooted in reality or they are lame. Neither you, nor Diskin, or anyone sympathetic to the plight of the Palestinians here have offered a single solution that has not already been tried multiple times over the past 70 years serving only to prolong the agony of all those involved. Not a one. Spare me your feigned humanitarian concern while essentially telling this forum that the Israeli people should learn to live their lives, flanked by hostility. You wouldn't put up with it for a second, stop asking them to.

You can complicate it all you want. You can talk about how the Israelis should release their "stranglehold" on the Palestinian populace and the minute they do, they are met with aggression. We've seen this at least three times in our own lifetimes. You can talk about land for peace. Done. You can talk about seats in the Israeli Knesset. Done. You can talk about a portion of their capital city. Done. You can talk about aid and provisions. Done. None of this has brought them peace.

What no one here has been able to answer is how you'd negotiate with someone who wants you to no longer exist.

[Chongo]

From the Wiki "Black September" article

Background
Palestinians in Jordan
The United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine in late 1947 led to civil war, the end of Mandatory Palestine, and the Israeli Declaration of Independence on 14 May 1948. With nationhood, the ongoing civil war was transformed into a state conflict between Israel and the Arab states. Egypt, Jordan and Syria, together with expeditionary forces from Iraq, invaded Palestine. They took control of the Arab areas, and immediately attacked Israeli forces and several Jewish settlements. The fighting was halted with the UN-mediated 1949 Armistice Agreements, but the remaining Palestinian territories came under the control of Egypt and Transjordan. In 1949, Transjordan officially changed its name to Jordan; in 1950, it annexed the West Bank of the Jordan River, and brought Palestinian representation into the government.

At the time, the area east of the Jordan River contained over 400,000 Palestinian refugees, who made up one-third of the population of the Kingdom; another third of the population was Palestinians living on the West Bank. Only one third of the population consisted of native Jordanians, which meant that the Jordanians had become a ruling minority over a Palestinian majority. This proved to be a mercurial element in internal Jordanian politics, and played a critical role in the political opposition. Since the 1950s, the West Bank had become the center of the national and territorial aspects of the Palestinian problem, which was the key issue of Jordan's domestic and foreign policy. According to King Hussein, the Palestinian problem spelled "life or death" for Jordan, and would remain the country's overriding national security issue.[7]

King Hussein feared an independent West Bank under PLO administration would threaten the autonomy of his Hashemite kingdom.[8][9] The Palestinian factions were supported variously by many Arab regimes, most notably Egypt's president Gamal Abdel Nasser, who gave political support; and Saudi Arabia, which gave financial support.[citation needed] The Palestinian nationalist organization Fatah started organizing attacks against Israel in January 1965, and Israel was subject to repeated cross-border attacks by Palestinian fedayeen; these often drew reprisals.[10] The Samu Incident was one such reprisal. Jordan had long maintained secret contacts with Israel concerning peace and security along their border. However, due to internal splits within the Jordanian government and population, many of King Hussein's orders to stop these raids were not obeyed, and some Jordanian commanders along the Israeli-Jordanian border were lending passive assistance to the Palestinian raids.[11]

In June 1967, Israel captured the West Bank from Jordan during the Six-Day War.

So, it was OK for Transjordan/Jordan to annex the West Bank, but not Israel?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by mattyb 

You can see my edit? You notice that I edited my own post before your reply? You notice that I have the balls to critique myself about what I need to read? I didn't just remove my post completely, I added a countering point of view to my recommendation, have you ever done the same?

No, I've never chastised someone for lacking knowledge on a specific subject matter and in the very next post, submit blatantly ignorant bs and then backpedal from it within the post. I'm sorry you're not much for the taste of crow, maybe you'll remember that before hitting 'submit' next time.

And as for reading more history, that was in reference to this:
There are many examples that prove you wrong including : the Crusades, the Northern Ireland 'problem', the wars between catholics and protestants in Europe, Manifest Destiny, the New Worlds, Slavery etc.

You're not even going to try to indicate why I should accept that these were religious atrocities? Seems to me they were fighting over the very things humankind have always been fighting over; territory and conflicting governance.

Manifest Destiny? The New Worlds? Slavery? These are terms for things yes, care to expand on them a bit? For example, chattel slavery the likes of which occurred in the US was in stark contrast to any Biblical concept of slavery. Chattel slavery involved the enslavement of a specific people (strictly forbidden in Scripture), kidnapping mankind (strictly forbidden), abuse of them ("destroying an eye or tooth" in Scripture -- necessitates setting them free), and death of a "slave" (in Scripture, punishable by death to the master). Chattel slavery was codified into law in 1709 by the House of Burgesses in response to the labor grievances of Virginians.

If your point was to illustrate the folly of government solutions, well done. If it was to connect the act with any religious tenet, you've got more crow on your plate to enjoy.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

So, it was OK for Transjordan/Jordan to annex the West Bank, but not Israel?

No. There must always be an alternate standard applied to Israel. They're... well they're just different and should be regarded differently.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Chongo

So, it was OK for Transjordan/Jordan to annex the West Bank, but not Israel?

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

No. There must always be an alternate standard applied to Israel. They're... well they're just different and should be regarded differently.

And therein lies the crux of the problem. When Jordan took the West Bank it formally annexed the territory. And granted the population there Jordanian citizenship. Whereas Israel has steadfastly chosen NOT to annex the West Bank and Gaza after it captured the territories in 1967. Because it does NOT want to grant the native population living there Israeli citizenship lest the "Jewish Majority" of the state be threatened. There are 3 options here ...

1. Establish a true Two State solution and allow Palestine to be a viable, fully functional state. Not some "kinda sorta but not really" state where Israel controls borders, security, airspace, sea access, etc.

2. Formally annex the West Bank and Gaza and grant Israeli citizenship to the residents. Otherwise known as the One State solution.

3. Continue the Occupation indefinitely.

Israel TALKS #1 but WALKS #3. It's as obvious as the day is long. And I strongly suspect that this foolhardy approach will one day result in #2 in order to remain a part of the international community of nations ... because the world's patience on the issue is waning even further in light of this latest war on the people of Gaza.

OAW

[Chongo]

If King Hussein treated the Palestinians so well, why the Black September PLO uprising attempting to over throw him?

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

If King Hussein treated the Palestinians so well, why the Black September PLO uprising attempting to over throw him?

What does that have to do with the price of tea in China? The topic of the thread isn't Jordanian - Palestinian relations. The topic is the latest war in Gaza. Which, to my knowledge, Jordan isn't a participant.

OAW

[Chongo]

It's all Palestinian. Egypt and Jordan both had ample time to setup an Arab Palestine and didn't.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

It's all Palestinian. Egypt and Jordan both had ample time to setup an Arab Palestine and didn't.

Well by that questionable "logic" ... Jordan and Egypt had 19 years (1948 - 1967) to create an independent Palestinian state. Whereas Israel has had 47 years (1967 - 2014) to do the same. I trust I don't have to further elaborate the point?

OAW

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I know you want to call my contribution here "simpleton", but I've provided a great deal more to substantiate my analysis than you have.

You have provided nothing that counts as a realistic solution (and I don't count »mowing the lawn« aka genocide a realistic option).

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Are you ready to answer the questions yet? How do you negotiate peace with someone who wants you dead? How do you offer concessions in land to someone who wants ALL of your land? Will a portion of your land be enough if they want all of your land?

I've already outlined my thoughts here: You start with economic collaboration and give people something constructive to do during the day. Build trust by leaving things such as murder to the rule of law instead of rule of the mob or military law. This strategy has worked before on much bigger scale.

You don't need to agree with my ideas or find them feasible, but please don't claim I haven't answered your question when you actually mean that I haven't answered them to your satisfaction.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

You have provided nothing that counts as a realistic solution (and I don't count »mowing the lawn« aka genocide a realistic option).

The Israelis have never been interested in genocide. Frankly, this has got to be the single most silly thing I've seen in this discussion yet. The solution I'm talking about is allowing Israel to deal with the growing threat inside its piece of land 1/3rd the size of a single US Native American reservation, apprx the size of New Jersey.

I've already outlined my thoughts here: You start with economic collaboration and give people something constructive to do during the day. Build trust by leaving things such as murder to the rule of law instead of rule of the mob or military law. This strategy has worked before on much bigger scale.

• 2005 unilateral Israeli troop and civilian withdrawal from a 38-year presence in the Gaza Strip. This concession rewarded with an uptick in violence to the tune of thousands of rocket and mortar attacks on Israeli citizens, eventually prompting the IDF into Operation Cast Lead.
• a 10-month freeze on settlement construction was extended in an effort to bring Arabs to the table. Unfortunately, Abbas insisted that 100% of his demands be met before negotiating. That's not negotiating.
• Israel eliminated hundreds of checkpoints, relaxed security operations, and accepted the US role of providing weapons and training to the Palestinian Authority’s security forces. No go.
• Israel released a wealth of Palestinian terrorists in an effort to get them to the table. They were received as heroes and still no acceptance for Israeli existence. Another no-go and more rocket fire.
• Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza Strip receive one of the highest levels of aid in the world. Aid has been offered to the PNA and other Palestinian Non-governmental organizations (PNGOs) by the international community, including International Non-governmental Organizations (INGOs). The money goes into paying terrorist prisoners' salaries and compensation for their acts. It goes into building tunnels and training new terrorists.

All have been attempted. None have worked. Why? Because the Palestinian people want 100% of the land and the Palestinian leadership refuse to acknowledge the right of an Israel to exist. (unlike the 20% Arab-Israeli population of course, living in peace and prosperity) These two elements have not changed throughout the entire history of the conflict. You can blame Israel all you want, it takes two willing sides for peace. Again, in a plot of land so tiny as Israel and knowing they share it with an entity that wants none of them and 100% of the territory -- there's only so much land and security you can give up without committing suicide.

You don't need to agree with my ideas or find them feasible, but please don't claim I haven't answered your question when you actually mean that I haven't answered them to your satisfaction.

Got it. The humane "solution" here is for the Israeli people to continue living their lives, flanked by hostility.

It's not about agreeing with your ideas, it's about fleshing out any novel idea -- solutions that are not by definition the clinical insanity of merely going over the same, failed, tired old ideas. They don't work. One side wants the other dead so 100% of what they own can be taken. Nothing short of this will work. There will never be peace and our grandchildren will be bickering over this 70 years from now.

[ebuddy]

As cruel as the colonists have been deemed in their treatment of the Native American in the US, we've managed to grant them an amount of sovereignty and land far greater than what Israel has been allowed to amass in the Middle East. How much more cruel is it that Arabs won't allow Israel a chunk of land 1/3rd the size of a single US Native American reservation, a plot of land the size of New Jersey? Why must there be constant wars and turmoil and battles and strife over this tiny chunk of land? Because they cannot be allowed to exist. Period.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by OAW 

And therein lies the crux of the problem. When Jordan took the West Bank it formally annexed the territory. And granted the population there Jordanian citizenship. Whereas Israel has steadfastly chosen NOT to annex the West Bank and Gaza after it captured the territories in 1967. Because it does NOT want to grant the native population living there Israeli citizenship lest the "Jewish Majority" of the state be threatened. There are 3 options here ...

1. Establish a true Two State solution and allow Palestine to be a viable, fully functional state. Not some "kinda sorta but not really" state where Israel controls borders, security, airspace, sea access, etc.

Israel TALKS #1 but WALKS #3. It's as obvious as the day is long. And I strongly suspect that this foolhardy approach will one day result in #2 in order to remain a part of the international community of nations ... because the world's patience on the issue is waning even further in light of this latest war on the people of Gaza.

OAW

More than 2/3rds of Palestinians oppose a two-state solution. Per polling, nearly 70% of Palestinians see the restoration of all of historic Palestine to Arab control as the only legitimate national goal for their people. Israel has talked #1 and in fact walked #1, but that's not what Palestinians want. Doesn't it matter what they want? Does that not play a role in the conflict?

Why is this so impossible for people to understand? You nor I and certainly not Israel can wish enough for the Palestinians a solution they do not want.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

As cruel as the colonists have been deemed in their treatment of the Native American in the US, we've managed to grant them an amount of sovereignty and land far greater than what Israel has been allowed to amass in the Middle East. How much more cruel is it that Arabs won't allow Israel a chunk of land 1/3rd the size of a single US Native American reservation, a plot of land the size of New Jersey? Why must there be constant wars and turmoil and battles and strife over this tiny chunk of land? Because they cannot be allowed to exist. Period.

I know how some of you love infographics.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by OAW 

Well by that questionable "logic" ... Jordan and Egypt had 19 years (1948 - 1967) to create an independent Palestinian state. Whereas Israel has had 47 years (1967 - 2014) to do the same. I trust I don't have to further elaborate the point?

OAW

Israel has offered land for peace. Israel was willing to give >90% of what Arafat wanted and he said no.
The Three Nos
NO peace with Israel
NO recognition of Israel
NO negotiations with Israel

[BadKosh]

Vlad Tepes and the King of Romania had the right solution.

[Chongo]

The Romans had "Carthaginian Peace"

[Chongo]

Some food for thought:

Fighting is inconsistent with Jesus’ example but not Muhammad’s, as the Sirat Rasul Allah records Muhammad personally led 27 raids.

Jesus’ teaching on how to treat enemies:

Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, pray for them which despitefully use you (Matthew 5:44).
Resist not evil (Matthew 5:39).
If someone strikes you on one cheek, turn to them the other (Matthew 5:39).
If someone takes your coat, give them your shirt (Matthew 5:40).
If someone make you carry something one mile, carry it two (Matthew 5:41).
Forgive and you shall be forgiven (Matthew 6:14).
Judge not, that ye be not judged (Matthew 7:1).
Blessed are the peacemakers (Matthew 5:9).
Blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy (Matthew 5:7).
Ye have heard that it was said, Thou shalt not kill, but I say who ever is angry with his brother is in danger of the judgment (Matthew 5:21-22).
Treat others the same way you want them to treat you (Luke 6:27-36).
Feed the hungry, clothe the naked, visit the sick, whatever you do to the very least you have done unto me (Matthew 25:40).
Muhammad’s teaching on how to treat enemies:

Infidels are your sworn enemies (Sura 4:101).
Be ruthless to the infidels (Sura 48:29).
Make war on the infidels who dwell around you (Sura 9:123, 66:9).
Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day (Sura 9:29).
Strike off the heads of infidels in battle (Sura 47:4).
If someone stops believing in Allah, kill him (al-Bukhari 9:84:57).
Take neither the Jews nor the Christians for your friends (Sura 5:51, 60:13).
Never be a helper to the disbelievers (Sura 28:86).
Kill the disbelievers wherever we find them (Sura 2:191).
No Muslim should be killed for killing an infidel (al-Bukhari 1:3:111).
The only reward of those who make war upon Allah and His messenger will be that they will be killed or crucified, or have their hands and feet on alternate sides cut off, or will be expelled out of the land (Sura 5:33).

What motivates fundamental Muslims to violence? Where Jesus was a religious leader, Muhammad was a religious leader and a military leader, thus the effort to separate the militant aspect of Islam from the religious aspect is an attempt to split Muhammad.

The closer one follows the example of Jesus, the more peaceful is one’s motivation.

The closer one follows example of Muhammad, the more militant is one’s motivation.


Read more at Jesus and Muhammad compared

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

blah blah bleh

Whatever, I don't care what you have to say about the issue anymore, your willful ignorance regarding religion makes it impossible to talk with you about it.

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Whatever, I don't care what you have to say about the issue anymore, your willful ignorance regarding religion makes it impossible to talk with you about it.

Actually I think its your inability to address what I'm actually saying in favour of what you imagine I'm really thinking.

[Waragainstsleep]

For the record, I've lost interest in debating this subject further with you too, but I vaguely recall you mentioning in a thread long ago that you had spent time hanging out with a bunch of famous actors. Are you a Scientologist?

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

Actually I think its your inability to address what I'm actually saying in favour of what you imagine I'm really thinking.

I know what you're saying, you just don't understand how ****ed up it is.

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

For the record, I've lost interest in debating this subject further with you too, but I vaguely recall you mentioning in a thread long ago that you had spent time hanging out with a bunch of famous actors. Are you a Scientologist?

Sure, whatever.

[subego]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

As cruel as the colonists have been deemed in their treatment of the Native American in the US, we've managed to grant them an amount of sovereignty and land far greater than what Israel has been allowed to amass in the Middle East. How much more cruel is it that Arabs won't allow Israel a chunk of land 1/3rd the size of a single US Native American reservation, a plot of land the size of New Jersey? Why must there be constant wars and turmoil and battles and strife over this tiny chunk of land? Because they cannot be allowed to exist. Period.

Here's the answer directly from an Israeli who was my suitemate in college and I asked this question:

Israel is the prime real estate in the Middle East. It has more arable land and water with which to farm it per acre than anywhere else in the region. Likewise, the best land travel routes into Europe and Asia go right through there. This is the central reason it's been fought over for millennia.

[subego]

Other interesting bits from him.

He says he was taught the enemies of Israel go in this order, starting from "grudging respect" to "never trust these people"

Lebanese
Egyptians
Jordanians
Syrians

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by subego 

Here's the answer directly from an Israeli who was my suitemate in college and I asked this question:

Israel is the prime real estate in the Middle East. It has more arable land and water with which to farm it per acre than anywhere else in the region. Likewise, the best land travel routes into Europe and Asia go right through there. This is the central reason it's been fought over for millennia.

"A land flowing with milk and honey"

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by subego 

Here's the answer directly from an Israeli who was my suitemate in college and I asked this question:

Israel is the prime real estate in the Middle East. It has more arable land and water with which to farm it per acre than anywhere else in the region. Likewise, the best land travel routes into Europe and Asia go right through there. This is the central reason it's been fought over for millennia.

Apparently much has changed from 1867 when Twain went through Israel. He wrote that it was essentially a desolate wasteland, rich soil, but even the fast friends of dead soil; the cactus and olive tree had deserted the country.

In fact, most of what is commonly referred to as the "fertile crescent" is outside of Israel. Even if the importance of it has been port-related, Israel has the least of this territory as well. Even more confusing when looking at a map of the overall region, is how Israel would be noteworthy as a land-route to Europe or Asia. Africa perhaps, but Europe and Asia -- does not compute.

In short, with all due respect for your friend, this doesn't seem to even come close to explaining why all the aggression when Arabs still maintain the overwhelming majority of the fertile land and port territory.

[subego]

The Fertile Crescent is a shadow of its former self due to millennia of overuse. Same with the Nile. Likewise, you've had major changes in weather patterns over the last 2,000 years.

At the moment, southern Israel is just as desert-like as anywhere else in the ME, but northern Israel isn't.

This is partially due to the amount of good water the Israelis can get their hands on.

[subego]

The land route into Asia cuts west at the Sinai or Jordan, and avoids all the mountains in Turkey, Syria, and Lebanon.

[subego]

Also, I see the direct link to Arab anger.

The Levant gets chopped up by the European powers. The Jews get the good parts which have access to water, farmland, and ports. The Arabs who used to live in the nice parts get a pile of sand.

That's going to piss people off.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by subego 

Other interesting bits from him.

He says he was taught the enemies of Israel go in this order, starting from "grudging respect" to "never trust these people"

Lebanese
Egyptians
Jordanians
Syrians

This I can believe. Right off the bat, absolutely none of them have welcomed "refugee" Palestinians into their countries. It seems either the Palestinians have cooties or they're being exploited to prolong strife in Israel.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by subego 

Also, I see the direct link to Arab anger.

The Levant gets chopped up by the European powers. The Jews get the good parts which have access to water, farmland, and ports. The Arabs who used to live in the nice parts get a pile of sand.

That's going to piss people off.

It was Jews that actually cultivated the land and invited Arabs in to help develop it. Times were good and more Arabs continued into the territory until the tail began to wag the dog. Imagine, a union of employees eventually saying; "hey, let's take over the company". That's basically how it ran its course as I understand it and yes, I'm sure this pissed people off on both sides of the equation.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by subego 

The Fertile Crescent is a shadow of its former self due to millennia of overuse. Same with the Nile. Likewise, you've had major changes in weather patterns over the last 2,000 years.

Also, do you have something to substantiate the above? It seems to me this remains the most fertile territory throughout the ME and still has Israel enjoying the least of it.