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 > Israel

Israel (Page 3)
Thread Tools
Big Mac
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 9, 2009, 01:00 AM
 
Originally Posted by waxcrash View Post
And where do you suppose they go?
Hmm, I don't know, how about any of the 52 Islamic countries on earth, 22 of which are ethnically Arab? There is only one tiny Jewish country. And I don't think those maps are at all accurate, or else there wouldn't really be a problem, would there?

Hamas Terrorists YouTube Exposé - a must see, one of the best YouTube videos on the subject of the Arab-Israeli conflict I've yet come across!
( Last edited by Big Mac; Jan 9, 2009 at 04:41 AM. )

"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." TJ
     
Hawkeye_a
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Apr 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 9, 2009, 01:22 AM
 
I have lived in quite a few places around the world, The Arabian Peninsular and Jordan included. There is no place on earth as racist as far as religious freedoms, freedom of speech, politics, business, and society in the world today, imo. And i mean that in a BIG way.... it's not political rhetoric i refer to but everyday people as well.

1. I would be afraid to wear a Jewish star if i wanted to, or put a sticker of the Israeli flag on my car. There are no laws to protect me nor would anything be done if i was mobbed because of it. In fact this particular country does not let you enter if you have even visited Israel.
2. Citizenship is not given to non-muslims, some of whom have told me there have been living there since the 70s, and from what i can tell transformed the place from a desert to what it is today. Majority of the middle and lower classes are non muslims who barely have any rights at all.
3. Land is never sold to non muslims.
4. Majority share holders of ALL BUSINESSES have to be muslim..... by 'law'.
5. The labour class which is compromised mostly of non muslims is not allowed to form unions, and if they 'misbehave' are usually thrown into prison or deported.
6. The media, due to strict censorship, usually vilify non-muslims in any conflict.... be it Russia, China, Israel, Kashmir, Cyprus, Sudan, Indonesia, etc. Israel is never mentioned and instead referred to as 'occupied palestine'. Heck i remember when i was a kid, during the 'holy month' of Ramadan, there would be shows on public tv daily where 'scholars' would diss Christianity and other religions.... nothing wrong with freedom of speech, but for some reason no rebuttal was ever shown or published, i wonder why.
7. How many Churches and Synagogues are there in Saudi Arabia today ? How many non muslim citizens are there in those countries ? Now ask yourself how many mosques are there in Italy and Israel, etc.... and how many citizens of the non-muslim world are muslim, have full rights, can own businesses and participate in politics, etc ?

"Israel is no different than Apartheit-Southafrica". Ever take a look at yourself, your culture or your countries from the outside ?

Israel is a like a rose surrounded by thorns. And it's not because they are Jewish or Muslim or Christian, it's because her practices, her laws and her people make it so, more so than any of her neighbors, or any country in the Arab world as far as i'm concerned.... both on a political level and at ground level.
( Last edited by Hawkeye_a; Jan 9, 2009 at 06:03 AM. )
     
CRASH HARDDRIVE
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Zip, Boom, Bam
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 9, 2009, 01:42 AM
 
That map should be labeled "Palestinian loss of land that they REJECTED" certainly directly after 1947.

Talk about a people that put up with the most idiotic and ineffective political 'leaders' the world has ever seen. I mean, I tend to think we in the US have some of the most useless of the useless running our country, but the nitwits the Palestinians put up with take the proverbial cake.

That map (if actually accurate) just shows what the Palestinian people COULD have had if they'd have taken what the UN mandated to them in the first place- they outright rejected it and went after Israel- and what they've gotten in return for all the shenanigans of their so-called 'leaders' ever since.

THAT'S the 'fruits' of terrorism and placing trust in fools like Hamas, vs. what they could have had.

It's like people that were shown gleaming piles of gold behind door number 1 and massive piles of **** behind door number two, with no curtains covering either. They were asked to choose, and on the grand advice of nitwits like the rest of the Arab states and a string of beyond clueless 'leaders', they chose (and sadly, continue to choose) door number 2.
     
Big Mac
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 9, 2009, 01:43 AM
 
Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a View Post
I have lived in quite a few places around the world, The Arabian Peninsular and Jordan included. . . .
Very well said.

"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." TJ
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 9, 2009, 02:00 AM
 
Agreed.

I'm pretty bowled over.
     
k2director
Senior User
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Los Angeles
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 9, 2009, 04:35 AM
 
And, of course, the New York Times, that bastion of progressive liberal values, is beginning to howl over Israel's conduct.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/08/op...08kristof.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/08/op...halidi.html?em

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/06/op...ml?ref=opinion
     
Big Mac
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 9, 2009, 04:39 AM
 
All too predictable. The same newspaper that buried reports of the Holocaust now condemns Israel's right to defend itself.

"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." TJ
     
Sayf-Allah
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Aug 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 9, 2009, 07:04 AM
 
Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE View Post
That map should be labeled "Palestinian loss of land that they REJECTED" certainly directly after 1947.

Talk about a people that put up with the most idiotic and ineffective political 'leaders' the world has ever seen. I mean, I tend to think we in the US have some of the most useless of the useless running our country, but the nitwits the Palestinians put up with take the proverbial cake.

That map (if actually accurate) just shows what the Palestinian people COULD have had if they'd have taken what the UN mandated to them in the first place- they outright rejected it and went after Israel- and what they've gotten in return for all the shenanigans of their so-called 'leaders' ever since.

THAT'S the 'fruits' of terrorism and placing trust in fools like Hamas, vs. what they could have had.

It's like people that were shown gleaming piles of gold behind door number 1 and massive piles of **** behind door number two, with no curtains covering either. They were asked to choose, and on the grand advice of nitwits like the rest of the Arab states and a string of beyond clueless 'leaders', they chose (and sadly, continue to choose) door number 2.
Would you accept going from 93% of your country to around 43% of it because the UN General Assembly thought some (mostly) foreigners should have 56% of your country? And that 56% of the country would go to 33% of the population who mostly consisted of first and second generation inhabitants of the area?

"Learn to swim"
     
Sayf-Allah
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Aug 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 9, 2009, 07:06 AM
 
Originally Posted by Big Mac View Post
All too predictable. The same newspaper that buried reports of the Holocaust now condemns Israel's right to defend itself.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7819492.stm

This isn't defending oneself. This is barbarism. State sponsored barbarism.

"Learn to swim"
     
Taliesin
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 9, 2009, 07:59 AM
 
Originally Posted by Big Mac View Post
That's an insult to Israel, an insult to Jews, an insult to Israel's supporters, and an insult to those who suffered under Apartheid conditions in South Africa. It's also an ignorant piece of Arab propaganda, and you're better than that, I think. It shows that you've never been to Israel and have a very shallow understanding of what goes on there if you really believe that claim because...

In many ways, Arabs have more rights in Israel than Jews. The Arabists hate Israel, so they naturally compare Israel to the hated Apartheid state that South Africa formerly was, no matter how ridiculously wrong and moronic that comparison is.
I don't care for propaganda, there is too much of it on both sides, and you are expressing here a lot of israeli, even radical propaganda.

The arabs also express a lot of propaganda, there are many arabs that believe the propaganda that jews would rule the world, that they would have the financial world under control as well as the major organizations of the world, from the UN, the worldbank to the major political powers, including the White House... in fact they believe that jews are acting according to the plan of the famous fabrication "The protocols of the elders of zion", since this was taught in arabic schools as historical fact.

Sure it is also widely believed in Southamerica, Asia and espescially Japan, but those parts of the arabs that believe it do it with a special fervour, since they are neighbours of Israel and directly suffering at Israel's military and intelligence "adventures".

For them Israel is a tactic to conquer the middle-east and to squash islam so that they can go on with their supposed plan to convert the whole world to atheism for a few centuries before they would reintroduce Judaism to it. Sounds funny and hilarious but sizeable portions of the arabs believe it, and the more Israel presses the arabs militarily, the more they confirm that belief in their eyes.

So instead of drinking up propaganda (which can sometimes have an effect of keeping people organized and on line), I decided long ago to analyse the situation and facts unbiasedly, and the conclusion is imho that Israel is no better than South-Africa during apartheit.

Inside of Israel, where israeli muslims have their citizenship and are enjoying certain freedoms, the situation for arabs/muslims is a bit better than in Apartheit-Southafrica, but in the occupied territories the situation for arabs/muslims is even worse than in Apartheit-Southafrica, so because I wanted to be fair to Israel, I judged it to be overall the same as Apartheit-Southafrica, eventhough the population suffering in the occupied territories is bigger than the one enjoying a better situation inside Israel.

Here is a wikipedia-entry describing the situation in Southafrica during Apartheit:

Apartheid legislation classified inhabitants and visitors into racial groups (black, white, coloured, and Indian or Asian). South African blacks were stripped of their citizenship, legally becoming citizens of one of ten tribally based and nominally self-governing bantustans (tribal homelands), four of which became nominally independent states. The homelands occupied relatively small and economically unproductive areas of the country. Many black South Africans, however, never resided in their identified "homelands". The homeland system disenfranchised black people residing in "white South Africa"[2] by restricting their voting rights to their own identified black homeland. The government segregated education, medical care, and other public services, and provided black people with services greatly inferior to those of whites, and, to a lesser extent, to those of Indians and coloureds. The education system practised in 'black schools' was designed to prepare blacks for lives as a labouring class.

The system of apartheid sparked significant internal resistance.[3] The government responded to a series of popular uprisings and protests with police brutality, which in turn increased local support for the armed resistance struggle.[4] In response to popular and political resistance, the apartheid government resorted to detentions without trial, torture, censorship, and the banning of political opposition from organisations such as the African National Congress (ANC), the Black Consciousness Movement (BCM), the Azanian People's Organisation (APO), the Pan Africanist Congress (PAC), and the United Democratic Front (UDF), which were popularly considered liberation movements. Despite suffering extreme repression and exile, these organisations maintained popular support for the anti-apartheid struggle in South Africa and forged connections with the international anti-apartheid movement during this period.[5][6]

White South Africa became increasingly militarised, embarking on the so-called border war with the covert support of the USA, fighting Cuban and FAPLA forces (People's Armed Forces for the Liberation of Angola), the armed wing of the Popular Movement for the Liberation of Angola (MPLA) forces in Angola, and later sending the South African Defence Force into townships. The anti-apartheid organisations had strong links with other liberation struggles in Africa, and often saw their armed resistance to apartheid as part of the socialist struggle against capitalism.[7]
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apartheid

So what do we have?:

- A classification according to skin-colour. That has been replaced in Israel by a classification according to religion.
The idea was in southafrica to ensure that the whites remained influential and in power, fearing that the more reproducing blacks could outnumber and replace them. The zionists in Israel fear the same and therefore not only drove out palestinians from their homes and land but even after conquering and occupying more land, denying to give the palestinians found there citizenship.

In fact even the palestinians that were not driven out from Israel, remained under military regulation until 1964.

- Segregated education, medical care and other services, as well as providing way inferior services to blacks.
All this is completely true regarding the palestinians in the occupied territories, but also, although better, with the arabs inside Israel. Jews and arabs visit different schools, funds are considerably lower for the arabic infrastructure and communities than for jewish ones.

- Detention without trial, torture, banning of oppositional organisations, espescially of liberation and resistance-movements. Yes, yes and yes, all there.

- Increasing militarisation, border-wars with covert support of the US battling guerillia-forces, sending Defense force into townships. Feels like a deja-vue.

Taliesin
     
OldManMac
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: I don't know anymore!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 9, 2009, 09:14 AM
 
All because of beliefs in mythical beings. Amazing.
     
Monique  (op)
Mac Elite
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: back home
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 9, 2009, 01:50 PM
 
[QUOTE=waxcrash;3786276]And where do you suppose they go?

In hell I hope since they are too lazy to do something constructive and make the place they live in a better place for their children. They prefer to complain and do nothing.

--------------------------------------
When Israel started their country; it was only a desert and nothing else. They made it into a thriving nation.
---------------------------------
The US are not funding Israel (I would like to know to whom the cheque was made to, when was the last payment??)

The rich Jews in the U.S. are supporting them with their dollars and children who go to Israel and do their mitzvah.
     
Railroader
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Indy.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 9, 2009, 02:15 PM
 
Originally Posted by Taliesin View Post
So what do we have?:

- A classification according to skin-colour. That has been replaced in Israel by a classification according to religion.

Taliesin
I hope you are just as outraged about Egypt, Lebanon, India, and all other countries with policies that are strictly pro-Islam and attack and demoralize all other religions. They are all FAR FAR FAR worse than Israel in regards to what you are concerned about. They are also much larger and far more people are persecuted.

But I doubt it.
     
Chuckit
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 9, 2009, 02:41 PM
 
Originally Posted by OldManMac View Post
All because of beliefs in mythical beings. Amazing.
What's that got to do with anything?
Chuck
___
"Instead of either 'multi-talented' or 'multitalented' use 'bisexual'."
     
olePigeon
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 9, 2009, 06:13 PM
 
Originally Posted by Chuckit View Post
What's that got to do with anything?
Their mythological being promised the same plot of land to two separate groups of people. Oops.
"…I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than
you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods,
you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen F. Roberts
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 9, 2009, 08:59 PM
 
Originally Posted by olePigeon View Post
Their mythological being promised the same plot of land to two separate groups of people. Oops.
The land was promised to Abraham and is heirs. Ismael was not Abraham's heir, Isaac was, and Jacob(Israel) his.
     
olePigeon
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 9, 2009, 09:58 PM
 
Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
The land was promised to Abraham and is heirs. Ismael was not Abraham's heir, Isaac was, and Jacob(Israel) his.
Where does it say only his heirs? Seems to me God promised the land to both Ishmael and Isaac. Anyone here a practicing Jew?
"…I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than
you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods,
you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen F. Roberts
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 9, 2009, 10:23 PM
 
Originally Posted by olePigeon View Post
Where does it say only his heirs? Seems to me God promised the land to both Ishmael and Isaac. Anyone here a practicing Jew?
Abrahamic Covenant
Genesis 12 / Hebrew - English Bible / Mechon-Mamre
Genesis 12-17
To give Abraham's descendants all the land from the river (or wadi) of Egypt to the Euphrates (15:13-21). Later, this land, the Promised Land, or parts thereof, was named the Land of Israel.

Covenant with Jacob
Genesis 28:12-15
Genesis 28 / Hebrew - English Bible / Mechon-Mamre

* To give him and his descendants the land on which he is lying.
* That his descendants will be like the dust of the earth.
* That all peoples on earth will be blessed through him and his offspring.
* To watch over him wherever he goes.
Covenant with Lot

The covenant with Lot is a covenant independent of the Abrahamic Covenant. God promises the land of the Moabites (Ar) and the land of the Ammonites to the descendants of Lot as a possession (Deuteronomy 2:9, 2:19). David and Solomon were only allowed to rule over these lands as third and fourth generation descendants of Ruth, a Moabite.

( Last edited by Chongo; Jan 9, 2009 at 10:39 PM. )
     
OldManMac
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: I don't know anymore!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 9, 2009, 11:44 PM
 
Originally Posted by Chuckit View Post
What's that got to do with anything?
The animosity between the Jews and the Arabs is based on both groups believing in their own mythical being. It isn't hard to understand - religions cause problems between groups who believe their god is the only one, or the best one, or the most potent one, or whatever other reason they need. It's been going on since man made up a god to attempt to understand the world around him.
     
CRASH HARDDRIVE
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Zip, Boom, Bam
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 10, 2009, 12:42 AM
 
Originally Posted by Sayf-Allah View Post
Would you accept going from 93% of your country to around 43% of it because the UN General Assembly thought some (mostly) foreigners should have 56% of your country? And that 56% of the country would go to 33% of the population who mostly consisted of first and second generation inhabitants of the area?
I'm sure it's been explained to you a million times that the current disputed land is actually only a small portion of the original Palestine (which by the way was never a country) and that most of it is actually Jordan. I'm sure it's also been explained to you that the establishment of a Jewish homeland goes all the way back to The Balfour Declaration of 1917.

The 1947 UN partition was the result of the British mandate expiring- but the issue had been around for decades, and other partition attempts had been made before. You're just another person banging your head against a wall trying to say that Jews never had any historic claim to the area, and that before the '47 partition there was some such mythical place as a nation called Palestine where Jews were all foreigners. It doesn't even make sense, as the entire region is the birthplace of all 3 Abrahamic religions. To try and suddenly pretend Jews can't claim a historic presence in the region (and therefore, every bit as much claim to the original Palestine as Muslims), is just absurd.

The simple truth is, the Arab populations just want to pretend that the entire region (and in fact, the entire Middle East) is theirs, that there's no problem what-so-ever with them having 30+ Islamic states, but somehow it's outrageous for there to be a Jewish state -even in the birthplace of that religion. Hypocrisy apparently knows no bounds among the Islamic states.

So anyway, to answer your question in actual historic content (not based on a bunch of silly propaganda), yes, I (and I believe any rational person) would rather have the land as partitioned by the UN, rather than NOTHING! I'd rather have the land as partitioned by the UN rather than an endless, stupid war. I'd rather have the land as partitioned by the UN rather than a bunch of beyond useless terrorists using me and my family as human shields, and achieving NOTHING other than having EVEN MORE land taken away!


I don't even get how you can reject the partition plan, use what was given to you against Israel, then complain when Israel beats you at the wars and attacks YOU started, and takes the land you've REJECTED and shown you'll use for nothing but a staging ground for more attacks!

Yes, even if I were of the mindset to disagree with the 1947 partition, I'd have accepted it so at least I was starting with SOMETHING rather than nothing! Even if I had some burning hatred of Israel, an Israel within the boundaries laid out in 1947 would have been preferable to an Israel that's far larger because it's seized what you've REJECTED and used against it! You see, rational people could figure that out. The Islamic side that has waged war against Israel and encouraged the Palestinian side to take their original "Door #2 -the pile of steaming ****" choice, has never been rational about any of this, and would rather see Palestinians die by the thousands merely to use it as political fodder against Israel, than EVER have any sort of peaceful (and realistic) resolution to the dispute.
     
dcmacdaddy
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Madison, WI
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 10, 2009, 01:05 AM
 
I haven't bothered to read any of the posts but by the initial date of the thread I am assuming the thread is in response to Israel's attack of Gaza. So, I will state again the same thing I always state when this issue comes up.


I hope all parties involved keep fighting and killing one another until everyone who wants to fight is dead or has lost their taste for fighting. I don't care who "wins" in the fighting as long as those who have the desire to fight keep doing so until they are killed.
One should never stop striving for clarity of thought and precision of expression.
I would prefer my humanity sullied with the tarnish of science rather than the gloss of religion.
     
olePigeon
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 10, 2009, 02:35 AM
 
Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
Abrahamic Covenant
Genesis 12 / Hebrew - English Bible / Mechon-Mamre
Genesis 12-17
To give Abraham's descendants all the land from the river (or wadi) of Egypt to the Euphrates (15:13-21). Later, this land, the Promised Land, or parts thereof, was named the Land of Israel.
Ishmael was the son of Abra(ha)m, ergo a descendent. I asked where it says that only his heirs get the land. God promised that same general area to Hagar and Ishmael. Abraham would be the father of two nations. Self-fulfilling prophecies are rather amusing since Ishmael and Isaac are at war.
"…I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than
you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods,
you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen F. Roberts
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 10, 2009, 07:25 AM
 
Originally Posted by olePigeon View Post
Ishmael was the son of Abra(ha)m, ergo a descendent. I asked where it says that only his heirs get the land. God promised that same general area to Hagar and Ishmael. Abraham would be the father of two nations. Self-fulfilling prophecies are rather amusing since Ishmael and Isaac are at war.
about Hagar
According to Genesis, God commanded Abraham to obey Sarah's wishes and expel Hagar and Ishmael into the wilderness alone. Abraham is reluctant to send his son away, but God promised to make a great nation out of Ishmael, because he was Abraham's seed.
As far as heirs are concerned, where does it say every descendant is an heir? Wills stipulate who and who is not an heir.
( Last edited by Chongo; Jan 10, 2009 at 11:54 AM. )
     
Wiskedjak
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 10, 2009, 12:27 PM
 
Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
The land was promised to Abraham and is heirs. Ismael was not Abraham's heir, Isaac was, and Jacob(Israel) his.
How many of today's Jews are heirs of Abraham?
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 10, 2009, 12:45 PM
 
Well... any notion of stakes to land won't matter much as long as the rocket-firing continues. The rocket-firing must stop entirely. No country would allow for this degree of defiance and neither should Israel.
ebuddy
     
Wiskedjak
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 10, 2009, 01:14 PM
 
Originally Posted by Big Mac View Post
Hmm, I don't know, how about any of the 52 Islamic countries on earth, 22 of which are ethnically Arab? There is only one tiny Jewish country.
This is such a foolish argument. One could just as easily argue, using similar logic, that the Jews should just relocate to the US. It may not be a Jewish state, but it's obviously quite supportive of the Jews and there's more than enough room; possibly more supportive of the Jews than other Islamic states are of the Palestinians. And, the argument would be just as foolish.

The reality is that neither of them are going away, and they're just going to have to learn to live with each other.
     
olePigeon
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 10, 2009, 07:17 PM
 
Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
about Hagar


As far as heirs are concerned, where does it say every descendant is an heir? Wills stipulate who and who is not an heir.
God promised to both Ishmael and Isaac that they would become nations in the same general area.

No one is going to solve the argument on this forum if the poor dumb bastards haven't figured it out for the past 2000 years.
"…I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than
you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods,
you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen F. Roberts
     
Rev-O
Mac Elite
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Parker, Colorado
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 10, 2009, 09:54 PM
 
Originally Posted by OldManMac View Post
All because of beliefs in mythical beings. Amazing.
The belief in an non-existent god/allah doesn't necessarily give rise to thesw actions, I think it just gives people an excuse to behave how they would like to. Remove religion from the equation and there would still be people dying, the reason would just change. People are pretty good at finding excuses to kill other people, whether it be skin color, religion, ethnic background, or whatever.
Curse your sudden but inevitable betrayal!
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 10, 2009, 10:26 PM
 
Originally Posted by Rev-O View Post
The belief in an non-existent god/allah doesn't necessarily give rise to thesw actions, I think it just gives people an excuse to behave how they would like to. Remove religion from the equation and there would still be people dying, the reason would just change. People are pretty good at finding excuses to kill other people, whether it be skin color, religion, ethnic background, or whatever.
No kidding. Stalin, Pol Pot, Castro, Matsui, etc..
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Big Mac
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 10, 2009, 10:27 PM
 
Originally Posted by Wiskedjak View Post
This is such a foolish argument. One could just as easily argue, using similar logic, that the Jews should just relocate to the US. It may not be a Jewish state, but it's obviously quite supportive of the Jews and there's more than enough room; possibly more supportive of the Jews than other Islamic states are of the Palestinians. And, the argument would be just as foolish.
Foolish, eh? So Jews shouldn't be allowed self-determination when Arabs are, 22 times over, and Muslims in total are, 52 times over? America does not, by any stretch of the imagination, count as self-determination for the Jewish people, and even if there were a country that wanted to set aside land for the Jewish people it still would not be a substitute for our ancient and only homeland, the land of Israel. If you want to get a sense of why, pick up any text on Judaism and you'll see how important the land of Israel is to the religion. That's where Judaism's sacred cities and sacred sites all are - sure, we have ancient synagogues and cemeteries all over the world, but the truly sacred places are all in Israel, with the holiest city and land being Jerusalem. Jerusalem is referenced hundreds of times directly by name in the Hebrew Scriptures. It is the only place where the Temple can be rebuilt. All of this may be meaningless to those who don't have any respect for Judaism or religion in general, but it is hugely important to religious Jews, religious Christians, and many others.

Those who call themselves "Palestinian" are ethnically, culturally, linguistically and mostly religiously indistinguishable from their brothers and sister Arabs in those 22 Arab countries. The Arab world could easily carve out for the so-called "Palestinians" a sizable country in a sparsely populated part of Arabia for them to settle in. They need not exist in and make war on Israel. What I propose is a just and comprehensive way to settle the conflict, whereas what you propose is an endless perpetuation of the conflict, since the Jews in the land of Israel will not return to exile and the Arabs steadfastly refuse to live in peace but instead choose to constantly terrorize Israel. Trust me, Wiskedjak, I'm not the foolish one in this argument. Oh, and lest you think that simply relocating the troublesome Jews to some other part of the world would automatically bring peace, the leader of Hezbollah has said that if all Jews simply relocate to Israel, it will save Hezbollah the trouble of targeting the rest of the Jewish population world-wide!

As for Ishmael, if we want to get into the purely religious debate, God promised to make him a great nation but did not grant him the land of Canaan. Ishmael was sent away with his mother in part so that he would not be able to make an inheritance claim of that kind. The promise of the land of Canaan passed from Abraham, to Issac, to Jacob/Israel, and to his sons, the children of Israel. And that was about 2,700 years before the advent of Islam. God has chosen to grant the children of Ishmael more than 99% of the Middle East, but that's not good enough for them apparently.

Btw, did anyone watch this video I linked to above yet? I'd like to hear some argue against this person's view: Hamas Terrorists YouTube Exposé (be sure to watch the closing remarks!)
( Last edited by Big Mac; Jan 11, 2009 at 09:13 AM. )

"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." TJ
     
Hawkeye_a
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Apr 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 13, 2009, 01:31 PM
 
The difference..... YouTube: Charlie Rose interviews Yitzhak Rabin(1994)

If The Prime Minister of Israel can call an Israeli, Jew and group of people in Israel terrorists(even comparing them to Hammas) and outlawing them for killing innocent muslim civilians, why cant the Muslim world ever do the same to terrorist groups which operate freely in their societies ? Hammas, Hez, AQ, IJ, etc, etc, etc, etc...... instead they win 'elections'.

Some claim the extremists are a tiny minority.... where's the majority (who are supposedly against them) ? Right now i'll settle for the leadership of the self-proclaimed-refugees, the Lebanese, Egyptian, Jordanian, or Syrian, etc... to declare these groups terrorists, outlaw them, are help get rid of them.

In the name of peace......
( Last edited by Hawkeye_a; Jan 13, 2009 at 02:13 PM. )
     
Big Mac
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 14, 2009, 05:24 AM
 
You'd think the countries of the world could come together and do something exactly like that, Hawkeye. The only way piracy on the high seas was brought under control was through an accord of the sovereign countries on earth to completely outlaw the commission of piracy, to agree to Universal Jurisdiction over the prosecution of piracy, and to punish acts of piracy severely. Terrorism could be eradicated if the same type of international accord prohibiting it were to be reached, but I suppose the world has not yet reached the breaking point required to come to a similarly broad consensus. It doesn't make a lot of sense to me from a politically idealist standpoint that countries can't come together to eradicate this transcendent threat to civilization, but from a politically realist standpoint it stands to reason that certain countries benefit from terrorism.

However, on another point, Rabin was no hero. Not by a longshot. He murdered fellow Jews as a military captain during the war of independence because they were political rivals. He sank their boat and refused to give them aid, a cold blooded killer of his brothers. And he embarked on the ignominious, false peace process, which severely weakened the Israeli position, falsely legitimized the previously exiled, neutralized grandfather of Arab terrorism, Arafat, YM"SH, whose hands were unrepentantly soaked in Jewish blood through the day he died, and falsely legitimized to a greater extent than any other single historical development the Arab terrorist "Palestinian" identity and Jew-murdering aspirations. It may be said that in a certain respect, Rabin was a far worse figure than even Arafat. Arafat was the scum of the earth, but nothing better could have been expected of an inveterate liar, terrorist gang leader, grand thief and mass murder. Rabin was supposedly a dignified, elder statesman of Israel, looking out for Israel's long term best interest. But in fact, his actions, as well as the actions of the Israeli and American Jewish left in foisting on Israel the plan for its piecemeal destruction, succeeded in undermining Israel more than any of the acts of terrorism Arafat could have executed on his own and without their help. Rabin mocked as chickens the Israeli-right who warned against Oslo - he said that they would have no future if Oslo could succeed. Well, Oslo succeeded in a big way, but its success was in murdering and maiming substantially more Jews, giving away to the enemy land for no peace whatsoever, and furthering the interests of Arafat's terrorist arms, Fatah and Hamas. Rabin should not have been assassinated, but he should only be counted among the least of Israel's leaders, rather than a great statesman, peace maker or martyr, since he was none of those things according to any legitimate application of those terms.
( Last edited by Big Mac; Jan 14, 2009 at 05:50 AM. )

"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." TJ
     
Taliesin
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 17, 2009, 08:36 AM
 
Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a View Post
The difference..... YouTube: Charlie Rose interviews Yitzhak Rabin(1994)

If The Prime Minister of Israel can call an Israeli, Jew and group of people in Israel terrorists(even comparing them to Hammas) and outlawing them for killing innocent muslim civilians, why cant the Muslim world ever do the same to terrorist groups which operate freely in their societies ? Hammas, Hez, AQ, IJ, etc, etc, etc, etc...... instead they win 'elections'.

Some claim the extremists are a tiny minority.... where's the majority (who are supposedly against them) ? Right now i'll settle for the leadership of the self-proclaimed-refugees, the Lebanese, Egyptian, Jordanian, or Syrian, etc... to declare these groups terrorists, outlaw them, are help get rid of them.

In the name of peace......
That is not quite correct. A lot of arab states have terrorists within their borders and they call them out as such, condemn and persecute them throughout the islamic world, mostly because these terrorists threaten to down the pro-US-regimes.

What we call terrorists are nothing other than unlicensed militias, usually members of a religious or a nationalistic movement, or a mixture of both. Sometimes they are very idealistic and extremistic, since they usually can see only black and white and see themselves, as the good side, in a fight against a more powerful evil. Those entities exist in most societies, but they are checked, controlled and kept harmless, wherever a strong state to uphold the rule of law and the monopoly on violence exists, and where most citizens feel that they are represented, free to pursue their life and protected...

So, democratic societies, where freedom of speech and the ability to candidate exists, extremistic militias usually don't receive enough support and resonation by communities that they need to flourish and gather momentum.

Things though are obviously different under dictatorships or authoritary regimes, espescially when the people suspect that the regime is being installed and kept alive by foreign powers, and even much more so, where a foreign power is directly occupying and oppressing a sizeable population.

Israel is such a latter case, not only having driven out palestinians, but expanding its territory through warfare and occupying. Occupying land is not illegal in itself, during war it's allowed to temporarily occupy land, but once the hostilities are over, occupied territory has to be left completely. Israel chose to continue the occupation beyond the war-phase and even more criminal actively supported the development of israeli settlements in the occupied territories, while oppressing the native population, dispossessing them gradually, taking the ressources for its own citizens and denying them any selfdetermination-rights, as well as the right to property and freedom to travel within the occupied territory as well as outside of it.

In such a situation, with no own army to protect them, with no state in which they can determine their political will, no representation... resistance is not only legal but the only course left.

Resistance though can be crushed, and that's what Israel tried to do, using its army against demonstrators during the first uprising. Obviously the casualties among the palestinians were high, nearly all of them civilians, since israeli soldiers were ordered to shoot at demonstrators throwing stones with live ammunition. When that led to an international outcry, Rabin, may God burn him in hell forever for that one, ordered Israel's soldiers to not kill the stone-throwing palestinian children and youths but instead to break their bones and limbs.

This crushing down of the uprising with the might of an army, drove the palestinians into the arms of the militant organizations filling up their ranks.

Reprisals, just like resistance, are legal, when they aren't revenge or retaliation but a way to achieve a sort of equilibrium with an opponent, who is in breach of international law in his use of force, in order to deter the opponent. The palestinians led by Hamas chose the suicide-bombings against Israel's civilians and army as a reprisal-tool. I think that the suicide-bombers themselves wanted to exact revenge, having lost relatives at Israel's hand, but the organization equipping and sending them seeked a tool of reprisal.


But it were not the uprising, the resistance nor the reprisals that convinced Rabin to engage the palestinians to achieve a peaceful agreement, although it factored in. It was what happened in 1990 in Apartheid-Southafrica, an ally of Israel by the way, where a minority of whites ruled over a majority of blacks, but ultimately had to give in and allow the ANC to participate in politics, entering the phase of the end of apartheid.

That was the major shock, troubling Rabin's strategic thoughts. He foresaw that Greater Israel was not achievable, since the palestinians wouldn't want to leave voluntarily despite many oppressive methods used to achieve that, and that the demographic development favoured the palestinians leading to a majority of the palestinians in the foreseeable future. His greatest fear was that the palestinians would then give up violent resistance and instead would organize a popular movement in the same sense as the southafricans did, portraying Israel as an apartheid-state and calling for "one man-one vote"-equality, which would find much international support.

Together with Barak he then envisioned to annex 80% of the israeli settlements in the Westbank and to form a dependent palestinian state with no army in the rest,with Arafat policing the palestinians, while Israel controlls the borders and exploits most of the ressources.

This was what Rabin wanted to achieve in the Oslo-peace-process, but if the palestinians proved not to accept that deal, despite the considerable pressure by the US on Arafat to take it, Rabin and Barak developed a plan-B: By claiming that the palestinians wouldn't want peace, Israel could withdraw unilaterally, annex what it wants to annex and build a wall around it and rejecting any responsibility for the wellbeing or fate of the palestinians thereafter.
A commitee was tasked with developing the details of the wall-project.

But before bringing either plan to fruition, Rabin got assassinated by a radical orthodox jew, who misunderstood him as being a traitor, which isn't surprising, since the Likud and even more rightwing-parties and organizations still dreamt of Greater Israel and organized protests against Rabin and the Oslo-peace-process, with Netanjahu and Sharon as the most outspoken in that regard.

Of course, once in power, Sharon would do everything to abolish the Oslo-peace-process and to set Israel again on the path to Greater Israel... and he did so by ordering the reoccupation of the Westbank.

Only after US-pressure and Olmert convincing Sharon that Rabin was right did he decide to pursue Rabin's plan-B, unilateral withdrawal and building the wall, to prepare for annexing the major settlements in the Westbank, in order to freeze the peace-process and to create a permanent solution on Israel's terms, instead of a negotiated peace that would call for far more concessions.

But the US is all the time making pressure to achieve a negotiated peace with the road-map, mostly because the US has an image to lose as well as arab allies to comfort.

So we are here with an Israel trying to avoid the Apartheid-Southafrica-fate and therefore keen to separate from the arabs, both the palestinians in the occupied territories (and also those in the refuggeecamps in the neighbouring countries) and israeli muslims, in order to remain exclusively jewish.

The arabic states around Israel also would like to be exclusively of one faith, so in that wish alone all of them are equal. This wish is not majorly religiously motivated, since most people in Israel are agnostics or atheists, while most of the orthodoxs are not interested in politics and simply wait for God's actions or until a revelation or prophet comes up or the end or whatever..., while among the muslims jews and christians are called to be protected as people of the book.

Majorly this exclusive-drive comes from modern nationalism and likes at times to instrumentalise religion for that cause. Ironically the fact that Israel is a democracy (at least among jews, israeli muslims and even more palestinians are discrminated) and wants to be and remain one, this nationalism-drive developed a specific ferocity, since Israel feels that time plays against it, because palestinians are reproducing at a higher rate as jews and so the situation of jews ruling over a majority of muslims would quickly arise... either leading to a secular Israel for all people or to an Israel that can't be called a democracy anymore.

To avoid that dilemma, urgent measures were called for.

The arab states don't feel that sort of urgency, because a)the minorities in their country don't reproduce faster than the majority and b)the arab states aren't democracies anyway.

That means that the fact of being and wanting to be a jewish democracy forces Israel's hand to become more agressive against the palestinians.

Sure, simply seeking seperation should warm up Israel to the two-state-solution, but another factor complicates the deal: Israel not only wants seperation, it wants also to keep control of the most fertile parts of the Westbank, of its ressources and water, and if somehow possible also of the oil and gas (six years ago, oil and gas was confirmed for Gaza, which could become a major source of income for a future palestinian state)under Gaza and at its shore.

That's why Israel isn't sympathetic to an independent and viable palestinian state in the Westbank and Gaza with control of its own borders and the natural rights to develop and exploit their own ressources. Instead Israel would like a dependent demilitarised palestinian autonomy, in which the palestinians can govern their own cities but otherwise leave control of the best parts of land, borders and airspace to Israel, and which Israel delivers with water and electricity.

Overall I talked about the strategic thinking of the israeli governments, which define their oppressive and exploitive policies regarding the palestinians, causing a lowscale but armed resistance.

But what about the israeli citizens, the population, without their active support, Israel's government couldn't work towards their strategic goals. The population has to be convinced and mobilised but not by telling them the truth. Truth only hinders, since the morality of the masses would stand against it. Instead Israel's governments since decades ago, instrumentalise something that is in the psyche of the israeli population and the jews worldwide:

The jews are traumatised by the genocide, holocaust, in Europe, and the zionistic organizations worldwide are instrumentalising that trauma, but in Israel it goes beyond that, with the means of a state, whole generations get indoctrinated in school to keep that trauma alive and to turn it into a sort of ideology. Classes after classes get shown the holocaust-videos, museums visited, of course the concentration-camps and Israel is being portrayed as the safe haven, the one country where jews can defend themselves, the one country to make sure that such a genocide never reoccurs, and every enemy is being presented as a reincarnation of Hitler.

Now with Israel's state and army, the israelis can do what the jews in Europe couldn't do, prevent the holocaust, defeat Hitler... as if to turn back time..

In fact the time gets not only turned back to Hitler, it gets turned back for millennias to ancient Israel and the enslavement in Egypt, the capturing in Babylon and espescially the destruction of Jerusalem by the romes, classes upon classes get toured around Jerusalem and taught about the last stand of jewish rebels against the roman army until they couldn't hold on anymore and committed mass-sucide to prevent capturing or killing by the romans.

The armed resistance by the palestinians is not then seen as a reaction to the occupation, the denying of self-determination, the robbing of rights, property, land and lifes, no, Israel gets seen as occupied and beleaguered, and the threat by guerillia-organizations blown way out of proportion, a Goliath against David-Israel.

Only time might heal the jews' trauma and psyche, but the international community should condemn Israel's instrumentalising and forming the trauma into an ideology for its own political and strategic goals and force Israel either to become a secular state for all people, including the natives, the palestinians or to force it to withdraw to the pre67-borders and establish an independent palestinian state for the currently occupied palestinians and refuggees in the whole of Gaza, Westbank with East-Jerusalem as its capital.

Taliesin
     
CRASH HARDDRIVE
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Zip, Boom, Bam
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 17, 2009, 05:28 PM
 
Originally Posted by Taliesin View Post
Occupying land is not illegal in itself, during war it's allowed to temporarily occupy land, but once the hostilities are over, occupied territory has to be left completely.
And therein lies the problem with your entire argument. The 'hostilities' such as terror groups using the land to attack Israel have NEVER ended. That's the whole problem.

So, you don't get 'your' land back when all you do is use it to attack Israel.

This has been proven time and time to be exactly the case every time Israel does concede and give land back.
     
Big Mac
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 17, 2009, 11:41 PM
 
And on top of all that, Israel quit Gaza with its disengagement four years ago. There's no way to call it an "occupation" (even though Gaza is also technically and morally Israel's) when Israel disengaged and made the area Judenrein. So you really need to come up with a different lame excuse, Taliesin.

"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." TJ
     
Hawkeye_a
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Apr 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 18, 2009, 12:37 AM
 
The problem with the Arabs and the Muslim world in general, as pointed out in my earlier post, is their overwhelming racist nature towards non muslims. The economic, social and cultural bias could be overlooked(personally), but not when it endangered the lives of everyone else. Something the rest of the world, to different degrees, has moved away from.

Whether it be the constant state of conflict on the borders with virtually every other culture on this planet(African, Russian, Jews, Christians, Hindus, S.E. Asians, Americans, Chinese, Baltic, Buddhists, Australian, Lebanese, Armenian, etc,etc) or their way of FORCING their beliefs and way of life on others (non muslim women being forced to wear hijabs in SA, etc,etc), i cannot in right conscience support that perpetually stagnant and archaic form of society.

A great interview with Simon Peres by Aljazeera of all all organizations:
Shimon Peres
     
Big Mac
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 18, 2009, 01:44 AM
 

"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." TJ
     
Hawkeye_a
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Apr 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 18, 2009, 04:37 PM
 
Bridget Gabriel, a Lebanese-Christian, who witnessed the ethnic cleansing of Lebanon has this to say.

Brigitte Gabriel on "Palestinians"

I'm truly shocked that more people don't speak about this, like she has. Kudos to her. Although i suspect that people are just afraid of the death threats that usually follow outspoken criticism of the Muslim world.
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 19, 2009, 12:27 PM
 
Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a View Post
Bridget Gabriel, a Lebanese-Christian, who witnessed the ethnic cleansing of Lebanon has this to say.

Brigitte Gabriel on "Palestinians"

I'm truly shocked that more people don't speak about this, like she has. Kudos to her. Although i suspect that people are just afraid of the death threats that usually follow outspoken criticism of the Muslim world.
Bridget Gabriel has a unique perspective as she has been an eye witness of the Lebanese Civil War, the result of the expulsion of the PLO from Jordan after "Black September"
     
Hawkeye_a
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Apr 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 19, 2009, 03:22 PM
 
It's this kind of sh*t that really ticks me off to the core...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123180033807075069.html

Why dont we see this on the news ? or the reports from Sderot when they take cover from the missiles ? When 9/11 happened, the campus islamic center had police guarding it due to fear of a backlash(which never happened, and rightly so).

Why is this behavior rampant in the free world ? This clearly crosses the line of free speech and imo classifies as hate crimes. why arent these people arrested, thrown in prison or deported ? this is totally unacceptable behavior.

While minorities(and sometimes majorities) are under constant and unrelenting discrimination all over the Muslim world, why is the free world 'importing' this mentality and empowering them with citizenship and rights that are not afforded to us in their regions ? When John Howard was the PM i remember watching a news report ....while going to his car, after voicing support for Israel, Palestinians(who are probably unfortunately Australian) started throwing rocks at him in broad day light !!! what kind of "peaceful"/"victimized" people are these who are usually given 'refugee' status in the free world?

I am shocked at the world's response to Israel's mission in Gaza.
( Last edited by Hawkeye_a; Jan 20, 2009 at 01:57 PM. )
     
Hawkeye_a
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Apr 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 19, 2009, 03:29 PM
 
Big Mac,
Who do you think is the best candidate for PM of Israel ?

I guess Livni, Nethanyahu and Barak are the candidates, right ? Personally, i feel, Nethanyahu would be the best choice in lieu of the new democratic/liberal president in the U.S.(Obama).

Cheers
( Last edited by Hawkeye_a; Jan 20, 2009 at 02:00 PM. )
     
Taliesin
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 22, 2009, 08:06 AM
 
Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a View Post

I am shocked at the world's response to Israel's mission in Gaza.

I agree, I'm shocked too. The response and reaction is way too friendly to Israel. No economic sanctions, no enforcement to pay reparations to the Gazans, no weapon- and other embargoes against Israel or even the revocation of diplomatic relations, pathetic.

With this mild response Israel will only feel encouraged to act in similar manner in the future.

The international community has denied the elected government of Hamas political recognition and with the backing and encouragement of the US Israel and Egypt put up a siege, a blockade against Gaza, in order to collectively punish the Gazans because Hamas rules there.

It was justified with the fact that Hamas doesn't recognize Israel and views all of Israel as occupied Palestine (which is mostly right with the exception of 7% of the land) and also with the fact that Hamas doesn't want to renounce violence as a legitimate method to resist the occupation.

So before Hamas changes its charter and changes its definition of occupation to mean only the territory that is defined by international law to be occupied, there is hardly a possibility for a recognition of a sole Hamas-rule. The only possibility without a fundamental change of the charter would be if Hamas formed a unity-government sharing the power with Fatah under the umbrella of the PLO or PA, which in turn recognizes Israel and abstains from violence.

This handling by the international community should be applied on Israel as well, if Likud wins the next election. The government should not be recognized and all economic, political and military relations with Israel should be suspended until the Likud-party buries its dream of a Greater Israel and its intentions and policies to keep the Westbank and Gaza occupied, until it renounces violence (including incursions, bombardments, penetrating the palestinians' airspace, dispossessions, driving outs...) and until it officially declares to take steps to withdraw the israeli settlers in the Westbank and to help in creating a souvereign palestinian state in all of the Westbank and Gaza with East-Jerusalem as its capital, which it will recognise by making peace with it and the arabic neighbours.

Taliesin
     
Monique  (op)
Mac Elite
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: back home
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 22, 2009, 11:58 AM
 
It is such a false argument that the only reason Hamas is throwing shells over Israel is that Israel is occupying Gaza. What was the reason at the beginning of the creation of Israel when 6 arab countries attack them. Then, Isarael was not well armed; Golda Meir came to the U.S. and beg rich people to help them if not they would disappeared.

Just like with Northern Ireland, terrorists over would tell the British government if you do not withdraw your troops we will regret it; following was a series of bombs that would kill innocent people.

Hamas if just a terrorist organization and his cowardy members should all be shot and maybe peace will have a chance.

Some of you mentioned Egypt and Jordan and the lasting peace between them and Israel; which proves that the problem is not from the Israeli side but from the terrorist organization called Hamas.
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 22, 2009, 12:32 PM
 
Originally Posted by Monique View Post
It is such a false argument that the only reason Hamas is throwing shells over Israel is that Israel is occupying Gaza. What was the reason at the beginning of the creation of Israel when 6 arab countries attack them. Then, Isarael was not well armed; Golda Meir came to the U.S. and beg rich people to help them if not they would disappeared.

Just like with Northern Ireland, terrorists over would tell the British government if you do not withdraw your troops we will regret it; following was a series of bombs that would kill innocent people.

Hamas if just a terrorist organization and his cowardy members should all be shot and maybe peace will have a chance.

Some of you mentioned Egypt and Jordan and the lasting peace between them and Israel; which proves that the problem is not from the Israeli side but from the terrorist organization called Hamas.


Their reason was that they didn't feel that the land was for the Jews to take and claim for themselves. Land disputes and the desire to defend land is centuries old, as the US knows. This war was not created out of a random act of terrorism.
     
Hawkeye_a
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Apr 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 22, 2009, 01:17 PM
 
The funny things about the muslims and arabs (as far as i have noticed from living among them, and something you can witness on these boards) is that they yell as loud as they can against Israel, with false accusations and no regard for actual law (like the fact that when a foreign governing body fires a missile from their territory into your, it's an act of war, but lets not mention that), but when they(muslims/arabs) are so clearly guilt in places like Sudan, E.Timor, Armenia, etc where actual genocide and ethnic cleansing is happening to non-muslim populations perpetrated by muslims, there's nary a blurb on their news channels, not even a column in any of their newspapers. And not surprisingly ties between those nations are never hindered... the money keeps flowing, like Saudi's pledge to send $1bn to a group that is regarded a terrorist organization. Where are the Arab protests towards that ?

Or when the 'president' of Sudan is summoned for war crmies, why is it that he can travel freely in other muslim countries ? or why was Idi amin given asylum in Saudi Arabia ?

1. Israel withdraws from Gaza, and dismantles settlements in her quest for peace with the Arabs, according to the agreements made.
2. Hamas takes over Gaza.
3. Hamas starts smuggling weapons and starts firing into Israel.
4. Years later(and without any pressure on the Arabs to stop it), due to unrelenting attacks on civilian populations, Israel responds.
5. And this is suddenly Israel's wrong doing ?

If there ever was an Arab who set president for peace with the Israeli's, it was Sadat, and that was only after Israel brought Egypt to it's knees. None-the-less it was the first time an Arab made peace with Israel, and they assassinated him.

If you are unbiased and actually see the conflicts unfold from a variety of perspectives, you will see that one side is all about 'eliminating' the other, and the other side is always ready to negotiate, making peace by giving back all the lands taken over during defensive wars that it won. Out of all those conflicts with the Egyptians and Jordianians, what did Israel 'gain' in the end ? There is no logical reason it would wage those wars and then give back conquered territory, if not for peace, which it could have achieved had the Arabs approached the situation legally and peacefully to begin with. Not to mention waging a war and turning over the spoils to the enemy in the name of peace is just a tremendous waste of resources when compared to peaceful negotiations.

And as far as the current war with Hamas, i dont think Hamas calls the residents of Sderot and warns them of an attack thats about to happen. If Israel wanted to raise Gaza to the ground it very well could, instead they call and SMS residents warning them to seek shelter before an attack...... residents who put Hamas into power. In my mind the distinction couldnt be more black n white.

And as someone else mentioned, either in this thread or somewhere else,..... As Golda Meir said, The Arabs will make peace with Israel, when they learn to love their children more than they hate the Jews.
( Last edited by Hawkeye_a; Jan 22, 2009 at 04:00 PM. )
     
Big Mac
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 22, 2009, 01:36 PM
 
Originally Posted by Sayf-Allah View Post
Would you accept going from 93% of your country to around 43% of it because the UN General Assembly thought some (mostly) foreigners should have 56% of your country? And that 56% of the country would go to 33% of the population who mostly consisted of first and second generation inhabitants of the area?
This is an older post but I just saw it. There never was a country that got taken from anyone. There never was a country of "Palestine," nor a king, nor a government, nor a language, nor a people. Even Arab leaders admitted that fact through the war of independence, back when calling it "Palestine" meant acknowledging Jewish claims and before calling it "Palestine" was synonymous with the Arab struggle to destroy the Jewish population there. Why can't you be satisfied with the 99.3% of the Middle East you control - you really need that 0.7% that you formerly never cared about until the Jews returned home and made it desirable to live there again?
( Last edited by Big Mac; Jan 22, 2009 at 05:04 PM. )

"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." TJ
     
Hawkeye_a
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Apr 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 22, 2009, 04:09 PM
 
Lets not forget that most(if not all) of the land in that area before the formation of modern day Israel, where the Jews settled, were bought and paid for.

Another amusing thing is that, now all the Arabs are calling for the 1967 borders, why is then that before 1967 they were all so determined to do away with Israel anyway ? So they lost the wars...... and now they want to make peace by trading it for what they lost when they lost the war ? thats hilarious.

And if they wern't ready to make peace before 1967, why should i believe they're ready to make peace now if Israel retreats to the 1967 borders ? If the Arabs/Muslims want peace so badly, maybe they should be the ones giving up land for peace for a change.
     
Big Mac
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 22, 2009, 05:02 PM
 
Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a View Post
Lets not forget that most(if not all) of the land in that area before the formation of modern day Israel, where the Jews settled, were bought and paid for.
Yup, although the Islamists on here will dispute that fact of history.

Another amusing thing is that, now all the Arabs are calling for the 1967 borders, why is then that before 1967 they were all so determined to do away with Israel anyway ? So they lost the wars...... and now they want to make peace by trading it for what they lost when they lost the war ? thats hilarious.
That's right, they rejected the second partition of the Mandate by the U.N. in 1948, which would have given them the choicest and most important lands with the Jews receiving the desert areas. The Jews would have accepted that lopsided, unfair arrangement, but instead the Arabs went to war to annihalate the Jews. After they lost, Jordan and Egypt illegally occupied Judea, Samaria and Gaza from 1948 through 1967. And in all those years there was no movement by the Arabs to liberate from Jordan and Egypt those lands. Post 1967 when Arafat, YM"SH, invented the Arab "Palestinian" myth, the PLO called for the "liberation" of all of so-called "Palestine" which didn't just include Judea, Samaria and Gaza but the state of Israel as a whole. Hamas has never backed down from that position, while Arafat chose to give a more moderate face to Fatah for Western consumption when he was plucked out of obscure exile in Tunisia by the Jewish Left. He too never abandoned the goal of destroying Israel, but thankfully he died without ever seeing his aspirations come to fruition.

And if they wern't ready to make peace before 1967, why should i believe they're ready to make peace now if Israel retreats to the 1967 borders ? If the Arabs/Muslims want peace so badly, maybe they should be the ones giving up land for peace for a change.
They don't want peace with Israel. They don't even want a state in the parts of Judea, Samaria and Gaza that they control because otherwise they would have declared one ever and could have declared one years back now. They, as in most of them, want the destruction of Israel, although they will settle for the piecemeal destruction that Arafat told them they could achieve through the false peace process with Israel.

"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." TJ
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 22, 2009, 05:10 PM
 
Wait until the discover oil in Israel.
     
CRASH HARDDRIVE
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Zip, Boom, Bam
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 22, 2009, 06:23 PM
 
Originally Posted by Taliesin View Post
With this mild response Israel will only feel encouraged to act in similar manner in the future.
Good.
     
 
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 07:46 PM.
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.,