 |
|
| Browse | Ask | Answer | Search | Join/Login |
|
|
||||
|
Scottgem I also notice a pattern with you. Anything you don't like is always attributed to be the product of propaganda. If you can answer it with the hard facts that you claim, then you disprove it & you don't need to denounce it as propaganda unless there is a part of you that believes there is truth (even a kernel) in the statements & you wish to deny & decry it.
Scottgem nothing you have said has been based on hard facts but viewpoints or statements that you are trying to present as the only way to look at the situation. If that was the case then this problem of israel would be pretty straight forward would it not & be easy to resolve? Again can you explain what Zionism is according to you since I have misunderstood & sterotyped them. I do not like to think that I have passed bad judgement so please rectify any errors. |
||||
|
||||
|
Hi excon,
The only reason I went into that line of discussion was when scottgem postulated that Gandhi erred in his statement which I think he did not. Going back to your argument that the land belongs to those who can hold it, The only way that Israel has held it is because of the support of the USA & other western nations so Israel could not of held it without their money, armaments & propaganda. I don't own any land where I live. But I own a house & one day I may be rounded up like the nazis rounded up jews since I don't ascribe to the typical view on the war on terror etc that the country I live ascribes to . I hope not but in the current climate of the world it is entirely possible for one event to tip us over the abyss of repeating history. Also we were discussing the morality & in my view the land belonged to the palestinans (ie arab muslim & christinans who lived in that area) rather than european jews. Like you say, if I came to the usa & purchase some land & then found some ancestral link or commonality the native americans & said that this land originally belonged to me & then set up a state, I would not be right even if I could get away with that travesty. But why should I insist on a state when I can just live in the U.S. Referring to the original thread then, USA supports Israel for various reasons but Israel would never have been able to hold onto that land without their support so is it not fair to say Israel is not a country in its own right but an american enclave? |
||||
|
||||
|
Hello again, fluid:
Yes, we gave them money and guns. Is that your argument now, that they couldn't have held the land without money, and that's why they should give it back? Really? We give money, guns, AND OUR OWN SOLDIERS to a lot of countries around the world who wouldn't survive without us. Is that something WE shouldn't do? Should those countries NOT accept? Are they wrong if they do? Should they ALL fall? Who helps YOU hold on to YOUR land? It's the same people from the same government, feeding you equally ugly propaganda, using the same police powers, spending the same money that, in addition to supplying armaments to Israel, arms your local cops. I don't see you complaining when they come to protect YOUR property, should you call 911. That strength keeps you, your home and your family safe from those who would take your house. Why does it bother you that others feel safe in their homes for the same reasons you do? Because they're Jews? No, Israel isn't a state of ours, but they are a democracy. We like democracies don't we? excon PS> (edited) I'm not going to argue with you about Israel being an American enclave either. Ok. So what? That means they shouldn't exist? Florida is an American enclave. Indians had it before Floridians did. They don't now because the Floridians took it, and they're strong enough to keep it. I think we should support the Floridians, don't you? |
||||
|
||||
 Originally Posted by fluid identity
First, I explained twice what Zionism is. You referred to them as a "Nasty breed". I didn't say you misunderstood, I said they are not a "breed" and sterotyping was wrong. Second, No, I do not label everything I don't like as propaganda. But the fact is that much of what you have posted here is propaganda, much of that is extremely slanted and narrow. I have disproven much of what you have said with facts. That doesn't mean I can't label the propaganda for what it is. One of the things about propaganda is that it usually does have a kernel of fact behind it. That's what makes it work. Look at the Qibya thing for example. Israel retaliated for the killing of some innocent civilians and attacked a village that was harboring terrorists. Those are facts. But your propaganda has turned it into the deliberate and unprovoked massacre of innocents for the purpose of driving them out of Israel. So, yes I will denounce such propaganda as it deserves to be denounced. Third, I did not say that Gandhi erred, I said the statement was inaccurate. Historically Jews have just as much right to the area now known as Israel as the arabs who occupied it after the fall of the Ottomans. Yes I have presented several hard facts. Facts that you continue to ignore because they don't fit the propaganda based viewpoint you have. Facts like how the original jewish settlements were established. Facts like the statement in the Declaration that I quoted. I have also tried to answer you point by point, yet you ignore the points I make. But then I didn't expect anything different. I don't expect you to see the truth, your mind was made up for you long ago. My main purpose is making arguments so anyone reading this who doesn't have a closed mind on the issue may see the truth. |
||||
|
||||
|
I agree scottgem much of our argument here is getting tiresome & may I add repetitive.
Id also like to point out once again I don't agree with you & your views are equally if not more so narrow & slanted & set in stone. Much of what you have posted here is also western propaganda & you are a product of propaganda. Like I have stated earlier we are approaching the argument from different viewpoints but whereas I am willing to engage, your condescending attitude knows no barriers. Yes I bought up the Qibya incident yet you state unequivocally that they were attacked for harbouring terrorists... (I though terrorists only existed since 9/11 or is now the only of history being re-edited with all enemy combatants relabelled as terrorists). This is not a fact as you were not there so it one is version of events just like mine is one version of events just like another version of event was the israeli government claiming that the miliatry did not attack the village but israeli civilians had. The declaration you quoted is quite meaningless especially when the government of Israel does not practise it i.e like using civilians as shields or treating the Israeli Arabs as second class citizens. You see scottgem I may state certain things which seem propaganda to you but you make value statements that you state as hard & fast facts when they are not. You also ignore the context of which certain statements are made in to exploit the weakness of one point among many ignoring any other salient arguments.Since this is getting "ridiculous" we should just end this conversation. Ditto ex-con. Anyone else please feel free to contribute about past posts. |
||||
|
||||
|
You don't have to agree with me that's your right. I'm sure my views do appear narrow to you. Anything that doesn't agree with your biased viewpoint is going to appear narrow to you. The difference between us, is that I look for the facts and then base my opinions on those facts. You, on the other hand, listen to the propaganda you have been handed without trying to see if the facts fit. And I very much deny that I am the product of western propaganda. As I said, I form my positions based on raw facts.
Its amusing, but sad to see you claim that you are "willing to engage" when you have consistently avoided dealing with the facts I have presented. As I pointed out, I have tried to answer you point by point, but you have evaded my points. That doesn't show a willingness to engage, just the opposite. And if I've been condescending its because you continue to ignore the facts as you spout your propaganda. I don't know where you got the idea that terrorists only existed since 9/11. That's ridiculous. For you to say that shows your lack of historical knowledge. Terrorists have existed long before that. In fact, the Irgun were among the first groups to have that term applied to them. And no, I neither support nor condone what the Irgun did. Getting back to Qibya, I read several accounts of the incident, including the UN resolution censuring Israel over it. EVERY account I read included the facts that the raid was in retaliation for the killing of some civilians. Again, I try to get to the true facts before I take a position. I won't deny that in current times the Declaration I quoted is not applied. But I attribute the reason for that to the actions of the Arab world and their stated desire to wipe out Israel. Israel extended an olive branch and not only was it rejected, but it was trampled on. Is it any wonder that Israel has backpedaled? But I firmly believe, that, had the Arabs gone along and participated as they were invited to do, that they would have become a part of the government. So we are back at the same stand. Despite your protestions and trying to twist things around to apply what I've shown to me instead of you, I believe when one looks at the evidence, the true facts and the history the conclusion is inescable that Israel's actions are much more defensible then the Arabs. That doesn't mean that Israel's record is pristine or the Arabs all bad. It just means that I can accept and understand most of what Israel has done a lot more than I can do the same for the Arabs. Or do you think 9/11 was justified too? |
||||
|
||||
|
Originally Posted by excon
Or at least that's what he would have people believe. ;) |
||||
|
||||
|
Interesting op-ed in the LA Times:
Why Israel is after me Why Israel is after me - Los Angeles Times Azmi Bishara, a Christian, is ridiculously accused by Israel of being an agent for the Lebanese Islamic group Hezbollah! Bishara is widely respected as a human rights activist among Jews, Christians, and Muslims in Israel, Palestine, and the whole region. |
||||
|
||||
|
Doing some more research on this, there are some disturbing aspects of it. But two points are important to note. First, that Bishara was, for several years, a member of the Israeli parliament. Thereby showing that there is representation for non-jews. Second, that Bishara DID publicly voice support for Hezbollah. An organization dedicated to the elimination of Israel and the instigator of a the most recent war between Israel and Lebanon.
I do think it paranoid of Israel to censure Bishara. But Israel's paranoia is the result living under constant attack. The only way peace will come is when the Arabs completely and formally recognize Israel's right to exist and recant their goal of eliminating Israel as a state. |
||||
|
||||
|
Scottgem [ Or do you think 9/11 was justified too?[/QUOTE]
First of all that is another discussion. But I don't think that was justified. Stop trying to imply that just becuas I don't agree with you about Israel that it means that I aprrove of slaughter aimed at the western world. |
||||
|
||||
|
Originally Posted by excon
But though scottgem has been qualifying his statements even if I don't agree with them why don't you qualify yours. I don't hate jews, its just by labelling me as anti-jewish you hoep it will turn everyone against anything opined by me. Good luck. |
||||
|
||||
|
Scottgem if you were so right & so confident of being right, you would not be so volatile. What facts I have ignored. All your points have been read & understood. I may not agree with them but what have I ignored?
Maybe you should re-read my post? I have not suggested that terrorists existed since 2001. I was being sarcastic. What I have actually meant was that since 9/11 (& not 9/11 itself) every one not conforming to the U.S.A plans or that of its allies is lablelled as a terrorist. You seem to be going into the past & labelling all rebellions as terrorist actions to modify people opinions. & scottgem I have no reason to hate Jews because not every jew condones the state of Israel or the actions of the government. You can believe I hate jews if it helps you to justify your contempt of me. |
||||
|
||||
|
Originally Posted by fluid identity
Sarcasm is not easy to portray in written communications. I define terrorism as using tactics targeting civilians and non-combatants to intimidate people and governments to change their position. So no, all rebellions are not classified as terrorism. I do agree with you, however, that the label of terrorists is bandied about too much and used to get support where it shouldn't. Ok, so you don't hate all jews, just those that support Israel. That doesn't seem to leave a lot of jews for you to like. My contempt for you (and I admit to it) is because you condemn Israel and Isrealis for defending themselves against a people that have vowed to wipe them out. That you feel the (inevitable) excesses that have occurred are based on some imagined evil on the part of Israel. At the same time, you say nothing against the much greater excesses that Israel has had to defend against. |
||||
|
||||
|
Originally Posted by ScottGem
Originally Posted by ScottGem
I condemn Israel for the murder of innocents not for defending themselves & to be honest with you I condemn them for the feelings of superiority they have that a Israeli live seems to be worth 10, 100 maybe even 1000 palestinan lives (with reference to disproportionate responses). & if they had not murdered as many innocents, they would not have as many palestinans/ arabs with hatred in their hearts & mind on revenge as they are. Like I said its all a cycle but you just seem to be interested in propagating & justifying one part of the cycle rather than understnading the other sides viewpoint. You could probably justify a soldier shooting rock-weilding children as defending his country or soldiers shooting a school girl because she had strayed into their territory on her way home from school but I cant. See if this is enough for you to denounce me as anti-semitic & dismiss my views but that is just cowardly. |
||||
|
||||
|
Originally Posted by fluid identity
There are two major fallacies to what I quoted above. The first is whether there can really be non-combatants when an entire people has declared their intent to wipe you out. When women and children are used as suicide bombers. When groups like Hamas launch missile and mortar attacks from within allegdedly civilian enclosures. The second is your assumption that the Israeli government would deliberately target such people. Israel exists largely through the support of its allies. Israel has to tread a fine line to protect themselves without using extreme measures. It would be against Israel's interests to commit the acts you attribute to them and which you don't have proof of. Originally Posted by fluid identity
Is it Israeli's who think one life is worth many palestinians, or is it the other way around? Wouldn't a people that sends a suicide bomber loaded with nails or other shrapnel, think that one life is worth many of their assumed enemies? The Palestinians STARTED with hatred in their hearts. They were offered the chance to be part of Israel and refused because of that hatred. They have spent the last 60 years trying to wipe out Israel because of that hatred. That Israel has helped fuel that hatred by their response to it cannot be denied. I have, at times within this thread, acknowledged that Israel is not entirely blameless. That they have, on occasion, been excessive in their retaliations. But they have to be to survive. After the last action against Hezbollah in Lebanon, the leader of Hezbollah announced that, if they had known how Israel would react, they wouldn't have infiltrated Israel and seized the two soldiers, an action that precipated that mini-war. Thereby showing that Isrel's reaction was the best way to protect their country. As I said, my contempt for you is your narrow mindedness. Your refusal to acknowledge facts. Your refusal to condemn the horrors perpetrated against Israel. You are attempting to condone terrorism because Israel's reaction to those outrages is, sometimes, equally as outrageous. And that doesn't work for me. |
||||
|
||||
|
[QUOTE=ScottGem]There you go proving my point. Show me any instance where the Israeli government deliberately and knowlingly TARGETED non-combatants and civilians. [QUOTE=ScottGem]
The israeli government do this every time they do' retaliatory' strikes & assume it is fine as collateral damage & tar all the dead with the nonsense that they were all hamas/terrorsists. They always have plausible deniability by saying that the terrosits were using them as sheilds thus placing the burden of blame on them but you prove to me that this is the case- that the civilians were sheilding terrorists. Show me one instance that the Israeli government targeted a legitimate target. [QUOTE=ScottGem]There are two major fallacies to what I quoted above. The first is whether there can really be non-combatants when an entire people has declared their intent to wipe you out.[QUOTE=ScottGem] You are generalising & condemning an entire people. An entire people has not expressed a desire to wipe out the people.Some have expressed desire to have their land back & some want the 'state of Israel' to be gone while SOME have expressed desire to wipe out like you have said. But by this statement you are trying to justify Israels treatment of Palestinans by reducing them ALL to a level of inhumanity & here I thought my contempt for you could not grow. [QUOTE=ScottGem]The second is your assumption that the Israeli government would deliberately target such people. Israel exists largely through the support of its allies. Israel has to tread a fine line to protect themselves without using extreme measures. It would be against Israel's interests to commit the acts you attribute to them and which you don't have proof of.[QUOTE=ScottGem] You yoursalf are assuming again that the Israeli government is a pragaon of restraint when it has committed atrocities in the past which elements of its own populace have crtisicised it for. & again Israel can commit these acts if it has plausible deniability. [QUOTE=ScottGem]And this is more of the same rhetoric. You speak of alleged "babrbaric" acts on the part of Israel. Yet you say nothing of Palestinians sending suicide bombers to blow up market places, school buses, and other purely civilian targets. That isn't Palestinians defending themselves. Those are terrorist (and barbaric) acts on the part of a people dedicated to wiping out another. [QUOTE=ScottGem] I do not sanction the killing of innocent people yet Israel goes in and commits barbaric attack on civilian population (you will find numerous example of them boming house, raids etc on the internet wothout me giving you specific examples just like you have not given me any specific examples here) with their military hardware to crush their resistance & they retaliate. You can abhor the methods but that the palestinian population is so desperate that they use their own bodies as weapons. Just ponder that for the moment. I am not condoning 'suicide bombing' but have you considered how much pain & suffering a populace needs to go through that in the end in an unequal war they uses their own bodies as weapons. They do not have tanks to fight back. & once again the Israeli have killed many innocent civilians... do I need to find a list of examples to satisfy your pedanticness? BUT again it is not every palestinan that is fighting or sending other to be bombers. There are some just arguing for their land & their rights & it is that part of the population (that is being terrorised by the terrorist government of Israel & the IDF) that I AM SUPPORTING so do not try twist the argument to say I am supporting terrorrists. [QUOTE=ScottGem]Is it Israeli's who think one life is worth many palestinians, or is it the other way around? Wouldn't a people that sends a suicide bomber loaded with nails or other shrapnel, think that one life is worth many of their assumed enemies? [QUOTE=ScottGem] Again you are just dealing with semantics. Fact, every time one israeli dies, The IDF go in & exact revenge by killing in excess of that number of people so therefore they believe that one israeli life is equivalent to many palestinan lives. [QUOTE=ScottGem]the Palestinians STARTED with hatred in their hearts. They were offered the chance to be part of Israel and refused because of that hatred. They have spent the last 60 years trying to wipe out Israel because of that hatred. That Israel has helped fuel that hatred by their response to it cannot be denied. I have, at times within this thread, acknowledged that Israel is not entirely blameless. [QUOTE=ScottGem] No scottgem you have just alluded to their wrongs and have always tried to justfy it. This comment above just shows how deeply you are biased against the palestinans. But you throw a half hearted criticism in Israels direction to try & show you are evenhanded. You are a hypocrite - you accuse me of supporting terrorism but you do exactly the same of what you accuse me of. How was it the palestinans who started everything against the poor israelis. They did not refuse to be part of Israel because of hatred, they refused to have a country & imperialistic rule forced on them & on the land they lived. The hatred was formed by the Israeli forcing them off their land & taking Jerusalem. The hatred is there because of the refugress that are refused right of return. You conveniently gloss over Israel poor human rights records & the wrongs they perpertrated over the palestinan people. You accuse others of narrow mindedness but demonstrate this in abundance yourself within the pro-israeli rhetoric of your posts on this thread. |
||||
|
||||
|
I thought this article might be pertinent when it comes to discussing the right of refugees to return.
"The BBC News website is publishing a series of articles about the attempts to achieve peace in the Middle East and the main obstacles. Today, Martin Asser looks at the emotive issue of the Palestinian refugees. Forty years after the Middle East war of 1967 and nearly 60 since the establishment of Israel, there is no Arab-Israeli issue that remains as utterly divisive as the fate of Palestinian refugees. In the course of Israel's creation in 1948 and its occupation of the West Bank and Gaza in 1967, more than half the Arabs of pre-1948 Palestine are thought to have been displaced. Today there are millions of Palestinians living in exile from homes and land their families had inhabited for generations. Many still suffer the legacy of their dispossession: destitution, penury, insecurity. Palestinian historians, and some Israelis, call 1948 one of the biggest, most comprehensive examples of ethnic cleansing in history - perpetrated by the Haganah (later the Israeli Defence Forces) and armed Jewish gangs. Official Israeli history, by contrast, says most Palestinian refugees left to avoid battle or at the behest of Arab leaders, though it admits a "handful" of expulsions and unauthorised killings. What is undisputed is that the refugees' fate is excluded from most Israeli-Palestinian peace efforts because, given a right of return, their numbers endanger the future of the world's only Jewish state. The issue of the refugees is therefore seen by many Israelis as an existential one. Massive displacement Four million UN-registered Palestinian refugees trace origins to the 1948 exodus; 750,000 people belong to families displaced in 1967 - many for the second time. Palestinian advocacy group Badil says another million and a half hail from pre-1948 Palestine but were not UN-registered, while an additional 274,000 were internally displaced inside Israel after 1948, and 150,000 were displaced in the occupied territories after 1967. That makes more than six millions people, one of the biggest displaced populations in the world. Israel steadfastly argues that all refugees - and it disputes the numbers - should relinquish any aspirations to return to what is now its territory, and instead be absorbed by Arab host countries or by a future Palestinian state. It disavows moral responsibility by arguing that 800,000 Mizrahi Jews were displaced from Arab countries between 1945 and 1956 (most of whom settled in Israel) and insists Palestinians left willingly. But that view is at odds with UN General Assembly Resolution 194 and Article 13 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Resolution 194 asserts the refugees' unconditional right of return to live at peace in their old homes or to receive compensation for their losses. Disputed status Whatever the rights and wrongs of their cause, the practicality of return and questions of moral justice, in Mid-East diplomacy the refugees' fate has been largely ignored. This has been achieved by a dual process pegging all solutions to the Arab-Israeli conflict to the 1967 war, and discounting the events of 1948 as a element of the conflict. Israel has effectively deployed a number of arguments to justify this, such as saying that it is the only Jewish state, the refuge of Jews from around the world, while there are 22 Arab countries where the refugees could go. It also points out that UN General Assembly resolutions have no force under international law and says the unassimilated refugee population has been held hostage by frontline Arab states waiting for Israel's destruction. The diplomatic focus on 1967 has been advantageous for Israel: territory occupied at that time is regarded as the entire problem, and solutions can therefore be limited to dividing up that land. This is problematic for Palestinians, however, because it sidelines the Nakba, the "catastrophe" of 1948 - an issue that for them lies at the heart of the conflict. Demographic prerogative Palestinians accuse Israel of a kind of "Nakba-denial", absolving itself of liability, but thereby condemning itself to perpetual conflict with its Arab neighbours. Israel vigorously denies such a characterisation. Official histories justify what happened in 1948 by saying the new Jewish state was threatened with annihilation by invading Arab armies. But so-called revisionist Israeli historians say Israel's founding prime minister, David Ben-Gurion, exaggerated the Arab threat, so he could implement a covert plan to expel Palestinian civilians and grab as much of the former Palestine as possible. Demography - the need to have a large majority of Jews to sustain a Jewish state - has certainly been a key concern for Israel since its foundation. Under a 1947 UN-sanctioned plan to partition Palestine, Israel would have been established on 55% of the former territory, without a significant transfer of population, the Jews in the territory would have scarcely have exceeded the Arab population there. The 1948 war ended with Israel in control of 78% of the former Palestine, with a Jewish-Arab ratio of 6:1. The equation brought security for Jewish Israelis, but emptied hundreds of Palestinian villages and towns of 700,000 inhabitants - the kernel of the Palestinian refugee problem today. With the justification of not wanting to jeopardise its Jewish majority, Israel has kept Palestinian refugees and their descendants out of negotiations on a settlement to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. But for most Palestinians, their fate remains an open wound, unless there is a Middle East peace deal that acknowledges what happened to the refugees. |
||||
Not your question?
Ask your question
View similar questions
| Question Tools | Search this Question |
Add your answer here.
Check out some similar questions!
Marketing Coca Cola in Israel
[ 1 Answers ]
Were can I get valid information on marketing or market history of Coca-cola or other soft drinks in Israel? Thanks Flair
Support
[ 1 Answers ]
I live in Texas and I am the sole managing conservator of my son. I've been in and out of court on enforcement issues concerning visitation. We always come to an agreement or arrangement. Out of all these times I am suppositly in contempt she has not once made a physical appearance to try and pick...
View more questions Search
|
