|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Israel's troubles
|
Robert Armin
All licens'd fool
# 182
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Demas:
I would have liked to have seen a thread which sought a way for our Muslim and Christian brothers and sisters in Gaza and the West Bank, and our Jewish, Muslim, Christian, Druze and atheist brothers and sisters in Israel to move towards productive healthy and prosperous lives of coexistence and dignity.
Agreed.
deano: quote:
Left wing sympathises with Palestine, right wing sympathises with Israel and the right wing as ever has all the power and will prevail.
Some of us mourn with those who mourn, praying for peace and security for Jews and Palestinians alike.
--------------------
Keeping fit was an obsession with Fr Moity .... He did chin ups in the vestry, calisthenics in the pulpit, and had developed a series of Tai-Chi exercises to correspond with ritual movements of the Mass. The Antipope Robert Rankin
Posts: 8927 | From: In the pack | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican_Brat
Shipmate
# 12349
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gildas:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
quote:
Israel whose multiethnic multireligious reality is reduced to 'they' and 'them' with mutterings about how 'they' should have learnt from 'their' history. Israel who we expect better of.
If Israel is "multiethnic" and "multireligious", why does it refuse to allow the Palestinian refugees expelled in the 1948 War to return home?
Israel cannot claim to be a Jewish State AND a multiethnic State.
Why ever not? Lots of states based upon the national principle claim to be a national state and a multi-ethnic state. Including those based on population transfers at the end of the Second World War.
To give a concrete example, Israel's identity as a Jewish State is its justification for granting any Jew living in the world the right to return and receive citizenship, while denying the right of return to indigneous Palestinians expelled in the 1948 War of Independence.
No matter how many belly-aching by the pro-Israeli crowd about Arab citizens of Israel enjoying "equal rights", which is not entirely true because they still face discrimination in terms of housing and employment, this doesn't change the fact that Israel's understanding of the right of return is profoundly unjust.
--------------------
It's Reformation Day! Do your part to promote Christian unity and brotherly love and hug a schismatic.
Posts: 4332 | From: Vancouver | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
When your supposed state is subject to Israeli roads dividing it up, peppered with Israeli settlements and effectively subject entirely to the whims of the Israeli government it doesn't look very sovereign. [...]
No, so you make a counter-offer, something Arafat failed to do. Any party to a negotiation starts with the most favorable position, expecting to give ground. Arafat instead gave up his place at the table.
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
Piecing it together as best I can (few admit to biases, let alone examine them), the left is against Israel 'cause it's viewed as a colonial theocracy, two honking great red flags.
This falls down even on left-wing terms: Israel is a good deal more secular than many Arab states, and Arab nationalism every bit as conservative as Jewish nationalism.
So Israel isn't a theocracy because it's not as theocratic as somebody else? It's a spectrum, and as long as there's somebody more theocratic than you are, you're not a theocracy?
I confess I don't get what point you're making about nationalism -- how that is related to colonialism eludes me.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
Deano posts:
quote:
Left wing sympathises with Palestine, right wing sympathises with Israel and the right wing as ever has all the power and will prevail.
It used to be the other way around. One of my academic friends dates the change back to the 1960s, when Frantz Fanon etc were translated into English and became favourite texts in anglophone and western European universities. Pro-Israelism kept on in the older western socialist parties-- followers of Canadian politics can still see the divide ("vigorous and straightforward discussion of foreign policy goals") within the NDP on this.
My old red US contacts have great stories of fundraising for Israel and the expulsions from the CPUSA on Stalin's orders for "cosmopolitanism." I will long recall a Jamaica-rum evening under the palm trees description of the Bachmanite deviation of 1951. Indeed, I have been shown the Labour Progressive children's camp songbook with HaTikvah in it.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Nice rhetoric BBC. Ever so nice.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Byron wrote:
The crude version runs something like "European Zionists stole the Palestinian's country!" Which ignores the fact there was no independent Palestine to steal (it was a province of the rotting Ottoman Empire) and Jewish communities had lived in Ottoman Syria for centuries.
That does seem very crude. I would have thought that many people on the left would say that a Jewish state was imposed, without consulting the Palestinian population. Later, Israel began to grab more and more Palestinian land and farms, so that it now occupies a big chunk of the West Bank.
You could argue that this is classic colonialism, complete with ghettos (Gaza), collective punishment, torture, and I suppose, an ethnocracy. Conventional wisdom opines that colonial powers always suffer terribly for their exertion of power - we shall see.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
That does seem very crude. I would have thought that many people on the left would say that a Jewish state was imposed, without consulting the Palestinian population. Later, Israel began to grab more and more Palestinian land and farms, so that it now occupies a big chunk of the West Bank.
You could argue that this is classic colonialism, complete with ghettos (Gaza), collective punishment, torture, and I suppose, an ethnocracy. Conventional wisdom opines that colonial powers always suffer terribly for their exertion of power - we shall see.
Unlike classic colonialism, Israel has shown no desire to expand its borders: just the opposite, it handed back a chunk of land to Egypt for peace, and is willing to do the same for the Palestinians. It unilaterally withdrew from Gaza, and was thanked by Hamas lobbing rockets at it (the reason for the blockade).
The media focus needs to expand past Israel and Palestine. The attitude of the Arab world to the Palestinian people is, at best, ambiguous, rooted in a desire to use the conflict for propaganda purposes. Neither Jordon nor Egypt made any serious move to establish a Palestinian state in the 20 years they held Gaza and the West Bank. Millions of Palestinian "refugees" in Arab states have been denied citizenship and integration. Even a relatively accepting state like Jordan denies citizenship to hundreds of thousands of Palestinians, and was recently caught trying to denaturalize several thousand more.
The Arab League could do wonders for peace by unambiguously recognizing Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state, and granting citizenship to all Palestinians within their borders.
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
So there's nothing Jesus can do?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
So Israel isn't a theocracy because it's not as theocratic as somebody else? It's a spectrum, and as long as there's somebody more theocratic than you are, you're not a theocracy?
I confess I don't get what point you're making about nationalism -- how that is related to colonialism eludes me.
Simply that nationalism is typically portrayed as a right-wing attribute, while the left bigs up internationalism. If Zionism is "right-wing," so too is Arab nationalism. Sauce for the goose ...
Israel isn't a theocracy 'cause it lacks the central hallmark of a theocracy: religious totalitarianism. No state with freedom of religion and equal rights regardless of belief is close to being a theocracy.
Israel is a Jewish state, just as Denmark has a state church. If Denmark were the world's only Christian country, and Christians had been subjected to two millennia of pogrom, I expect they'd have a Law of Return into the bargain.
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
I comfort Palestinian friends by telling them that it took 800 years to free Ireland, and it's not complete! Strangely enough, they look rather sombre at that.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
So there's nothing Jesus can do?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
Israel isn't a theocracy 'cause it lacks the central hallmark of a theocracy: religious totalitarianism. No state with freedom of religion and equal rights regardless of belief is close to being a theocracy.
Israel is a Jewish state, just as Denmark has a state church. If Denmark were the world's only Christian country, and Christians had been subjected to two millennia of pogrom, I expect they'd have a Law of Return into the bargain.
Any Jew in the world can move to Israel and become an instant citizen. That is not true of any Christian or any Muslim. There are places in Israel where only Jews are allowed to own property. Only Jews can serve in the IDF. Jewish cemeteries do not get dug up to make cultural centers. Certain Jewish sects are granted special privileges and do not have all the laws of the state applied to them. In fact, you are wrong. "Equal rights regardless of belief" does not exist in Israel.
Snide remarks about Denmark notwithstanding.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Any Jew in the world can move to Israel and become an instant citizen. That is not true of any Christian or any Muslim. There are places in Israel where only Jews are allowed to own property. Only Jews can serve in the IDF. Jewish cemeteries do not get dug up to make cultural centers. Certain Jewish sects are granted special privileges and do not have all the laws of the state applied to them. In fact, you are wrong. "Equal rights regardless of belief" does not exist in Israel.
Snide remarks about Denmark notwithstanding.
I assure you, there was no snide intent. Denmark is a valued producer of interior design, pastries, and Nordic Noir.
The Law of Return does discriminate in favor of Jews, yes, and given the history of the Jewish people, that discrimination is amply justifiable.
As for the rest, even if they were all accurate, Israel still wouldn't come close to being a theocracy. As it happens, they're not.
For instance, non-Jewish Israeli citizens are welcome to serve in the IDF: the difference is that some aren't conscripted (the Druze are), but then, Haredi Jews are also exempt, although the Knesset's just voted to pare back their exemption.
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
So the Palestinians can suck it up as far as discrimination goes because of the Shoa? At least you're honest about your reasoning I suppose.
Tell me, which group of people are you in favour of oppressing to allow the Roma their own state?
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
The Law of Return does discriminate in favor of Jews, yes, and given the history of the Jewish people, that discrimination is amply justifiable.
Really? Two wrongs make a right then, it seems. If I was a Palestinian I'd be pretty pissed off with Jews from Brooklyn or St. Petersburg stealing my land. But never mind, hey! The Holocaust gives them the right to act like dicks.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
So the Palestinians can suck it up as far as discrimination goes because of the Shoa? At least you're honest about your reasoning I suppose.
I said no such thing; I said I believe the Law of Return is justifiable of those grounds. There are of course ways in which it could be modified, and residence rights in Israel for the Palestinian people were on the table until Fatah sabotaged the latest round of negotiations by cutting a deal with Hamas.
quote:
Tell me, which group of people are you in favour of oppressing to allow the Roma their own state?
I'm not in favor of oppressing anyone, thanks. And unless you're suggesting that Israel somehow cease to exist, we don't even disagree here.
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
So the Palestinians can suck it up as far as discrimination goes because of the Shoa? At least you're honest about your reasoning I suppose.
I said no such thing; I said I believe the Law of Return is justifiable of those grounds. There are of course ways in which it could be modified, and residence rights in Israel for the Palestinian people were on the table until Fatah sabotaged the latest round of negotiations by cutting a deal with Hamas.
quote:
Tell me, which group of people are you in favour of oppressing to allow the Roma their own state?
I'm not in favor of oppressing anyone, thanks. And unless you're suggesting that Israel somehow cease to exist, we don't even disagree here.
You specifically said that discriminating against the Palestinians via the law of return was acceptable. If that's not oppression then I don't know what definition you're using.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
ToujoursDan
Ship's prole
# 10578
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Any Jew in the world can move to Israel and become an instant citizen. That is not true of any Christian or any Muslim. There are places in Israel where only Jews are allowed to own property. Only Jews can serve in the IDF. Jewish cemeteries do not get dug up to make cultural centers. Certain Jewish sects are granted special privileges and do not have all the laws of the state applied to them. In fact, you are wrong. "Equal rights regardless of belief" does not exist in Israel.
Snide remarks about Denmark notwithstanding.
The Law of Return does discriminate in favor of Jews, yes, and given the history of the Jewish people, that discrimination is amply justifiable.
I'm confused. Most of the persecution the Jews have faced was caused by Christians in Europe. The Holocaust was performed by European Christians. The partition of Trans-Jordan was solely a European decision - done by a colonial power that ruled over the land for less than 50 years. So why do the Palestinians have to pay for the sins of Europe?
Are the Palestinians simply throw-away people? At which point do they then get awarded for their claim of persecution and get similar benefits?
[ 26. July 2014, 17:22: Message edited by: ToujoursDan ]
--------------------
"Many people say I embarrass them with my humility" - Archbishop Peter Akinola
Facebook link: http://www.facebook.com/toujoursdan
Posts: 3734 | From: NYC | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Really? Two wrongs make a right then, it seems. If I was a Palestinian I'd be pretty pissed off with Jews from Brooklyn or St. Petersburg stealing my land. But never mind, hey! The Holocaust gives them the right to act like dicks.
Who stole whose land? If you're talking about ownership a personal level, some Jews had been living in the Levant for centuries. With the rise of the Zionist movement, others immigrated and bought land off Arab residents. After Israel declared independence, some Arabs were forced off their land, which was of course wrong, but wasn't Israeli policy, although the failure to punish the culprits is of course a stain.
If you're talking a national level, there was never a Palestinian state. (According to a PLO leader, the concept of a Palestinian people only crystallized in the 1970s.) There was a British Mandate, which took over from the Ottomans. When the mandate ended, there were hundreds of thousands of Jews living in the region, most of whom would have accepted the borders drawn by a U.N. partition plan, had not multiple Arab state invaded. If anyone tried to steal land, surely they count?
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
ToujoursDan
Ship's prole
# 10578
|
Posted
So if the Chinese became the colonial power of California and decided to award LA, San Diego and Riverside County to Native Americans who could settle from from throughout the western Hemisphere without consulting the locals, the U.S. wouldn't have invaded to keep the status quo ante? Really?
--------------------
"Many people say I embarrass them with my humility" - Archbishop Peter Akinola
Facebook link: http://www.facebook.com/toujoursdan
Posts: 3734 | From: NYC | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
You specifically said that discriminating against the Palestinians via the law of return was acceptable. If that's not oppression then I don't know what definition you're using.
Actually I said I consider having a Law of Return that discriminates against non-Jews acceptable.
If at all possible, a two-state deal should allow reciprocal residence, so I don't believe that citizens of a Palestinian state should be discriminated against.
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
I'm confused. Most of the persecution the Jews have faced was caused by Christians in Europe. The Holocaust was performed by European Christians. The partition of Trans-Jordan was solely a European decision - done by a colonial power that ruled over the land for less than 50 years. So why do the Palestinians have to pay for the sins of Europe?
I don't believe Palestinians should "pay for the sins of Europe." The Law of Return isn't a punishment.
As for partitioning Trans-Jordan, Trans-Jordan itself was invented when the Ottoman Empire collapsed, and overseen by the League of Nations. The British wanted out fast after WWII, and had failed to set up representative institutions in the previous two decades, so there was no machinery in place to negotiate things on the ground. The U.N. did the best it could in a bad situation.
quote:
Are the Palestinians simply throw-away people? At which point do they then get awarded for their claim of persecution and get similar benefits?
What does any of this have to do with the Law of Return? Even if you repealed it, an Israeli-Palestinian peace treaty can't allow everyone displaced in 1948 (and, presumably, their descendants) to move back to the same plots of land. There'd have to be painful compromise regardless.
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
So if the Chinese became the colonial power of California and decided to award LA, San Diego and Riverside County to Native Americans who could settle from from throughout the western Hemisphere without consulting the locals, the U.S. wouldn't have invaded to keep the status quo ante? Really?
To be even remotely analogous, we'd have to travel back to before there was a U.S. (or Thirteen Colonies for that matter), as the British Mandate wasn't seizing land from an established nation.
Britain got its mandate from the collapse of an ancient empire. There was a power vacuum. I suppose they could've just left the region to its own devices, but given that they were responsible for collapsing said empire, that hardly seems a responsible alternative.
So many of these analogies don't factor in the situation as it was. And given that this all happened a century ago, I fail to see how rehashing the actions of people long dead helps solve the situation in the present.
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
I don't believe Palestinians should "pay for the sins of Europe." The Law of Return isn't a punishment.
Scraping the natives off the land and putting them in camps so Jews from all over the world can take their homes to live in or destroy and build over isn't strictly speaking a "punishment." You're right.
quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
Britain got its mandate from the collapse of an ancient empire. There was a power vacuum. I suppose they could've just left the region to its own devices, but given that they were responsible for collapsing said empire, that hardly seems a responsible alternative.
In other words, they got their mandate by conquest. Sucks to be the conquered, don't it? We'll just squeeze you out by importing a bunch of Europeans who would like your land because their ancestors 1400 or more years ago used to live there.
[ 26. July 2014, 17:53: Message edited by: mousethief ]
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ToujoursDan
Ship's prole
# 10578
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
So if the Chinese became the colonial power of California and decided to award LA, San Diego and Riverside County to Native Americans who could settle from from throughout the western Hemisphere without consulting the locals, the U.S. wouldn't have invaded to keep the status quo ante? Really?
To be even remotely analogous, we'd have to travel back to before there was a U.S. (or Thirteen Colonies for that matter), as the British Mandate wasn't seizing land from an established nation.
Britain got its mandate from the collapse of an ancient empire. There was a power vacuum. I suppose they could've just left the region to its own devices, but given that they were responsible for collapsing said empire, that hardly seems a responsible alternative.
So many of these analogies don't factor in the situation as it was. And given that this all happened a century ago, I fail to see how rehashing the actions of people long dead helps solve the situation in the present.
The UK was awarded a mandate that established boundaries in a territory where there hadn't been any for centuries. Then they decided to carve up the land along ethnic lines. To the people who actually lived there, the entire land was one territory - the Ottoman Empire - where people could travel and settle where they pleased. Again, if a foreign power came into the U.S., established boundaries and carved up territory that had been unified before, it's not unreasonable for the locals to take matters into their own hands and try to put things back to the way they were.
--------------------
"Many people say I embarrass them with my humility" - Archbishop Peter Akinola
Facebook link: http://www.facebook.com/toujoursdan
Posts: 3734 | From: NYC | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
ToujoursDan
Ship's prole
# 10578
|
Posted
I bring it up because you just faulted the surrounding Arab nations for invading Trans-Jordan when the State of Israel was proclaimed.
quote:
When the mandate ended, there were hundreds of thousands of Jews living in the region, most of whom would have accepted the borders drawn by a U.N. partition plan, had not multiple Arab state invaded. If anyone tried to steal land, surely they count?
The Arabs weren't stealing land. It's not clear that they were going to force the Jewish settlers to give up their personal property. They rejected the establishment of an ethnic-based state by European powers in an area where there had been no ethnic-based state before. That doesn't strike me as an unreasonable response. We probably would do the same thing under similar circumstances.
The locals had no say in the partition of this land. They weren't consulted about whether they wanted a state west of the Jordan River, much less whether it would be a Jewish state, Arab state or a non-sectarian state. These were handed this fait-accompli by Europe. It's not a huge surprise that they rejected it.
[ 26. July 2014, 18:26: Message edited by: ToujoursDan ]
--------------------
"Many people say I embarrass them with my humility" - Archbishop Peter Akinola
Facebook link: http://www.facebook.com/toujoursdan
Posts: 3734 | From: NYC | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
The UK was awarded a mandate that established boundaries in a territory where there hadn't been any for centuries. Then they decided to carve up the land along ethnic lines. To the people who actually lived there, the entire land was one territory - the Ottoman Empire - where people could travel and settle where they pleased.
And this differs from the actions of British, French and Spanish colonies in America exactly how?
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
HCH
Shipmate
# 14313
|
Posted
I may be wrong, but I have not noticed anyone on this thread arguing that Israel is in the right because God awarded ownership of the Holy Land to the Jews a long time ago (and told them the local inhabitants should be slaughtered or enslaved). I believe this claim has been made not only by Israelis but by various right-wing Christians. (They don't usually stress the parenthetical part.)
It is in some ways refreshing to see that most of the discussion is about much more recent history and about right and wrong.
Posts: 1540 | From: Illinois, USA | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
ToujoursDan
Ship's prole
# 10578
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
The UK was awarded a mandate that established boundaries in a territory where there hadn't been any for centuries. Then they decided to carve up the land along ethnic lines. To the people who actually lived there, the entire land was one territory - the Ottoman Empire - where people could travel and settle where they pleased.
And this differs from the actions of British, French and Spanish colonies in America exactly how?
It differs in that the British, French and Spanish didn't politically neutralize or wipe out altogether the locals in the Trans-Jordan area as effectively as they did in the Americas, Africa and elsewhere, evidently. So enough of them were left and they had enough weapons to try to undo the damage.
--------------------
"Many people say I embarrass them with my humility" - Archbishop Peter Akinola
Facebook link: http://www.facebook.com/toujoursdan
Posts: 3734 | From: NYC | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
ToujoursDan
Ship's prole
# 10578
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by HCH:
I may be wrong, but I have not noticed anyone on this thread arguing that Israel is in the right because God awarded ownership of the Holy Land to the Jews a long time ago (and told them the local inhabitants should be slaughtered or enslaved). I believe this claim has been made not only by Israelis but by various right-wing Christians. (They don't usually stress the parenthetical part.)
It is in some ways refreshing to see that most of the discussion is about much more recent history and about right and wrong.
If people want to go down that road, watch this: Vimeo.com: "This Land is Mine"
--------------------
"Many people say I embarrass them with my humility" - Archbishop Peter Akinola
Facebook link: http://www.facebook.com/toujoursdan
Posts: 3734 | From: NYC | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
Yes, Europe should have left the former Ottoman Empire to its own devices. Notice there was no US mandate in the Middle East. We didn't want one. The US representative read the paper while Britain and France carved up the former Ottoman Empire.
Now, the Israelis and the US are convinced Israel has a right to exist. Nothing will convince the Israelis they don't have a right to Israel. Israel isn't going to cut the Arabs some slack because they all of a sudden decide the Arabs were right to attack in 1948. Wars were fought. The Arabs lost. There are consequences to losing wars. My ancestors wanted to be part of the CSA not the USA. We lost the war. So, here we are.
As to giving the Native-Americans, Los Angeles, San Francisco, and Riverside, I'm OK with that. Heck, to be fair, I say give them all of Greater Los Angeles, the San Francisco Bay Area, and a stretch of land around SR 1 connecting the two. Then, we wish them luck, get out of the way, pop some popcorn, and wait for the hilarity to ensue. Shame Ben Nighthorse Campbell is too old to be the first head of government in the new Native American homeland. Even though he represented Colorado, he was born in California. I liked him.
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768
|
Posted
If one wanted to believe in curses, the history of that part of the world might encourage one. Recently, at any rate.
I suppose that like Narnia, there have been many long periods when not a lot happened - not because there was nobody there, but because they were just doing what people do, getting on with life.
Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
ToujoursDan
Ship's prole
# 10578
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Now, the Israelis and the US are convinced Israel has a right to exist. Nothing will convince the Israelis they don't have a right to Israel. Israel isn't going to cut the Arabs some slack because they all of a sudden decide the Arabs were right to attack in 1948. Wars were fought. The Arabs lost. There are consequences to losing wars. My ancestors wanted to be part of the CSA not the USA. We lost the war. So, here we are.
And nothing is going to convince the Palestinians that they should accept being confined to increasingly smaller and more fragmented pockets of land, subjected to restrictions on travel, commerce, freedom of speech and assembly, and subjected to the authority of a power that they have no say in choosing any more than Americans would accept that.
--------------------
"Many people say I embarrass them with my humility" - Archbishop Peter Akinola
Facebook link: http://www.facebook.com/toujoursdan
Posts: 3734 | From: NYC | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
Again, my ancestors wanted to be part of the Confederate States of America. The Yankee aggressors waged total war against the CSA for 4 years and killed more of us in that time span than the Israelis have killed Palestinians period. Following this, the USA occupied the former CSA for over a decade and then over the next century proceeded to strip state governments of the power granted them by the US Constitution which formed the basis of union in the first place. But, we lost. So...here we are...proud Americans.
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
ToujoursDan
Ship's prole
# 10578
|
Posted
Last time I checked, the citizens of the CSA weren't forced out their homes en masse into ever shrinking pockets of land and subjected to the restrictions that the Palestinians have endure for the past 60+ years.
Heck, the slave owners just converted their "property" into sharecroppers and kept on making money.
So I don't think the analogy holds.
[ 26. July 2014, 20:23: Message edited by: ToujoursDan ]
--------------------
"Many people say I embarrass them with my humility" - Archbishop Peter Akinola
Facebook link: http://www.facebook.com/toujoursdan
Posts: 3734 | From: NYC | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
At the close of the War of Treasonous Secession, the "former CSA" were once again part of the USA. The USA did not then "occupy" them -- you can't "occupy" yourself. That's nonsense.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
Well, mousethief, sounds like you are suggesting the Israelis annex all of Palestine and then spend the next four years killing as many Palestinians as it takes to convince them to stop fighting. "War is Hell," William T. Sherman said. The Israelis might as well follow Sherman's example and burn Gaza to the ground.
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Well, mousethief, sounds like you are suggesting the Israelis annex all of Palestine and then spend the next four years killing as many Palestinians as it takes to convince them to stop fighting. "War is Hell," William T. Sherman said. The Israelis might as well follow Sherman's example and burn Gaza to the ground.
I wasn't suggesting anything, I was correcting your absurd statement. Try not to put words in my mouth. You're not very good at it.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Well, mousethief, sounds like you are suggesting the Israelis annex all of Palestine and then spend the next four years killing as many Palestinians as it takes to convince them to stop fighting. "War is Hell," William T. Sherman said. The Israelis might as well follow Sherman's example and burn Gaza to the ground.
And then all the surviving Palestinians would get the vote? Yes, the two situations are not going to parallel each other ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
ToujoursDan
Ship's prole
# 10578
|
Posted
Sounds like the only alternative to the active genocide of Palestinians you propose here, is a passive one through a Warsaw-ghetto style scenario of increasing deprivation leading to the same result. Either way, the desired result seems to be the same. They lost the war so they should just disappear. Their lives don't matter. They are a throwaway people who should be ethnically cleansed.
--------------------
"Many people say I embarrass them with my humility" - Archbishop Peter Akinola
Facebook link: http://www.facebook.com/toujoursdan
Posts: 3734 | From: NYC | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
As for the War of Treasonous Succession, we should have just let the fuckers go. Modulo the slavery thing but international pressure would likely have killed that off sooner than later. As it is, the former confederate states are a net drag on the national economy (except Texas) and on the aggregate level of civil rights (including Texas) for anyone who's not a rich, white, male, Christian, heterosexual corporation.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
heterosexual corporation.
As corporations merge with other corporations on a regular basis, doesn't that make them gay?
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by Mousethief;
quote:
a rich, white, male, Christian, heterosexual corporation.
Like Leorning Cniht (hope I spelled that right) I have trouble with the notion of a corporation having 'sexuality' of any kind. Would your point have been better expressed as "a rich, white, male, Christian, heterosexual, or a corporation run by such people"
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by Mousethief;
quote:
a rich, white, male, Christian, heterosexual corporation.
Like Leorning Cniht (hope I spelled that right) I have trouble with the notion of a corporation having 'sexuality' of any kind. Would your point have been better expressed as "a rich, white, male, Christian, heterosexual, or a corporation run by such people"
Since my point was a sarcastic swipe at several conservative positions, including their restrictions of rights and their contentions that corporations are persons and that corporations can have a religion, no, probably not.
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
heterosexual corporation.
As corporations merge with other corporations on a regular basis, doesn't that make them gay?
Not if a boy corporation merges with a girl corporation.
[ 26. July 2014, 21:20: Message edited by: mousethief ]
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Highfive
Shipmate
# 12937
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Now, the Israelis and the US are convinced Israel has a right to exist. Nothing will convince the Israelis they don't have a right to Israel. Israel isn't going to cut the Arabs some slack because they all of a sudden decide the Arabs were right to attack in 1948. Wars were fought. The Arabs lost.
Israel isn't going to cut the Arabs some slack because the Jews have been persecuted in every country they have tried to settle in for almost two thousand years. Something about being "Christ-killers". It wasn't just World War II.
Posts: 111 | From: Brisbane | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
![[Biased]](wink.gif)
