and you missed the point the mongols are a nomadic people yet they have a country why should the jews be held to a different standard?
Recognition of Israel : a moral failure
- Thread starter S.A.M.
- Start date
and you missed the point the mongols are a nomadic people yet they have a country why should the jews be held to a different standard?
Ah I see. Do you see the Mongols who went to India [the Mughal Empire], Iran and Turkey demanding a state? The Mongols assimilated, the Jews did not. They kept themselves separate from the local people. Mongolia was a state of the Mongols who did not move out. None of the ones who did, returned to it. The ones who are there, do not belong to one single ethnic group, but are an assimilation of several tribes.
Last edited:
Well, you came over to my neck of the woods, so I'll return the favour
As you may have seen, I believe that the Israelis are practicing what perhaps most societies do when they've got a bigger stick than a certain immediate neighbour; expansionism. Now while I disagree with this and I definitely think there's a lot to be said concerning the palestinians who were uprooted from their homes back in 1967, this doesn't mean that I believe that Israel shouldn't be recognized as a state.
While I recognize that Israel was created somewhat more recently then, say, the U.S., I believe the concept is similar; many Israelies were -born- in Israel and simply integrating Israel into a 'greater palestine' or what not is not, in my view, the best approach.
However, I also believe that Israel's expansionism into the west bank isn't good either. To me, it's akin to smacking your neighbour and thinking that because you've got a bigger stick said neighbour will turn the other cheek. Perhaps he will, but said neighbour has some friends.. powerful friends. The whole thing, in my view, is something that can lead to disaster and I believe I'm definitely not alone in thinking that it should stop.
I believe, moreover, that not only should it stop, but the whole issue off the uprooted palestinian families should be analyzed. Perhaps not everyone can be returned- remember that in order to return many of them now, Israelies who now live there would have to be relocated in turn. But perhaps a compromise could occur, wherein some could be relocated. I also believe that the idea of dividing Jerusalem up into a palestinian side and an Israeli one might work as well, based on this relocation of some idea.
All this idea of 'buffer zones' may sound good, but in practice, I think that it's easier to make friends with your enemy if he's closer to you. The further away he is, the easier it is, in my view, to demonize him, throw rockets at him, etc.
Thank you, you seem like a reasonable person [I remember being like that once
]The Jews have a right of "return" don't they? For Jews who have no remote connection to Israel for thousands of years? Unlike Palestinians made refugees in living memory? Who has the greater right? An American Jew who moved there this year for some mythological fantasy or a Palestinian living in a refugee camp for 60 years?
Also, the Jewish practice of examining the demographics of its inhabitants is racist. If they had not uprooted the Palestinians, they would be only 7% of the original state. Now they want to restrict Palestinians because they want to maintain a "Jewish state" by keeping out native peoples. This is racism. Do you think people should be evicted or kept as refugees/prisoners because they are not Jews? When over 7 million Palestinians are not permitted to return?
JDawg:
That's not very productive. Realise that administrators are not online 24 hours a day. A little patience wouldn't go astray.
SAM is attempting to make an argument why Jews have no right to be in Israel. That is a discussion you may not like, but it is one that is valid to have. My personal opinion is that SAM is being naive to imagine that Israel will ever be "unmade", even if that's what she fervently wants to happen.
The way to counter these kind of extreme statements is to show that they are wrong - not to whinge and whine and ask mummy to delete the posts you wish weren't there.
Now, SAM's posts amount to anti-Zionism, and some of them are also borderline anti-semitic too, in my opinion. However, when you boil it down and leave out some of the emotivism, SAM is attempting to make a argument that the Jews have no right to the land in Israel. I am not about to prevent her from making the argument. If you disagree, you should refute the argument, not attempt to get the argument censored.
Note the important contrast between making an argument and merely spouting racist propaganda.
If it's bullshit, why not show that it is bullshit? Should be easy enough.
Her position as a moderator is irrelevant.
Your descent to personal insults doesn't help advance your case.
If that's what you want to do, it's up to you, of course.
That's not very productive. Realise that administrators are not online 24 hours a day. A little patience wouldn't go astray.
SAM is attempting to make an argument why Jews have no right to be in Israel. That is a discussion you may not like, but it is one that is valid to have. My personal opinion is that SAM is being naive to imagine that Israel will ever be "unmade", even if that's what she fervently wants to happen.
The way to counter these kind of extreme statements is to show that they are wrong - not to whinge and whine and ask mummy to delete the posts you wish weren't there.
Now, SAM's posts amount to anti-Zionism, and some of them are also borderline anti-semitic too, in my opinion. However, when you boil it down and leave out some of the emotivism, SAM is attempting to make a argument that the Jews have no right to the land in Israel. I am not about to prevent her from making the argument. If you disagree, you should refute the argument, not attempt to get the argument censored.
Note the important contrast between making an argument and merely spouting racist propaganda.
If it's bullshit, why not show that it is bullshit? Should be easy enough.
Her position as a moderator is irrelevant.
Your descent to personal insults doesn't help advance your case.
If that's what you want to do, it's up to you, of course.
They do have some claim, it's impractical to simply let them back, but there is much we can agree on. These claims must be addressed in any peace agreement.
Also, Mongols don't have a nation, they are part of China.
What peace agreement? The elderly Palestinians that were forced out of their home at midnight, have now also been forced out of the tent they were sheltering in. Where do they [and the residents of the 51 other homes taken over by the Israelis in 2008] go?
http://english.pnn.ps/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=4020&Itemid=27
What does any "peace agreement" hold for them? Or for anyone in the West Bank and Gaza, let alone any one of the 7 million Palestinians awaiting an opportunity to return home?
They lost their country?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongolia
Last edited:
OK, my mistake about Mongolia.
I think that the larger issues will need to be resolved on a high level before these sub-issues. They all arise out of the same basic problem. As far as the right of return, I don't think they will get it. Until there is the possibility of a substantive negotiation, both sides will try to solidify their power and get the better of their opponent.
Until then, for the Kurd family, "the Prime Minister's Advisor for Jerusalem Affairs stressed that the Palestinian Authority will provide all possible help."
I think that the larger issues will need to be resolved on a high level before these sub-issues. They all arise out of the same basic problem. As far as the right of return, I don't think they will get it. Until there is the possibility of a substantive negotiation, both sides will try to solidify their power and get the better of their opponent.
Until then, for the Kurd family, "the Prime Minister's Advisor for Jerusalem Affairs stressed that the Palestinian Authority will provide all possible help."
You mean the puppet of the Israelis? Sure they will. After all the elected Hamas ministers are in Israeli prison. But surely, the Israelis can return their 1948 house much more easily, since they took their 50 year old house built by Jordan under UNRWA on the claim that it was previously owned by Jews? Which should then open the door for all the homes previously owned by Palestinians in their land? Yes? Or do these previous ownerships only count for Jews? Who is responsible for Palestinians in East Jerusalem?
Even if Israel returned their home, that would not open the door for all Palestinians to return. That is not something that Israel would negotiate, at least not for 7 million people. The issue of Jerusalem has yet to be decided, along with the borders for a new Palestinian state.
They have less of a right to that choice than the Palestinians did in 1948. At least, the Palestinians are true natives, not coming home because of centuries of brainwashing about a perceived religious right. If you believe the Palestinians should accept the Jews coming and settling in their land, you have to first accept the right of Palestinians yourself. The Jews did not set a limit on the number of Jews coming in to replace the Palestinians after all. You are in the same place the Palestinians were in 1948. Lets see how much better you do than them.
Last edited:
Thank you, you seem like a reasonable person [I remember being like that once
But you are now an.. outraged person? (ponders)
Jews were there since atleast 0 B.C. If they make a country, they can invite anyone they wish, just as americans can invite anyone they wish into their country. We could, ofcourse, say that native americans have a right to push all americans who weren't there 500 years ago but.. I just don't think it'd be a good idea.
I'll let God decide on that one
. I find that sorting out what's cosmically fair is difficult if not impossible in some cases. Such as this one. I have noted that the palestinians seem to believe that if they 'settled' the issue of the uprooted palestinians and got a piece of Jerusalem, they may find that good enough. The Israelies may feel they can concede these things. Demonizing either group of individuals, in my view, doesn't help anyone. I remember once getting into a small fight with some friends of mine. By the end of it, I decided I should cave in. Was it wrong for me to fight for what I had fought for? I don't really think so. But in the ending -continuing- to fight for it would have been more detrimental then simply 'surrendering'. They waved a stick at my head and then let it go at that. Make no mistake about it here: the one's who would be 'surrendering' here would be the Israelies. It seems to me that many feel that since the arabs attacked them in 1967, the lands they got were won by right. A type of justice, they might say. However, if -I- were the Israelies, looking at the situation as it is today, I'd think that perhaps there could be a little give. Some relocation of israelies, some arabs coming back. A bit of jerusalem for palestine. Perhaps it wouldn't settle things. But I think it sure beats this continual war that they're having.I think a big issue here is not always so much where precisely a person is located but what type of things they have where they -are- located. Friends, family, adequate resources. To be honest with you, I think the problems of overpopulation are the bigger problem here, although I don't deny the fact that the israeli/palestine problem may be an overpopulation flashpoint in the future. Fortunately, many have already considered this possibility. In a way, it may well be a good thing that palestine's neighbours have a lot of oil, because it makes even the americans want to keep everything cool. Anyway, my point is that I think there should be more dialogue- palestians may want to return to their original houses, but perhaps more importantly, people in refugee camps simply want -better housing-. That may be much more easy to arange then getting into the messy details of relocations.
Also, the Jewish practice of examining the demographics of its inhabitants is racist. If they had not uprooted the Palestinians, they would be only 7% of the original state. Now they want to restrict Palestinians because they want to maintain a "Jewish state" by keeping out native peoples. This is racism. Do you think people should be evicted or kept as refugees/prisoners because they are not Jews? When over 7 million Palestinians are not permitted to return?[/QUOTE]
There are now apparently 7 million israelies in Israel, so getting 7 million to return would result in a lot of displacement. There are so many injustices in the world, but I'm not sure that displacing Israelies makes the world any more just. I believe that the negotiations that have taken place between the israelies and the palestinians have had their good moments. I believe that these negotiations can continue in time. I think the key is to look at -all- the participants first and foremost as human beings. Human beings that would like a place they can call home. If you look at it from this perspective, it's no longer a matter of which particular human beings were there first or whether it was right for the arabs to attack the jews or for the jews to then take arab land because of it, but how all of them can get along best at the present time.
The Ottoman Empire attacked the British. The British kicked their butts and seized their land. The British gave part of that land to a bunch of Jews.
Thats how the spoils of war works and if those nutbag Ottomans didn't start shit then Israel likely wouldn't exist today.
Now there's a new issue. Israel has annexed "extra" land from Palestinians. Before and during this process Palestinians have pretty much tried to kill Israelis.
Palestine is infected with a violence-against-Israel meme and Israel is infected with seperate / acquire-Palestinian-land meme. Both hold little or no value toward each other.
Israel has tried to correct itself multiple times (ex. giving back Gaza) and each correction was met by Palestinian violence (i.e. they were punished for their correction).
Unless Palestine and Isreal can mutually correct themselves and not punish each others corrections then the stronger of the two is going to dominate the other into submission or non-existence.
The stronger one is Israel.
Why not? They are still, 60 years later, evicting Palestinians from their homes for not being Jews.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/LiArt.jhtml?contrassID=2&subContrassID=14&sbSubContrassID=0
Why shouldn't they relocate, especially the ones who have no native link to Palestine, just a religious fantasy?
For now. However, Israel's "strength" is not much more than that of the Ottoman Empire or the British Empire. Israel will eventually collapse. The Palestinians lived through 700? years of the Romans and 200 years of Crusades. They are survivors.
I wouldn't go saying that in Ulan Bator if I were you.
Israel will eventually collapse as will any socio-geographical group; however, it is presently on a path of lowering entropy and stands to get alot stronger than it is today. Palestine is on the verge of collapse and it's in a high state of entropy. There is a point of no return and Palestine might have crossed it.
You seek the impossible, that Jews would give up their state by letting in 7 million disgruntled Arabs. That is simply not going to happen. I mean, why negotiate at all if you are just going to give away everything?
Israel has every right to exist as a nation, the Jews that comprise of the great nation of Israel have many times proven to the world of their good intentions and the national peacekeeping force within the region. A world without Jews, is a world without Bible, the grail of our civilization...the seed of Christianity foundations that allowed the spread of civilization elsewhere in the World. The only issue here is maintaining the peace amongst Palestinians and Jewish people, for Israel is the land of the Jews and their land by word of the God.
It's already strong and there are plenty of farms.