PDA

View Full Version : Is Israel above rebuke?



A Seeker
Nov 29th 2007, 08:00 PM
I have been really rather surprised at the recent thread on isreali terrorism. I seems that critism of Isreal is not an acceptable position to take. Not merely a minority view but an unacceptable one?

Are the actions of Isreal in the last 50 years above rebuke?

Is critism of Israel "unchristian" or "unbiblical"

Brother Mark
Nov 29th 2007, 08:03 PM
Nope. But when we rebuke or judge, let us do so in fact instead of in blanket condemnation.

For instance, let us say "that act was wrong".

Also, keep in mind, that many that condemn Israel, loathe to condemn the other side. Often what you will see in these threads is a defense of Israel because they seem to be classified as worse than the other guy. For me, I think the other guy is far worse in his actions.

Fenris
Nov 29th 2007, 08:05 PM
No, I rebuke Israel all the time in various discussions.

Is Israel as bad as the Nazis? Does Israel carry out terrorist attacks? Are they the worst human rights offender in the world? Are they committing genocide? Are they an apartheid state? No. Do people claim that they are? Yes.

Fenris
Nov 29th 2007, 08:20 PM
The best part is when someone says that "Any criticism of Israel is called antisemitism" and then go on to compare Israel to the Nazis. No, any criticism of Israel is not antisemitism, but comparing them to the most evil empires that ever existed is.

punk
Nov 29th 2007, 08:33 PM
The best part is when someone says that "Any criticism of Israel is called antisemitism" and then go on to compare Israel to the Nazis. No, any criticism of Israel is not antisemitism, but comparing them to the most evil empires that ever existed is.

Nonsense.

It might be silly or ridiculous to compare a nation to Nazi Germany.

It might even be totally wrong.

But to say in the case of Israel that it is "antisemitism" is ridiculous.

It is simply an ad hominem.

I am totally in favor of a reasoned debate where it is demonstrated that the actions of Israel nowhere compare to those of Nazi Germany.

That is fine, that is discussion.

But to call it "antisemitism" without any appeal to the facts, and without any discussion.

In fact to end it before any discussion happens.

To end it by calling the opponents racists.

That is just intellectual cowardice and nothing else.

I have to ask:

Is it not possible that Israel's actions are in fact comparable to those of the Nazis, and that it is precisely for this reason that Israel's defenders will not actually engage in such a discussion, but prefer to smear the opposition with the name "racist"?

The fact that the main defense of Israeli actions is to smear the opposition invites one to suppose that many of Israel's actions are (in fact) indefensible.

punk
Nov 29th 2007, 08:38 PM
Nope. But when we rebuke or judge, let us do so in fact instead of in blanket condemnation.

I think people would be inclined to do that if it wasn't for the fact that the Palestinians are constantly smeared with blanket condemnations by the pro-Israeli side.


Also, keep in mind, that many that condemn Israel, loathe to condemn the other side. Often what you will see in these threads is a defense of Israel because they seem to be classified as worse than the other guy. For me, I think the other guy is far worse in his actions.

Well Israel is the aggressor, and (I suspect) if many of the pro-Israeli types found themselves in the boots of the Palestinians in their own country (with a foreign power occupying, and doing the things the Israelis do), they would find themselves advocating just the sorts of things the Palestinians are.

It would be good of people could try to imagine themselves in both the boots of the Israelis and the Palestinians.

But let me stress once again (or for the first time in this thread)

The fact of the matter is that many many many more Palestinian civilians have been killed by Israelis than Israeli civilians have by Palestinians.

If we measured things purely by body-count alone, we'd find that the Palestinians appear to be the wronged party.

Fenris
Nov 29th 2007, 08:40 PM
Nonsense.

It might be silly or ridiculous to compare a nation to Nazi Germany.

It might even be totally wrong.

But to say in the case of Israel that it is "antisemitism" is ridiculous.Does antisemitism exist, in your opinion?




Is it not possible that Israel's actions are in fact comparable to those of the Nazis, and that it is precisely for this reason that Israel's defenders will not actually engage in such a discussion, but prefer to smear the opposition with the name "racist"?Well, if you're trying to make a connection, then make it. Israel's actions are comparable to the Nazis...how?

Brother Mark
Nov 29th 2007, 08:40 PM
The fact that the main defense of Israeli actions is to smear the opposition invites one to suppose that many of Israel's actions are (in fact) indefensible.

Using your own first word, nonsense! ;)

People do the comparison because they know it will inflame emotions and bring out the said accusations. If reasoned debate was wanted, the broad comparison would be avoided even if limited comparison is used.

punk
Nov 29th 2007, 08:43 PM
I have been really rather surprised at the recent thread on isreali terrorism. I seems that critism of Isreal is not an acceptable position to take. Not merely a minority view but an unacceptable one?

Are the actions of Isreal in the last 50 years above rebuke?

Is critism of Israel "unchristian" or "unbiblical"

Christians should criticize all groups for the wrongs they do.

If I fail to criticize the Palestinians in a venue such as this, it is only because it is nothing but preaching to the choir (but note, that even my criticism of Palestine comes out so much weaker than the demonizing by the choir that my criticisms can be misconstrued as blanket support).

We, as Christians, are commanded to love our neighbor, and I interpret that as a commandment to love the Israelis and the Palestinians equally, and hence to criticize both as appropriate.

I'll also note that many who criticize Israel, merely criticize them for not being fascist enough in their treatment of the Palestinians.

Fenris
Nov 29th 2007, 08:43 PM
But let me stress once again (or for the first time in this thread)

The fact of the matter is that many many many more Palestinian civilians have been killed by Israelis than Israeli civilians have by Palestinians.

If we measured things purely by body-count alone, we'd find that the Palestinians appear to be the wronged party.In world war 2 Germany lost 1.8 million civilians. The US lost 1700 civilians. Germany would therefore appear to be the wronged party. :hmm:

Brother Mark
Nov 29th 2007, 08:44 PM
I think people would be inclined to do that if it wasn't for the fact that the Palestinians are constantly smeared with blanket condemnations by the pro-Israeli side.

Right. It's always Israel's fault. That's the problem here Punk. There are errors on both sides. Personally, I think the greater error is on the Palestinians and their Arab neighbors. However, I do not support moving Palestinian settlements.




Well Israel is the aggressor, and (I suspect) if many of the pro-Israeli types found themselves in the boots of the Palestinians in their own country (with a foreign power occupying, and doing the things the Israelis do), they would find themselves advocating just the sorts of things the Palestinians are.

Palestine doesn't exist any more. Israel is the country that is now there. Palestinians are now the foreigners and Israel the country.


It would be good of people could try to imagine themselves in both the boots of the Israelis and the Palestinians.

Agreed.


The fact of the matter is that many many many more Palestinian civilians have been killed by Israelis than Israeli civilians have by Palestinians.

If we measured things purely by body-count alone, we'd find that the Palestinians appear to be the wronged party.


Agreed. But that isn't the measuring stick IMHO.

jeffreys
Nov 29th 2007, 09:39 PM
Are the actions of Isreal in the last 50 years above rebuke?

Is critism of Israel "unchristian" or "unbiblical"

Nope, and nope.

But this whole discussion needs to take place in full view of the larger picture. When the stated goal of several nations is the complete and total annihilation of Israel - and they are putting actions behind their goal - it's kind of hard to criticize Israel for fighting.


I see it kind of like this: I have absolutely no animosity toward you whatever. I don't know any reason I would hold any. In addition, I'm really a rather peaceful person. However, if you said you were going to kill my daughter, and it was obvious that you were doing everything to fulfill that threat, you'd better watch out. I will never sit idly by and just allow that to happen.

Teke
Nov 29th 2007, 10:39 PM
I have been really rather surprised at the recent thread on isreali terrorism. I seems that critism of Isreal is not an acceptable position to take. Not merely a minority view but an unacceptable one?

You notice that too. Thought maybe it was just me.:crazy:
:wasup::dunno:


Are the actions of Isreal in the last 50 years above rebuke?

No, as no political structure is.:no:


Is critism of Israel "unchristian" or "unbiblical"

As Christians who read the bible, it would seem ridiculous not to critique the examples given. That is if one wishes to get to the truth of the matter.

Studyin'2Show
Nov 29th 2007, 11:56 PM
Not surprisingly to me, but maybe to you, EVERYONE has said that Israel IS NOT above rebuke! Israel is not always right and Israel is not perfect. No one, even in the other thread has said that they were. It surprises me that the pro-palestinian side of this discussion feels that Israel is always wrong. :hmm:

punk
Nov 30th 2007, 12:31 AM
Not surprisingly to me, but maybe to you, EVERYONE has said that Israel IS NOT above rebuke! Israel is not always right and Israel is not perfect. No one, even in the other thread has said that they were. It surprises me that the pro-palestinian side of this discussion feels that Israel is always wrong. :hmm:

I'm sure that last bit is related to the feeling that the pro-Israeli side seems never to admit that the Palestinians might have some legitimate grievances.

Hey, I'll start a thread, and we'll see if anyone thinks they do!

But while we're on the topic, I'm very curious:

Pro-Israel types, what exactly are some real things Israel has done that are worthy of rebuke in your opinion?

I'm curious what rises to the level rebuke in this regard.

Brother Mark
Nov 30th 2007, 12:59 AM
I'm sure that last bit is related to the feeling that the pro-Israeli side seems never to admit that the Palestinians might have some legitimate grievances.

Finding a way to blame Israel and their supporters again. :hmm:

punk
Nov 30th 2007, 01:06 AM
Finding a way to blame Israel and their supporters again. :hmm:

If I'm blaming them of anything, it is having a totally unbalanced view.

To listen to the pro-Israel side one would think the Palestinians were the very earthly embodiment of evil, who attack Israel out of purely malicious and irrational motives, simply killing Israelis for the sake of killing Israelis.

But then when one points out that the Israeli hands aren't exactly clean, and that they aren't faultless victims, one is called 'pro-Palestinian', and often an 'anti-Semite'.

Strange how trying to find a more balanced view of the thing translates to 'supporter of terrorism'.

Brother Mark
Nov 30th 2007, 01:15 AM
If I'm blaming them of anything, it is having a totally unbalanced view.

I can live with that assertion. For certainly, there are unbalanced views on both sides!


To listen to the pro-Israel side one would think the Palestinians were the very earthly embodiment of evil, who attack Israel out of purely malicious and irrational motives, simply killing Israelis for the sake of killing Israelis.

In some cases, this might be valid. But certainly, it's not valid across the board. You can talk about how their motives are pure a lot. But, on the one hand, you condemn war. On the other, you seem to justify the actions of a group of people that war on civilians. I think it's an interesting contradiction.



But then when one points out that the Israeli hands aren't exactly clean, and that they aren't faultless victims, one is called 'pro-Palestinian', and often an 'anti-Semite'.

Strange how trying to find a more balanced view of the thing translates to 'supporter of terrorism'.


Israel has plenty of things that should be done differently. Displacing present day Palestinians that live in Israel for Jews doesn't seem kosher to me. On the other hand, equating Israeli action with Nazi's is clearly meant to inflame and does seem anti-Semitic.

A Seeker
Nov 30th 2007, 08:32 PM
Thanks for some useful feedback guys. You've gone a long way to answering my question.

It seems to me that punk encapsulated both sides of the argument when he said that critism of the palestinians is like preeching to the choir because its the view we hear so often. It seems that both sides feel that the other is overstating their case and not being even handed and therefor emphasises the opposite view in an attempt to create balance. This of course jutifies the viewpoint of the first group and so on and so forth.



I'm sure that last bit is related to the feeling that the pro-Israeli side seems never to admit that the Palestinians might have some legitimate grievances.


I must confess that this has been the impression i got. The assertion that palestinians learned terrorism from zionists is, in my view, falacious. However i think that the view that isreal has been blameless in the conflict (for eg not attacking civilians) is also falacious.


Pro-Israel types, what exactly are some real things Israel has done that are worthy of rebuke in your opinion?

I'm curious what rises to the level rebuke in this regard.

This is an interesting (though provokativly worded) question. It might go some way to reducing the feeling that people will not accept any fault of isreal to hear what elements of their policy you find distasteful.

Mind you, for balance those who feel the argument is unbalanced on the other side would have to do the same!

Here you go. I'll start with a few.

The Arab world (previously the arab league) make few if any consessions to a peaceful solution. Israel made a concession giving up the Gaza strip. it could have been treated as an olive branch, it was not. What then, is the motivation to make further concessions?

The rhetoric of many members of the old arab league remains inflammatory and destructive.

The terrorist attacks by the palestinans have been persistant and indiscriminate making little or no discrimination between civilians and military targets.

The Arab world, for the most part, shows a depressing lack of pragmatism in accepting the reality of a jewish state. We could not expect them to like it. However by now you would have imagined they would have accepted it as an inevitability (as egypt did).

The demands of the palestinians are unrealistic, essentially demanding a turning back of time.

On the Flip side

The isrealis have missed several oppertunities to make the situation less severe and have in the past been deliberatly provokative.

They have, in the past, attacked civilian targets and acted in breech of many a UN resolution.

They have, in the past, engaged in what by any standard must be considered terrorist activity.

Some of the retaliations against palestinian action have been disproportionate.


Thats just my view. You may not consider it balanced but it is also not completely one sided.

Somebody elses turn. Punk, i'd love to hear your views on what the palestinians have done which is rebukable. Fenris i'd love to hear your view on what the isrealis have done which is rebukable. Bro mark... say what you like, you always make sense and make good reading!

Regards
Seeker

Warrior4God
Nov 30th 2007, 11:50 PM
I have been really rather surprised at the recent thread on isreali terrorism. I seems that critism of Isreal is not an acceptable position to take. Not merely a minority view but an unacceptable one?

Are the actions of Isreal in the last 50 years above rebuke?

Is critism of Israel "unchristian" or "unbiblical"

Not really. God was always rebuking and criticizing Israel in biblical times. They are a nation that blew it all the time. They worshiped false gods. They intermingled with pagan nations around them when God told them not to. They didn't always obey God when He instructed them to do certain things in times of war. What makes anybody think God suddenly views them as perfect now in modern times and expects everybody else to view them the same way? Yes, I believe Israel is still a special people to God and there are some future things yet to happen involving God and His chosen nation. However, to be brutally honest, they are no "holier" or "better" now than they were then. I don't think individual citizens of the nation of Israel are above rebuking, either. Jews commit sins just like anybody else. Anybody going to try to convince me nobody in Israel lies, steals, commits adultery, etc., as if Jesus Christ didn't have to be murdered on a cross for any of their sins? Yes, the Bible indicates how special Israel is to God by saying things like God will bless those who bless Israel and curse those who curse Israel. However, I don't think honest criticism is "cursing" Israel and I don't think it means one can't legitimately condemn Jews for any wrongdoing they may be involved in. The Jews are not exempt from God's standards of what He considers right and wrong. The Jews are not perfect in God's eyes. To outright say or insinuate they are perfect and above reproach is, at the least, spiritual ignorance. At worst, it's spiritual arrogance and hypocrisy.

punk
Dec 1st 2007, 12:31 AM
I'll state at the beginning, outright, that most of my views on this issue have been shaped by reading Noam Chomsky.

I think Chomsky is a very intelligent and very well-read individual whom I am inclined to agree with on other issues where I have more information from other sources.

That said, I will point out that Chomsky has stated that the whole issue of the Israelis and Palestinians and the rest of the Arab world was close to a settlement on the issue a couple decades ago whereby the Arabs would recognize the legal and de facto existence of Israel within the 1967 borders.

The Israelis then upped the ante to requiring the Arabs to affirm Israel's "right to exist", (which, as I stated elsewhere, is something no other nation has ever demanded).

I agree with Chomsky that it appears that many higher-ups in Israel have worked to prolong the situation while at the same time moving to create Jewish settlements outside the 1967 borders.

Now, of course I deplore the methods the Palestinians have used.

I also deplore the methods the Israelis have used.

I would rebuke the Palestinians for their methods and at the same time deplore the Israelis for theirs.

On the other hand I couldn't advise the Palestinians to do nothing, as past evidence would show that Israel would simply continue to build settlements and push the Palestinians to more and more marginal land (the strange analog to the Arabs wanting to push Israel into the sea is that Israel appears to be pushing the Palestinians into the desert).

So while I deplore the Palestinian methods, if one of them asked me what I think they should do (given my appraisal of what Israel is about), I would be at a loss as to what I should advise them to do.

Perhaps follow Gandhi's tactics against the British?

Realistically I am fine with Israel existing within the 1967 borders, and I'm fine with saying, okay the Palestinians should give up all claims to property within those borders. But the fact is that the only territory they have is in Gaza and the West Bank.

The Arab nations do not want the Palestinians to become citizens of their nations, the Israelis do not want the Palestinians to become citizens of Israel.

Now the pro-Israeli side claims that Israel needs to hold the West Bank for defensive reasons, and if the Palestinians would only play nice there would be no problems.

But this doesn't explain why they are building settlements there. I mean, I might buy that if they simply left the West Bank as Palestinian land and held the borders.

But they aren't, they are moving people into there and moving the Palestinians to the marginal land.

diffangle
Dec 1st 2007, 01:04 AM
Pro-Israel types, what exactly are some real things Israel has done that are worthy of rebuke in your opinion?

I've never claimed the Israeli government to be faultless, with that said... I don't believe ANY government to be faultless. Imo, being a Zionist is the same thing as being an American or British so when most of the world talks about Zionists as if it's a dirty word then I get a little miffed. Personally, as a Westerner, I see the entire M.E. as being jacked up(Is. included)... but if someone came up to me tomorrow and said you have to pick one place in the M.E. that you will live... I would pick Israel in a heartbeat. Imo, it's the most democratic out of all the M.E. countries. Israel is way fairer to its Arab/Muslim population(whom are allowed to hold seats within their government) than the sea of Arab/Muslim nations surrounding Is. are to their Jewish population. The numbers should be a testament to that... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_exodus_from_Arab_lands#History_of_Jews_in_A rab_lands_.28Pre-1948.29



To listen to the pro-Israel side one would think the Palestinians were the very earthly embodiment of evil, who attack Israel out of purely malicious and irrational motives, simply killing Israelis for the sake of killing Israelis.

:hmm:They are the wild ones...

And he will be a wild man; his hand will be against every man, and every man's hand against him; and he shall dwell in the presence of all his brethren. Gen. 16:12

Fenris
Dec 2nd 2007, 01:11 PM
I'll state at the beginning, outright, that most of my views on this issue have been shaped by reading Noam Chomsky.
Chomsky is a bad person to follow because he has been known to lie when it advances his point. If you want examples I will be happy to provide them.


That said, I will point out that Chomsky has stated that the whole issue of the Israelis and Palestinians and the rest of the Arab world was close to a settlement on the issue a couple decades ago whereby the Arabs would recognize the legal and de facto existence of Israel within the 1967 borders.

The Israelis then upped the ante to requiring the Arabs to affirm Israel's "right to exist", (which, as I stated elsewhere, is something no other nation has ever demanded).When did this happen? Date and who attended this meeting?


I agree with Chomsky that it appears that many higher-ups in Israel have worked to prolong the situation while at the same time moving to create Jewish settlements outside the 1967 borders.In hindsight, perhaps the settlements were a bad idea. Perhaps. But nothing was obvious in the 1960s and 1970s, when the murderous rhetoric was coming out of the arab countries every day. It was rightly perceived that the settlements could be a valuable strategic foothold. In any case, Israel is willing to trade and in Israel proper for the larger settlement blocs.


On the other hand I couldn't advise the Palestinians to do nothing, as past evidence would show that Israel would simply continue to build settlements and push the Palestinians to more and more marginal land (the strange analog to the Arabs wanting to push Israel into the sea is that Israel appears to be pushing the Palestinians into the desert).The settlements are built in the middle of nowhere and are not 'pushing the Palestinians' anywhere. Most of the west bank is sparsely populated.


So while I deplore the Palestinian methods, if one of them asked me what I think they should do (given my appraisal of what Israel is about), I would be at a loss as to what I should advise them to do.

Perhaps follow Gandhi's tactics against the British?Yah right I wish. If that was what they were doing they would have had a state by now.


Realistically I am fine with Israel existing within the 1967 borders, and I'm fine with saying, okay the Palestinians should give up all claims to property within those borders. But the fact is that the only territory they have is in Gaza and the West Bank. This is my position as well. But what about th Palestinian 'right of return'? What about Jerusalem?

diffangle
Dec 2nd 2007, 02:45 PM
Chomsky is a bad person to follow because he has been known to lie when it advances his point.

Yep...
http://www.paulbogdanor.com/chomskyhoax.html

Fenris
Dec 2nd 2007, 03:35 PM
Wow. Good site!

punk
Dec 2nd 2007, 06:47 PM
You know, in the spirit of the thread, I was kind of hoping, we'd hear what you would rebuke Israel for.

Fenris
Dec 2nd 2007, 07:15 PM
You know, in the spirit of the thread, I was kind of hoping, we'd hear what you would rebuke Israel for.Israel's biggest mistake? Accepting Arafat as the self-appointed spokesman of the Palestinian national cause. They should have had Palestinian elections in the 1980s and took whoever won and made a peace deal with him or her.

Happy?

Fenris
Dec 2nd 2007, 07:21 PM
I will say that if anyone in America is a modern day analog to the biblical prophets, it is Chomsky.Unlike the biblical prophets, he praises nations doing things far worse than the people he condemns.

punk
Dec 2nd 2007, 07:30 PM
Israel's biggest mistake? Accepting Arafat as the self-appointed spokesman of the Palestinian national cause. They should have had Palestinian elections in the 1980s and took whoever won and made a peace deal with him or her.

Happy?

I believe the spirit of "rebuke" was to refer to something morally rather than tactically wrong.

Can you point to something of a more moral failing with respect to Israel?

punk
Dec 2nd 2007, 07:32 PM
Unlike the biblical prophets, he praises nations doing things far worse than the people he condemns.

Chomsky almost never praises a nation for anything.

Chomsky most definitely thinks the eastern bloc was bad, he just thinks that what happened in the American sphere was worse.

He never said living in the Soviet bloc was a paradise, what he said was that the Soviet bloc (as bad as it was) was like a paradise compared what was going on in Latin America (where the US was completely dominant).

Of course his opponents completely misrepresent statements like that as being a statement that the Soviet bloc was a paradise.

Chomsky doesn't like nation states in general

diffangle
Dec 2nd 2007, 07:38 PM
Now, of course I deplore the methods the Palestinians have used.


Like what specifically?



The Arab nations do not want the Palestinians to become citizens of their nations,

Why not? They're willing to use them as an excuse to drive the Jews into the sea as if they care what happens to the Pals.

Fenris
Dec 2nd 2007, 07:40 PM
I believe the spirit of "rebuke" was to refer to something morally rather than tactically wrong.

Can you point to something of a more moral failing with respect to Israel?Moral...? No, I can't condemn Israel for having done anything morally wrong.

I'm not singling Israel out in this regard. In general, I find little to morally condemn in western-style democracies. Especially when they are at war. For all of the flaws of Israel, or America, or the UK, or France, or Australia, etc etc, they tend not to behave out of malice. The same can not be said for our enemies.

punk
Dec 2nd 2007, 07:42 PM
Moral...? No, I can't condemn Israel for having done anything morally wrong.

I'm not singling Israel out in this regard. In general, I find little to morally condemn in western-style democracies. Especially when they are at war. For all of the flaws of Israel, or America, or the UK, or France, or Australia, etc etc, they tend not to behave out of malice. The same can not be said for our enemies.

Well this just goes to show that you aren't even willing to consider that the opposition even has a point.

Your mind is totally closed so there is nothing to discuss (as discussion is impossible under the circumstances).

Not that that surprises me.

I like to talk to people that are open to possibilities.

Ta ta.

punk
Dec 2nd 2007, 07:43 PM
Like what specifically?

Oh I don't believe in suicide bombings by any stretch of the imagination.

Fenris
Dec 2nd 2007, 07:44 PM
Chomsky almost never praises a nation for anything.


Not so I've read. Any foe of a country he hates (specifically The USA and Israel) are 'admirable' in some way. He's not a moral relativist, which would be bad enough; he thinks that the foes of Israel/the USA are morally superior. :rolleyes:

Fenris
Dec 2nd 2007, 07:47 PM
Well this just goes to show that you aren't even willing to consider that the opposition even has a point.

Well that puts me in good company. You seem uninterested in Israel's security concerns.

Fenris
Dec 2nd 2007, 07:49 PM
Oh I don't believe in suicide bombings by any stretch of the imagination.
Why? Do you find them immoral? Or just ineffective?

diffangle
Dec 2nd 2007, 07:50 PM
I went back and added this question to my prior post...

Quote:


The Arab nations do not want the Palestinians to become citizens of their nations,
Why not? They're willing to use them as an excuse to drive the Jews into the sea as if they care what happens to the Pals.



Oh I don't believe in suicide bombings by any stretch of the imagination.
Or lobbing daily kassam rockets indiscriminantly into Israeli territory from land that Israel gave you?

punk
Dec 2nd 2007, 07:54 PM
Well that puts me in good company. You seem uninterested in Israel's security concerns.

Israel is a nation state, if you can't look at the policies of a nation state through its history and find something morally questionable, it just shows you aren't even willing to try.

I mean it isn't like I'm asking you to find a problem with the policies of Micronesia (which I know nothing about, and I'll wager you probably don't either). Israel is clearly a nation you take some interest in, so should know some things about.

I've acknowledged the Palestinians are worthy of rebuke, so I don't know how that puts me on the same level as you.

punk
Dec 2nd 2007, 07:55 PM
Why? Do you find them immoral? Or just ineffective?

Oh they most definitey aren't moral.

I've never said they were.

Fenris
Dec 2nd 2007, 08:00 PM
I've acknowledged the Palestinians are worthy of rebuke, so I don't know how that puts me on the same level as you.I'm not clear in what exactly you're rebuking them for. Perhaps if you could clarify what it is that they're doing that you find so immoral then a point could be conceded...

punk
Dec 2nd 2007, 08:01 PM
I went back and added this question to my prior post...
Why not? They're willing to use them as an excuse to drive the Jews into the sea as if they care what happens to the Pals.

Why should they? What obligation do they have?

Let's imagine for the minute that English-speaking Canadians were all lower class and poorly educated, and were being oppressed by French-speaking Canadians.

Do you think the US would have an obligation to take in this mass of people?

Would Americans want this influx of people to make jobs even more scarce?

I think the answer would be "no". Arabs are no different than you or me in not wanting an influx of foreigners to ruin the local economy either (the anti-Mexican movement in the US comes to mind in this regard).


Or lobbing daily kassam rockets indiscriminantly into Israeli territory from land that Israel gave you?

Let's look at the assumptions:

1. That the Israelis actually had the land and the right to give it to the Palestinians -> No they don't

2. That giving a tiny bit of land (the Gaza Strip) makes up for still occupying the bulk of Palestinian land (the West Bank).

Nope, I don't see any generosity on the Israeli side.

Though, no, I don't think much of lobbing rockets.

punk
Dec 2nd 2007, 08:03 PM
I'm not clear in what exactly you're rebuking them for. Perhaps if you could clarify what it is that they're doing that you find so immoral then a point could be conceded...

I'm rebuking them for attacking civilians.

But this isn't a quid pro quo here.

You've already shown that you are unwilling to criticize Israel in any meaningful way.

Like I said:

Ta ta.

Fenris
Dec 2nd 2007, 08:07 PM
Oh they most definitey aren't moral.

I've never said they were.
Ah. So what are you looking for? You want me to claim that Israel's attempts to stop suicide bombers are as immoral as the bombers themselves?

I don't think that all cultures/ideas/religions are equally good. Western culture builds planes and skyscrapers, and their culture crashes planes into skyscrapers. I'm not going to concede that they might be right and I don't think that makes me closed-minded. It means that I have enough common sense to not concede a point to people who would love to kill me.

Reading Chomsky brings an old saying by Orwell to mind: "Some ideas are so stupid that only an intellectual could believe them"

Fenris
Dec 2nd 2007, 08:16 PM
I'm rebuking them for attacking civilians.

But this isn't a quid pro quo here.

You've already shown that you are unwilling to criticize Israel in any meaningful way.

Like I said:

Ta ta.
I'm amused that you feel that you're doing some great service by finding something wrong with suicide bombers. :lol:

diffangle
Dec 2nd 2007, 08:32 PM
Why should they? What obligation do they have?
Why do the Muslim/Arab nations surrounding Israel feel obligated to drive the Jews into the sea? They could have given the Pals all the properties they stole from the equal amount of Jewish people they expelled from their land.

Let's imagine for the minute that English-speaking Canadians were all lower class and poorly educated, and were being oppressed by French-speaking Canadians.
The Pals are being oppressed by their own people.

Do you think the US would have an obligation to take in this mass of people?
Being a Texan we've taken in a mass of people from New Orleans and Mexico without the government caring/doing anything. Like I said, the Pals could have filled in the gaps that the Jewish people left behind in the Arab countries.

Would Americans want this influx of people to make jobs even more scarce?
It's already happening and yet we Americans are still managing to act civil by not lobbing rockets into Mexico and Canada, suicide bombings, stabbings, shootings, etc.

I think the answer would be "no". Arabs are no different than you or me in not wanting an influx of foreigners to ruin the local economy either (the anti-Mexican movement in the US comes to mind in this regard).



Let's look at the assumptions:

1. That the Israelis actually had the land and the right to give it to the Palestinians -> No they don't
Sure they did, they won that land fair and square when the Arabs decided that they were going to sucker punch/attack Israel at the same time she was getting attacked from all sides.

2. That giving a tiny bit of land (the Gaza Strip) makes up for still occupying the bulk of Palestinian land (the West Bank).
They showed their true colors when they recieved Gaza as a move towards peace on Israel's side. Attacking your neighbor from land your neighbor just gave you is not the way to acquire more land from that neighbor. :rolleyes:

Nope, I don't see any generosity on the Israeli side.
Do you see any generosity on the Pal side?

Though, no, I don't think much of lobbing rockets.
That makes two of us. ;)

Fenris
Dec 2nd 2007, 08:34 PM
Nope, I don't see any generosity on the Israeli side.

Though, no, I don't think much of lobbing rockets.

And you can't wrap your mind around that fact that Israeli concessions leading to more violence against Israel means that Israel is less willing to make future concessions.

The real problem here isn't Israeli stubbornness. It's that the Palestinians don't want a state next to Israel; they want a state instead of Israel. Hamas is at least honest on the point. But the PA's conditions leave little doubt too. By demanding things they know Israel can never give, they ensure that the Jihad will continue.

punk
Dec 2nd 2007, 10:16 PM
That makes two of us. ;)

Okay, so there appears to be about 3.7 million Palestinians in the occupied territories.

Let's say they all went to Jordan. This isn't too unreasonable, we might imagine that the Palestinians would like to all go to one place and preserve a Palestinian culture and identity.

The population of Jordan is about 5.9 million.

This would be the equivalent of Texas (with a population of about 20.9 million) taking in about 13 million people from Louisianna (which is actually about 3 times the entire present population of the state of Louisianna).

You don't think that might cause a few problems for Texas with respect to housing, feeding, providing water, and so on for these people?

I think Texans might balk.

Suppose it was New York with a population of about 19 million, they'd be stuck with 11.9 million refugees (to make things equivalent).

The population of the US is about 303 million, so the US (in my scenario) would have to provide for 190 million Canadian refugees.

Do you think that might have a little economic bite to it?

The entire population of New Orleans before Katrina was about 500 000 people. So we are talking about a refugee problem equal to 7 Katrinas (assuming the entire population of New Orleans had become refugees, which didn't happen).

The US has failed to deal with 1 Katrina and you want the Arab world to deal with over 7 of them?

But hey, the population of the US is about the same as the population of Arabs in the world, and richer per capita.

Why not move all the Palestinians to the US?

I suggest putting them in Texas.

Fenris
Dec 2nd 2007, 11:16 PM
And yet you expect Israel (population: 7 million) to allow 6 million Palestinians to 'return' to her borders? :rolleyes: Sure, no problem there...

diffangle
Dec 3rd 2007, 12:35 AM
This isn't too unreasonable, we might imagine that the Palestinians would like to all go to one place and preserve a Palestinian culture and identity.


"Palestinian culture"... what exactly is that? For the most part they're Muslims like the rest of their Arab brothers and sisters so why not move to any of the 22 Muslim countries surrounding Israel? Islamic countries have a lot more territory than Israel or the U.S. so 3.7 million wouldn't make a dent if you either sent them to one place or divided them up between the 22 Muslim countries. The U.S. has absorbed around 20 million illegals, ... what's 3.7 million in the massive amount of Islamic lands?

Do the Jews deserve to have one place that preserves their culture and identity?

punk
Dec 3rd 2007, 02:07 AM
"Palestinian culture"... what exactly is that? For the most part they're Muslims like the rest of their Arab brothers and sisters so why not move to any of the 22 Muslim countries surrounding Israel? Islamic countries have a lot more territory than Israel or the U.S. so 3.7 million wouldn't make a dent if you either sent them to one place or divided them up between the 22 Muslim countries. The U.S. has absorbed around 20 million illegals, ... what's 3.7 million in the massive amount of Islamic lands?

Do the Jews deserve to have one place that preserves their culture and identity?

The Jews have a place, Israel.

We are talking about the Occupied Territories now.

I ask again:

If the US couldn't handle one Katrina adequately, how do you expect a much less organized and poorer Arab world to handle 7?

As for illegals in America:

From what I've seen, the right wing doesn't want the illegals in the first place. Given that, why do you suppose the Arabs would want the Palestinians given the choice?

diffangle
Dec 3rd 2007, 04:42 AM
The Jews have a place, Israel.

If the PA and the Islamic countries surrounding Israel had their way, Israel would not exist, hence the refusal to acknowledge Israel's right to exist.



If the US couldn't handle one Katrina adequately, how do you expect a much less organized and poorer Arab world to handle 7?

"Poorer Arab world"... last I checked they had a little something called oil... poor? No. As far as the U.S. not being able to handle absorbing the people from New Orleans, last I checked we did just fine, at least the city I live in did.



As for illegals in America:

From what I've seen, the right wing doesn't want the illegals in the first place.
Illegal meaning not legal. Maybe the right wing wants them to come into the country legally like so many other immigrants.



Given that, why do you suppose the Arabs would want the Palestinians given the choice?

I'll ask again... Why do the Muslim/Arab nations surrounding Israel feel obligated to drive the Jews into the sea? They could have given the Pals all the properties they stole from the equal amount of Jewish people they expelled from their land.

Fenris
Dec 3rd 2007, 01:37 PM
The Jews have a place, Israel.And it too big, too big! :rolleyes: And it's causing misery to every one of the 57 Islamic nations!


We are talking about the Occupied Territories now.They are not occupied, they are disputed.



If the US couldn't handle one Katrina adequately, how do you expect a much less organized and poorer Arab world to handle 7?And how is Israel supposed to handle 6 million hostile arabs suddenly appearing in her borders?

Studyin'2Show
Dec 3rd 2007, 02:25 PM
I'd have to agree with diffangle as far as the palestinian emigration issue. In the late 40s early 50s more than 856,000 Jews living in Arab countries left home and property behind. Most cited Arab pressure as their reason for leaving everything behind. At the same time, according to UN numbers 711,000 palestinians became refugees both inside and outside of Israel. The Arab nations would have had no trouble absorbing their own people by giving them the land and property the Jews had left behind. ;)

(source http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_exodus_from_Arab_lands)

God Bless!

punk
Dec 3rd 2007, 05:35 PM
I'd have to agree with diffangle as far as the palestinian emigration issue. In the late 40s early 50s more than 856,000 Jews living in Arab countries left home and property behind. Most cited Arab pressure as their reason for leaving everything behind. At the same time, according to UN numbers 711,000 palestinians became refugees both inside and outside of Israel. The Arab nations would have had no trouble absorbing their own people by giving them the land and property the Jews had left behind. ;)

(source http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_exodus_from_Arab_lands)

God Bless!

Well if we are going to go there, there would have been even less of a problem if Israel had never been recreated in that location.

And of course there wouldn't have been any need to recreate Israel had it not been for the Germans.

But wait, it is the Romans who pushed the Jews out of the land to begin with.

It's all the Romans' fault really.

Nevertheless we have a problem which exists right now, and no string of "might-have-beens" is going to resolve that.

Studyin'2Show
Dec 3rd 2007, 05:49 PM
Well if we are going to go there, there would have been even less of a problem if Israel had never been recreated in that location.

And of course there wouldn't have been any need to recreate Israel had it not been for the Germans.

But wait, it is the Romans who pushed the Jews out of the land to begin with.

It's all the Romans' fault really.

Nevertheless we have a problem which exists right now, and no string of "might-have-beens" is going to resolve that.I was merely responding to your assertion that the 22 Arab countries had no place to put 3.7 million people. The fact is that the number was just over 700,000 back in the 2-5 years after Israel's inception and could have easily been offset with the population of Jews they'd lost after their exodus. It would not have been so difficult at all.

God Bless!

diffangle
Dec 3rd 2007, 06:22 PM
I was merely responding to your assertion that the 22 Arab countries had no place to put 3.7 million people. The fact is that the number was just over 700,000 back in the 2-5 years after Israel's inception and could have easily been offset with the population of Jews they'd lost after their exodus. It would not have been so difficult at all.

God Bless!
Exactly and since my question hasn't been answered I'll answer it myself...

Q: Why do the Muslim/Arab nations surrounding Israel feel obligated to drive the Jews into the sea?

A: B/c they need to use the Pals as political pawns to carry out their hateful jihad on Israel and the West, therefore the Pals have much displaced anger towards Israel when they should really be peeved with their fellow Muslims/Arab leaders.

Ta-An
Dec 5th 2007, 03:11 PM
Seeing that the Jews are not being given their rightful place in Israel.... maybe G_d is giving them the whole earth?? :idea: Being dispersed all over the world..

Teke
Dec 5th 2007, 04:17 PM
Seeing that the Jews are not being given their rightful place in Israel.... maybe G_d is giving them the whole earth?? :idea: Being dispersed all over the world..


What does that mean. Are you insinuating the Israel should be ruling something on earth, be it a nation/state or the world?

Ta-An
Dec 5th 2007, 04:26 PM
What does that mean. Are you insinuating the Israel should be ruling something on earth, be it a nation/state or the world?I am talking land... inhabitation