<< Isreal GAVE over 70% of their land to palistine. >>
since the foundation of Israel they have taken more land from the palistininas each decade, Israel has not given 70% of their land to palistine.
<< Isreal GAVE over 70% of their land to palistine. >>
since the foundation of Israel they have taken more land from the palistininas each decade, Israel has not given 70% of their land to palistine.
Random Variable
Lifer
- Aug 10, 2001
- 10,420
- 2
- 0
<< Vespasian,
I´m not anti israel, I just am very much against how they are dealing with the problem, most people I know here agree with that. I´m also not anti american, I am just very much against how the US deals with some countries, and most people here agree with that. And may I remind you, many people in your country agree with that too. >>
Well, I guess you're entitled to your opinions, even if I always seem to disagree with them.
<< Well, I guess you're entitled to your opinions, even if I always seem to disagree with them.
>>I´m glad you do
, just dont go and brand me for my opinions, if you disagree, question them and lets try have a resonable discussion about our different opinions. Only if the world could do that <<
<< how the f is that anti american or anti israeli? If you were going to pick any one of czars posts to start baggin on him, surely you could have found one that would actually be demonstrative of him showing anti-american/isreali opinions!!! >>
Not you again. Go find someone else to yell at. >>
why dont you just explain why it is you claim that statement is anti american/israeli?
The Israeli military commits terrorist acts against Palestineans all the time. They are constantly being shot at, their homes are destroyed, they wait hours and are humiliated at checkpoints, they are powerless -- all things that create intolerable, inhuman conditons for them. And then they "blow up". Does it make a difference if the military does it for the civlians by proxy? I think not.
The bias is very obvious. You can find it in the news when 9 times out of 10 it is Israelis that are interviewed, and the Palestineans are the only ones described as "learning to hate"
The bias is very obvious. You can find it in the news when 9 times out of 10 it is Israelis that are interviewed, and the Palestineans are the only ones described as "learning to hate"
Random Variable
Lifer
- Aug 10, 2001
- 10,420
- 2
- 0
Why can't we (the United States) decreate the state of Israel and recreate it in a less hostile part of the world? We could them Montana or maybe Wyoming.
The U.S. used its veto power for the second time this year to dismiss the proposal in the U.N. Security Council on grounds that it was biased against Israel and would not help promote the peace process shattered by 15 months of deadly clashes.
Ah ha. Yet another typical Czar "the-US-supports-evil-Israel" post bashing the USA. How many does this make in one year? 43? Come on, admit it Czar. You are biased.
Ah ha. Yet another typical Czar "the-US-supports-evil-Israel" post bashing the USA. How many does this make in one year? 43? Come on, admit it Czar. You are biased.
<< The U.S. used its veto power for the second time this year to dismiss the proposal in the U.N. Security Council on grounds that it was biased against Israel and would not help promote the peace process shattered by 15 months of deadly clashes.
Ah ha. Yet another typical Czar "the-US-supports-evil-Israel" post bashing the USA. How many does this make in one year? 43? Come on, admit it Czar. You are biased. >>
Posting a legitimate news story now automatically makes you biased?
<<Why can't we (the United States) decreate the state of Israel and recreate it in a less hostile part of the world? We could them Montana or maybe Wyoming. >>
A place in Canada (near Niagra Falls) was one of the original options I believe
A place in Canada (near Niagra Falls) was one of the original options I believe
Random Variable
Lifer
- Aug 10, 2001
- 10,420
- 2
- 0
<< A place in Canada (near Niagra Falls) was one of the original options I believe >>
OMFG! :Q Are you serious? That would have been so much better!
If Sharon wanted peace, he could have it. But he's a right-wing hardliner, peace is not propable while he's in power.
There will never be peace in that region in our lifetime or the next. Once causilties start numbering 1 israeli for every 10 palistinians then we may see some piece. Sharon is doing the right thing and I support him on that they should have turned their back long time ago on Arafat. There can't never be piece in that region because its they can never be in the same country, Israel.
There will never be peace in that region in our lifetime or the next. Once causilties start numbering 1 israeli for every 10 palistinians then we may see some piece. Sharon is doing the right thing and I support him on that they should have turned their back long time ago on Arafat. There can't never be piece in that region because its they can never be in the same country, Israel.
<< Well the US is for a peace
But for a peace both sides to to accept that they both can survive.
Isreal GAVE over 70% of their land to palistine.
Palistine wants there to be NO ISREAL.
Unless there are no Jews the hardline palistine will continue to fight isreal. >>
Aaactually, in the past, Palestine has offered compromise to split the landmass, but Israel rejected the plan becuase they refuse to allow joint control of Jerusalem. There's no angels in this battle.
burnedout,
Biased, no, but bias is defined by each person. To me and my views I am very neutral when it comes to this matter, I just want both of them to live there peacfully, I do not belive that Israel is acting in the name of "peace". Does this make me biased? not to me, but it does to those who support Israel hunting terrorists by any means necisery. So I am biased to you maybe, but that is not my problem now is it?
Vespasian,
Its realy impossible to move the jews from Israel because they want to live there, just like the palistinians. But I personaly think that there cant be peace there, never, but still its pointless and moraly wrong for me to give up hope. Its impossibly to have a one state there because two major religions can never be ruled by one government without the government supporting one over the other. This is why Israel wants its own state, because there is like 1 jew there for 10 muslims.
Biased, no, but bias is defined by each person. To me and my views I am very neutral when it comes to this matter, I just want both of them to live there peacfully, I do not belive that Israel is acting in the name of "peace". Does this make me biased? not to me, but it does to those who support Israel hunting terrorists by any means necisery. So I am biased to you maybe, but that is not my problem now is it?
Vespasian,
Its realy impossible to move the jews from Israel because they want to live there, just like the palistinians. But I personaly think that there cant be peace there, never, but still its pointless and moraly wrong for me to give up hope. Its impossibly to have a one state there because two major religions can never be ruled by one government without the government supporting one over the other. This is why Israel wants its own state, because there is like 1 jew there for 10 muslims.
<< If Sharon wanted peace, he could have it. But he's a right-wing hardliner, peace is not propable while he's in power.
There will never be peace in that region in our lifetime or the next. Once causilties start numbering 1 israeli for every 10 palistinians then we may see some piece. Sharon is doing the right thing and I support him on that they should have turned their back long time ago on Arafat. There can't never be piece in that region because its they can never be in the same country, Israel. >>
There are nearly 1 israeli death for every 10 palistinians. From a Reauters news report:
At least 764 Palestinians and 223 Israelis have been killed since a Palestinian uprising against Israeli occupation erupted in September 2000 after a deadlock in peace negotiations.
Random Variable
Lifer
- Aug 10, 2001
- 10,420
- 2
- 0
<< This is why Israel wants its own state, because there is like 1 jew there for 10 muslims. >>
The ratio of Muslims to Jews in the entire world is about 250 to 3.
Random Variable
Lifer
- Aug 10, 2001
- 10,420
- 2
- 0
<< At least 764 Palestinians and 223 Israelis have been killed since a Palestinian uprising against Israeli occupation erupted in September 2000 after a deadlock in peace negotiations. >>
I'm not trying to start an argument, but that's more like 3.5 to 1.
At least 764 Palestinians and 223 Israelis have been killed since a Palestinian uprising against Israeli occupation erupted in September 2000 after a deadlock in peace negotiations. '
HMMMM is your math ok? last time I checked 223 x 10 = 2230 not 764.
thats 1:2.92 ratio which is about 1:3 ratio for jews/palestinians. These numbers will get them no where I want to see the 1:10.
HMMMM is your math ok? last time I checked 223 x 10 = 2230 not 764.
thats 1:2.92 ratio which is about 1:3 ratio for jews/palestinians. These numbers will get them no where I want to see the 1:10.
yeah, well I know its not exactly 1:10 but the gap is quite alot. ... I also said nearly, just exaggerated that "nearly" a bit
I know its not exactly 1:10 but the gap is quite alot. ... I also said nearly, just exaggerated that "nearly" a bit << please explain to me why the UN should be monitoring ISRAELY LAND >>
So in your head all of the land there is under Israeli control?? wtf.. the gaza strip and the West Bank is under Palestine rule and is Palistine country.[/i] >>
i never said it was under israeli control, my point is that it should be. i dont know what planet your from but there is no country of palestine. so yes, that land IS Israeli territory.
<<
<<
<< << JERUSALEM (Reuters) - Israel welcomed, but the Palestinians condemned, a United States veto on Saturday that killed a U.N. resolution urging international monitors in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. >>
please explain to me why the UN should be monitoring ISRAELY LAND >>
A) The UN sends people in to monitor, inspect and keep peace in member nations the world over. It's part of their job.
B) The UN CREATED Israel in 1947-48 so I imagine they have a strong desire to keep the peace. >>
so you dont think that Israel has the right to defend their own land?? Israel should be able to defend their land anyway they see fit. what gives the UN the right to butt in?
<< i never said it was under israeli control, my point is that it should be. i dont know what planet your from but there is no country of palestine. so yes, that land IS Israeli territory. >>
aha, yes... right... but.. no.
http://www.un.org/Depts/dpa/qpal/maps/M0547_I.gif
Original borders of Israel.
<< so you dont think that Israel has the right to defend their own land?? Israel should be able to defend their land anyway they see fit. what gives the UN the right to butt in? >>
If by "defend" you mean constantly building settlements and encroaching on Palestinian territroy, then no.
As I said above, the UN has the right to butt in because it is the UN's job to butt in. What gives the UN the right to butt in on Iraq? Yugoslavia? Africa? South America? It's their JOB. They go in with goal of setting up a compromise. The UN isn't going into defend Palestine or Israel, they want to go in to try and stop the violence.
that territory was captured by Israel in an attempt to defend themselvs vs seria. long time ago the US captured territory from mexico, hence california, arizona, and new mexico. We call these areas the US. now why in the world should that territory not be called "Israel"?
<<
<< so you dont think that Israel has the right to defend their own land?? Israel should be able to defend their land anyway they see fit. what gives the UN the right to butt in? >>
If by "defend" you mean constantly building settlements and encroaching on Palestinian territroy, then no.
As I said above, the UN has the right to butt in because it is the UN's job to butt in. What gives the UN the right to butt in on Iraq? Yugoslavia? Africa? South America? It's their JOB. They go in with goal of setting up a compromise. The UN isn't going into defend Palestine or Israel, they want to go in to try and stop the violence. >>
do you remember the persian gulf war? iraq is damn lucky they still exist.
the difference with the Israel/Palestinian conflict is Israel is being presured to NOT solve the conflict. Israel has every right to go in and by any means necessary to re-take their land. having the UN go in and stop the fighting is the same as preventing Israel from defending themselvs, which is not the purpose of the UN
Czar can have an opinion and express it as much as he likes without being biased. Bias indicates an a PREjudicial position on a matter; I've never seen the guy fail to present some sort of basis from which he states his opinions.
Anyway, that said, I gotta say that the US has plenty of bias against it worldwide. The thing is that, on a global scale so many of our individual values and principles are not applicable. The US, like Israel, tends to take a dominant strategy approach to dealing with world politics. Dominant strategy states that you take the course of action that will best benifit your own self/country, regardless of what any other party/country does in conjunction to your action. Both sadly and [usually] by necessity, this takes place even when, if both parties were to work together, both would gain more. Israel has a very good reason for acting primarily on dominant strategy; it truly CANNOT trust the Palestinians. Some Palestinians, yes. Most Palestinians, yes. But that fact hasn't prevented the consistent violence from that minority. The "Palestinian Authority" does not behave very authoritatively at all, does it? It wants to claim that it represents Palestinians, but it also wants to choose which Palestinians it represents -- "Oh, well the terrorist-Palestininians aren't ours, just the ones victimized by Israeli attacks. The terrorists aren't our responsibility" Sorry, that doesn't fly when dealing with a entity such as Isreal, operating on a dominant strategy.
I haven't spoken much to the question here, but rather to a lot of the responses and tangents I've read in the thread (& the others on this topic). And perhaps I brought up something new to consider. The US will always be criticized and it behooves us to take note of that. Self-review is a necessity. But neutrality is a luxury that gets little done in the world. Note that being paralyzed with fear of treading on someone's toes doesn't get you very far. When we were Isolationist, we were criticized for that (and we're STILL criticized for not entering WW2 earlier). If we take a hand in things we consider righteous, or even simply in our own selfish self-interest, we're hypocritically criticized for that. And if we do something that is lauded as righteous by almost all, someone complains about the manner in which we go about accomplishing that greater good... [I hesitate to use this argument b/c it's not always fair. but here it is:] and these criticisms so often come from the people who enjoy the fruits and freedoms of the US's much maligned actions. Since the burden of proof tends to lie with the marginalized party, that's who we most often hear from. They're the ones complaining loudest. That's understandable, but let's, just one a FEW occasions, hear from those who've taken the time to appreciate what they DO have as a result from efforts manifested by the US.
All that said, I appreciate Czar's position, and support the freedom of others who wish to argue it. (the point being to appreciate the groups that support such freedom, as much as you condemn those that would oppress you)
::sigh:: I should be studying for finals
Anyway, that said, I gotta say that the US has plenty of bias against it worldwide. The thing is that, on a global scale so many of our individual values and principles are not applicable. The US, like Israel, tends to take a dominant strategy approach to dealing with world politics. Dominant strategy states that you take the course of action that will best benifit your own self/country, regardless of what any other party/country does in conjunction to your action. Both sadly and [usually] by necessity, this takes place even when, if both parties were to work together, both would gain more. Israel has a very good reason for acting primarily on dominant strategy; it truly CANNOT trust the Palestinians. Some Palestinians, yes. Most Palestinians, yes. But that fact hasn't prevented the consistent violence from that minority. The "Palestinian Authority" does not behave very authoritatively at all, does it? It wants to claim that it represents Palestinians, but it also wants to choose which Palestinians it represents -- "Oh, well the terrorist-Palestininians aren't ours, just the ones victimized by Israeli attacks. The terrorists aren't our responsibility" Sorry, that doesn't fly when dealing with a entity such as Isreal, operating on a dominant strategy.
I haven't spoken much to the question here, but rather to a lot of the responses and tangents I've read in the thread (& the others on this topic). And perhaps I brought up something new to consider. The US will always be criticized and it behooves us to take note of that. Self-review is a necessity. But neutrality is a luxury that gets little done in the world. Note that being paralyzed with fear of treading on someone's toes doesn't get you very far. When we were Isolationist, we were criticized for that (and we're STILL criticized for not entering WW2 earlier). If we take a hand in things we consider righteous, or even simply in our own selfish self-interest, we're hypocritically criticized for that. And if we do something that is lauded as righteous by almost all, someone complains about the manner in which we go about accomplishing that greater good... [I hesitate to use this argument b/c it's not always fair. but here it is:] and these criticisms so often come from the people who enjoy the fruits and freedoms of the US's much maligned actions. Since the burden of proof tends to lie with the marginalized party, that's who we most often hear from. They're the ones complaining loudest. That's understandable, but let's, just one a FEW occasions, hear from those who've taken the time to appreciate what they DO have as a result from efforts manifested by the US.
All that said, I appreciate Czar's position, and support the freedom of others who wish to argue it. (the point being to appreciate the groups that support such freedom, as much as you condemn those that would oppress you)
::sigh:: I should be studying for finals
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 20K
-
-
-
Facebook
Twitter