Debate: Should Israel withdraw from the West Bank?

[miguel]

Originally posted by: XZeroII
Isreal should be able to do whatever they want. They have a right to stand up for what they believe in and you people have NO right to question the beliefs of other cultures (isn't that how it goes?). Thus, this entire thread is hypocritical.

You just violated rule #4 for this thread:

4. If you have nothing to add to this discussion, DON'T POST. No thread-crapping whatsoever.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: DBL

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: DBL

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
I discovered a post will repost when refreshed if you get an 'expired' thingi. Israel should form a secular state and create citizenship for all. We are all the same.

Last time I checked, this was already the case. Unfortunately, the same can not be said of its neighbors.

Check again.

I checked again and found out that 20% of Israel is comprised of Israeli Arabs. In addition, I also learned that two Arab members of the Knesset were recently reinstated despite the fact that they both have issued statements in support of suicide bombings. I wonder where else in the Middle East this kind of freedom can be found? In Gaza, Iran, Syria...etc?

Unless you advocate the destruction of Israel, it doesn't take a genius to understand that Israel must limit the immigration of non-Jews, otherwise it would be over-run and quickly cease to exist in its current form. If that is what bothers you about Israel's policy, well then, I don't see a solution. Otherwise, know that Israel?s founding principle was based on secular Zionism or a separation of religious Judaism from the concept of a Jewish state. Despite popular misconceptions, most Israelis are not religious. However, to most Israelis, Israel is not about preserving the Jewish religion, it's about their survival

The Jewish State

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: XZeroII
Isreal should be able to do whatever they want. They have a right to stand up for what they believe in and you people have NO right to question the beliefs of other cultures (isn't that how it goes?). Thus, this entire thread is hypocritical.

So, why is Bush in Iraq?

 

[DBL]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: DBL


I checked again and found out that 20% of Israel is comprised of Israeli Arabs. In addition, I also learned that two Arab members of the Knesset were recently reinstated despite the fact that they both have issued statements in support of suicide bombings. I wonder where else in the Middle East this kind of freedom can be found? In Gaza, Iran, Syria...etc?

Unless you advocate the destruction of Israel, it doesn't take a genius to understand that Israel must limit the immigration of non-Jews, otherwise it would be over-run and quickly cease to exist in its current form. If that is what bothers you about Israel's policy, well then, I don't see a solution. Otherwise, know that Israel?s founding principle was based on secular Zionism or a separation of religious Judaism from the concept of a Jewish state. Despite popular misconceptions, most Israelis are not religious. However, to most Israelis, Israel is not about preserving the Jewish religion, it's about their survival

The Jewish State

Thanks for supporting what I previously stated. From your link.....

"THE STATE OF ISRAEL will be open for Jewish immigration and for the Ingathering of the Exiles; it will foster the development of the country for the benefit of all its inhabitants; it will be based on freedom, justice and peace as envisaged by the prophets of Israel; it will ensure complete equality of social and political rights to all its inhabitants irrespective of religion, race or sex; it will guarantee freedom of religion, conscience, language, education and culture; it will safeguard the Holy Places of all religions; and it will be faithful to the principles of the Charter of the United Nations. "

 

[dahunan]

Well, they could always build Reservations for the Palestinians and allow them to build casinos and sell tax free tobacco??

 

[Gravity]

I say no, the land they occupy is a spoil of war. They either need to conquer the region, which they are capable of or back out. This mamby pamby middle ground crap is costing thousands of lives per year.

 

[vegeto456]

Weren't "spoils of war" supposed to be eliminated after WWII?

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: DBL

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: DBL


I checked again and found out that 20% of Israel is comprised of Israeli Arabs. In addition, I also learned that two Arab members of the Knesset were recently reinstated despite the fact that they both have issued statements in support of suicide bombings. I wonder where else in the Middle East this kind of freedom can be found? In Gaza, Iran, Syria...etc?

Unless you advocate the destruction of Israel, it doesn't take a genius to understand that Israel must limit the immigration of non-Jews, otherwise it would be over-run and quickly cease to exist in its current form. If that is what bothers you about Israel's policy, well then, I don't see a solution. Otherwise, know that Israel?s founding principle was based on secular Zionism or a separation of religious Judaism from the concept of a Jewish state. Despite popular misconceptions, most Israelis are not religious. However, to most Israelis, Israel is not about preserving the Jewish religion, it's about their survival

I only had one point to make and that was that Israel is a Jewish state. Any other argument you were having with yourself.

The Jewish State

Thanks for supporting what I previously stated. From your link.....

"THE STATE OF ISRAEL will be open for Jewish immigration and for the Ingathering of the Exiles; it will foster the development of the country for the benefit of all its inhabitants; it will be based on freedom, justice and peace as envisaged by the prophets of Israel; it will ensure complete equality of social and political rights to all its inhabitants irrespective of religion, race or sex; it will guarantee freedom of religion, conscience, language, education and culture; it will safeguard the Holy Places of all religions; and it will be faithful to the principles of the Charter of the United Nations. "

 

[0roo0roo]

Originally posted by: kandarp

Originally posted by: DBL

Originally posted by: kandarp
the problem is that there is no gandhi or MLK on either side to completely polarize the situation and distinguish the acts of one side to another. Now both sides are killing each other because the other killed them the last time. Now if there was a leader who promoted active peaceful resistance (ie marchs, peacful protests etc) then the other side would clearly be seen as intransigent and not committed to peace.

"...distinguish the acts of one side to another."

Is that a serious statement? You can't distinguish between the intentional murder of innocent civilians by homicidal terrorists and the targeted killings of those terrorists (with occasional unavoidable mistakes), whose aim is to commit murder and eventually destroy Israel? C'mon, you have to be joking, no?

BTW, I find it also humorous that you would bring up MLK and Gandhi, when Israeli's in general, have a much more personal experience in their recent past, in which they were generally a pacifist and non-reactive society and ended up paying dearly for that. That is the legacy that many Israeli's understand today and those memories are what drive Israeli's to protect their freedom and livelihood to the best of their ability. All countries in the World, who value their citizens, would do no less. Israeli's understand that the destruction of Israel could also spell the end of Jews in this world as we know it.

Actually i am quite serious, innocents on both sides dont distinguish whether their house was blown up (demolished) or a car in the middle of a crowded street was hit by rockets from Apache helicopters or whether they friends were killed in they favorite cafe or whether they uncle was killed on a bus on his way to work.

Also your comment "generally a pacifist and non-reactive society " is quite off base in my opinion because they have in the "recent pass" (under sharon) have become more proactive if anything else. (ie "sides dont distinguish whether their house was blown up or a car in the middle of a crowded street was hit by rockets from Apache helicopters " ). Also you last comment "Israeli's understand that the destruction of Israel could also spell the end of Jews in this world as we know it." is a bit wierd considering there is no widespread conspiracy to eradicate Jews starting with Israel. This in my viewpoint is a political problem and not some grand genocidal scheme, therefore it follows that.

MLK and Gandhi both took unilateral steps to say do what you will do us but we will not return your actions with violence. Imagine if there was a PLO leader who unilaterally took steps to eradicate HAMAS (etc) or a Israeli PM who took unilateral steps to withdraw from the WEST BANK, and not relatiate for the last suicide bomber. The whole eye for an eye thing leaves people blind and dead.

you don't have to imagine. after the war for independence israel turned on its fringe groups and disbanded them.
israel has tried in the past, not taking action for a month after a devastating suicide bombing at a restaurant. guess what happened? multiple attacks a week continued.

 

[dahunan]

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo

Originally posted by: kandarp

Originally posted by: DBL

Originally posted by: kandarp
the problem is that there is no gandhi or MLK on either side to completely polarize the situation and distinguish the acts of one side to another. Now both sides are killing each other because the other killed them the last time. Now if there was a leader who promoted active peaceful resistance (ie marchs, peacful protests etc) then the other side would clearly be seen as intransigent and not committed to peace.

"...distinguish the acts of one side to another."

Is that a serious statement? You can't distinguish between the intentional murder of innocent civilians by homicidal terrorists and the targeted killings of those terrorists (with occasional unavoidable mistakes), whose aim is to commit murder and eventually destroy Israel? C'mon, you have to be joking, no?

BTW, I find it also humorous that you would bring up MLK and Gandhi, when Israeli's in general, have a much more personal experience in their recent past, in which they were generally a pacifist and non-reactive society and ended up paying dearly for that. That is the legacy that many Israeli's understand today and those memories are what drive Israeli's to protect their freedom and livelihood to the best of their ability. All countries in the World, who value their citizens, would do no less. Israeli's understand that the destruction of Israel could also spell the end of Jews in this world as we know it.

Actually i am quite serious, innocents on both sides dont distinguish whether their house was blown up (demolished) or a car in the middle of a crowded street was hit by rockets from Apache helicopters or whether they friends were killed in they favorite cafe or whether they uncle was killed on a bus on his way to work.

Also your comment "generally a pacifist and non-reactive society " is quite off base in my opinion because they have in the "recent pass" (under sharon) have become more proactive if anything else. (ie "sides dont distinguish whether their house was blown up or a car in the middle of a crowded street was hit by rockets from Apache helicopters " ). Also you last comment "Israeli's understand that the destruction of Israel could also spell the end of Jews in this world as we know it." is a bit wierd considering there is no widespread conspiracy to eradicate Jews starting with Israel. This in my viewpoint is a political problem and not some grand genocidal scheme, therefore it follows that.

MLK and Gandhi both took unilateral steps to say do what you will do us but we will not return your actions with violence. Imagine if there was a PLO leader who unilaterally took steps to eradicate HAMAS (etc) or a Israeli PM who took unilateral steps to withdraw from the WEST BANK, and not relatiate for the last suicide bomber. The whole eye for an eye thing leaves people blind and dead.

you don't have to imagine. after the war for independence israel turned on its fringe groups and disbanded them.
israel has tried in the past, not taking action for a month after a devastating suicide bombing at a restaurant. guess what happened? multiple attacks a week continued.

BULLSH!T... SO... every time there is a cease fire the Palestinians are the first to violate it? Is that what you are saying?

 

[XZeroII]

Originally posted by: miguel

Originally posted by: XZeroII
Isreal should be able to do whatever they want. They have a right to stand up for what they believe in and you people have NO right to question the beliefs of other cultures (isn't that how it goes?). Thus, this entire thread is hypocritical.

You just violated rule #4 for this thread:

4. If you have nothing to add to this discussion, DON'T POST. No thread-crapping whatsoever.

Just because I have a different oppinion than you doesn't mean that I have nothing to add. You are a prime example of how hypocritical this world is.

 

[XZeroII]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: XZeroII
Isreal should be able to do whatever they want. They have a right to stand up for what they believe in and you people have NO right to question the beliefs of other cultures (isn't that how it goes?). Thus, this entire thread is hypocritical.

So, why is Bush in Iraq?

I'm not going to argue this point because no matter what I say, you will claim that it was an unjust war and ramble on about something you know nothing about. You will just spout the same propeganda that liberals have been spouting for the past few months. I'll just drop the issue now before it turns into a flamefest.