sothsegger
Member
- Jul 6, 2004
- 106
- 0
- 76
Yup, the 'others' always forget. Never us.
In every conflict it seems to me, it is the morally superior, the more evolved, the possessor of the higher consciousnesses who makes peace happen. It is always the conscious who have to eat their rage, crucify their lower selves, and progress.
Originally posted by: santer
What? I read that the Arab states were opposed to the UN Charter that created the state of israel. The called it a nakba (which means catastrphe). Can you back up your assertion?
He's being sarcastic: the Arabs states gave as much blessing as the effort they put into creating a palestinian state. In fact, the arab states have rejected resolution 242 and came out with the Khartoum declaration, affirming that they just want to destroy Israel; even the PLO rejected 242 in 1968.
Ironically, the rhetoric you hear today from people advocating the creation of a Palestinian state is essentially a demand to comply with resolution 242, coupled with a little bit of misinterpertation.
To be extra clear on the matter: the West Bank was annexed by Jordan in 1951, while the Gaza strip was occupied by Egypt :shocked:. If there was no state of Israel, that land would've been carved out among the neighboring states, probably after a war or two.
"I think that a better solution, in creating a Jewish state, could have been to grant them half of Germany, although I am sure that many Jewish people would have found the territory loathsome in the extreme at the time. However, now we have a problem somewhat analogous to the old moral problem faced by us Americans with regard to native Americans, who had their land taken away through a series of justifications: based on a denial of their status as fully human beings, the "might is right" concept, etc. Somehow I doubt that the Palestinians would be forever happy with a little pocket of their own "nation" surrounded completely by the territory of Israel."
Likely so.
"Still, like it or not, Israel is not going away."
Neither are the Palestinians.
"If you're flatly denying that the situation can ever be solved without destroying Israel, I think we should keep trying for a solution."
Everything has to be on the table including the right of return. To preserve a Jewish homeland that is also a Jewish State will therefore have to be part of what has to be decided. A two state solution is not as viable as a one state solution would be. The two people are just people and we are all the same. The differences are all mental and trained in from birth.
"As we search, it is not improper to note that the local enemies of Israel can one-sidedly end the bloodshed. In a way it's just stating a corollary of the mostly defensive posture of the Israelis."
Perhaps you can clarify this. I see Israel, in effect, sitting on the head of Palestine and asking for an end to violence. Violence won't end as long as Israel sits on their head.
"I also don't necessarily agree that the feelings of a people cannot change over generations."
I did not say they can't. There is no hope at all without change.
"The Palestinians hate Israel; the Palestinians are poor, and probably have no more than ten iPods among the lot of them. Perhaps if we can successfully encourage them to suckle at the Western teat, they will grow sated and lethargic."
Israel sits on their head. The idea is to break the will of the Palestinians by deprivations. Nobody will get lethargic with somebody sitting on ones head. Israel is a monster that has created a monster that has made Israel a monster. Each has its ego at stake. It is all about one form of egotism destroying another by making the other's ego grow in determination. Both sides are sick and insane and becoming more so all the time.
Likely so.
"Still, like it or not, Israel is not going away."
Neither are the Palestinians.
"If you're flatly denying that the situation can ever be solved without destroying Israel, I think we should keep trying for a solution."
Everything has to be on the table including the right of return. To preserve a Jewish homeland that is also a Jewish State will therefore have to be part of what has to be decided. A two state solution is not as viable as a one state solution would be. The two people are just people and we are all the same. The differences are all mental and trained in from birth.
"As we search, it is not improper to note that the local enemies of Israel can one-sidedly end the bloodshed. In a way it's just stating a corollary of the mostly defensive posture of the Israelis."
Perhaps you can clarify this. I see Israel, in effect, sitting on the head of Palestine and asking for an end to violence. Violence won't end as long as Israel sits on their head.
"I also don't necessarily agree that the feelings of a people cannot change over generations."
I did not say they can't. There is no hope at all without change.
"The Palestinians hate Israel; the Palestinians are poor, and probably have no more than ten iPods among the lot of them. Perhaps if we can successfully encourage them to suckle at the Western teat, they will grow sated and lethargic."
Israel sits on their head. The idea is to break the will of the Palestinians by deprivations. Nobody will get lethargic with somebody sitting on ones head. Israel is a monster that has created a monster that has made Israel a monster. Each has its ego at stake. It is all about one form of egotism destroying another by making the other's ego grow in determination. Both sides are sick and insane and becoming more so all the time.
- Oct 30, 2000
- 42,589
- 5
- 0
Originally posted by: santer
What? I read that the Arab states were opposed to the UN Charter that created the state of israel. The called it a nakba (which means catastrphe). Can you back up your assertion?
such is the "blessing" in quotes. Implied sarcasm
The Arabs accepted it because:
1) They felt that the British would support the Arab cause to destroy the Jewish state. (True) (aprox 75% of the British munitions were turned over to the Arabs, the British were actively impeding Jewish immigration to Palestine.)
2) They felt that their combined might would wipe the Jews out of existance via a suprise attack (Failed)
3) They were on the "losing" side of the WWII (supporting the Ottoman empire) and it was better to be deceiptful by accepting the situation (considering #1,2) than lose face by having it forced on them.
3chordcharlie
Diamond Member
- Mar 30, 2004
- 9,859
- 1
- 81
The first two sentences were me pointing out what I think were, on balance, good policies/actions taken by Israel. There is no reasonable way you could have interpreted these as sarcasm.Originally posted by: dna
This kind of retort only shows that you have nothing to say, and comes as no surprise after you've failed to back your own assertions (helicopter magical weapons?).
Well done, have a
EDIT
I may have misread the first sentence as sarcasm, but you used that as an excuse to avoid all my other remarks, which are in no way dependant on the first one.
No surprise though, as this isn't the first time you're dodging certain aspects of the discussion.
Rifles are good ways to kill individual people. Attacking vehicles isn't so bad either, as opposed to attacking crowded houses.
When I said 'devastating random attacks', I was refering to the suicide bombs, and in case you thought this was sarcasm, it was not.
The problem is that even with the level of violence, and the launching of these attacks in crowded areas, Israel manages to kill many more people, and include more highly undesirable victims (read: children) than do these bombers. I completely fail to understand how this is either unavoidable or justifiable.
3chordcharlie
Diamond Member
- Mar 30, 2004
- 9,859
- 1
- 81
Not sure about Germany, but putting the Jewish state in the middle of a highly undeveloped region with a competing religion was a terrible idea. Having the state include Jerusalem and other major holy sites was even worse.
- Oct 30, 2000
- 42,589
- 5
- 0
Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
The first two sentences were me pointing out what I think were, on balance, good policies/actions taken by Israel. There is no reasonable way you could have interpreted these as sarcasm.Originally posted by: dna
This kind of retort only shows that you have nothing to say, and comes as no surprise after you've failed to back your own assertions (helicopter magical weapons?).
Well done, have a
EDIT
I may have misread the first sentence as sarcasm, but you used that as an excuse to avoid all my other remarks, which are in no way dependant on the first one.
No surprise though, as this isn't the first time you're dodging certain aspects of the discussion.
Rifles are good ways to kill individual people. Attacking vehicles isn't so bad either, as opposed to attacking crowded houses.
When I said 'devastating random attacks', I was refering to the suicide bombs, and in case you thought this was sarcasm, it was not.
The problem is that even with the level of violence, and the launching of these attacks in crowded areas, Israel manages to kill many more people, and include more highly undesirable victims (read: children) than do these bombers. I completely fail to understand how this is either unavoidable or justifiable.
Those who use civilians, including children in crowded houses, as human shields are responsible for their deaths. Than means if Hezbollah launches mortars from a school rooftop and Israel returns fire (even if they know they are firing at a school) and levels the school, killing many children international law holds Hezbullah responsible. This is not the moral equivalent of sending suicide bombers to kill masses of civilians in hotel lobbies.
Its who is being targeted that makes all the moral difference in the world.
...of course some of these human shields take the job willingly and with parental consent.
3chordcharlie
Diamond Member
- Mar 30, 2004
- 9,859
- 1
- 81
Originally posted by: KurskKnyaz
Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
The first two sentences were me pointing out what I think were, on balance, good policies/actions taken by Israel. There is no reasonable way you could have interpreted these as sarcasm.Originally posted by: dna
This kind of retort only shows that you have nothing to say, and comes as no surprise after you've failed to back your own assertions (helicopter magical weapons?).
Well done, have a
EDIT
I may have misread the first sentence as sarcasm, but you used that as an excuse to avoid all my other remarks, which are in no way dependant on the first one.
No surprise though, as this isn't the first time you're dodging certain aspects of the discussion.
Rifles are good ways to kill individual people. Attacking vehicles isn't so bad either, as opposed to attacking crowded houses.
When I said 'devastating random attacks', I was refering to the suicide bombs, and in case you thought this was sarcasm, it was not.
The problem is that even with the level of violence, and the launching of these attacks in crowded areas, Israel manages to kill many more people, and include more highly undesirable victims (read: children) than do these bombers. I completely fail to understand how this is either unavoidable or justifiable.
Those who use civilians, including children in crowded houses, as human shields are responsible for their deaths. Than means if Hezbollah launches mortars from a school rooftop and Israel returns fire (even if they know they are firing at a school) and levels the school, killing many children international law holds Hezbullah responsible. This is not the moral equivalent of sending suicide bombers to kill masses of civilians in hotel lobbies.
Its who is being targeted that makes all the moral difference in the world.
...of course some of these human shields take the job willingly and with parental consent.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter