Zionism

Originally posted by AzureWolf: quote: Originally posted by MagiK: I don't see any examples of Israel going on unprovoked conquests.

Uh, magik are you forgetting the illegal settlements on land that is supposed to belong to palestine? What is that if not conquest of land albiet behind a thin facade.[/QUOTE]Did you read my very first post? I would say that you ought to. It covers that issue quite well. There are no "illegal settlements" unless you call all the arab settlements and cities on Jewish land illegal as well. Basicly the Jews did not evict the arabs from the lands that were given to them, and There is no legitimate reason to evict the jews on the west bank or the Gaza. The steps taken by Israel in 1967 were provoked, justifiable and reasonable in my mind, they had already been attacked twice by the combined might of the Arab League, how many times must they allow the Arabs to try and push them into the sea, without becomming a proactive nation instead of a reactive one? Please, do read the report [img]smile.gif[/img] I worked hard on it [img]smile.gif[/img]

[ 10-29-2002, 09:32 AM: Message edited by: MagiK ]

[John D Harris]

Originally posted by Davros: quote: Originally posted by John D Harris: quote: Originally posted by Davros: quote: Originally posted by MagiK: Thank you and good night gracie!

When someone holds an opinion this strongly, any attempt to debate them is pointless. Even if I cared enough to make any points in opposition, it is apparent that I would be dealing with a mind that has made its decision and is totally closed to other viewpoints. My advice to people is to simply avoid the argument (note the deliberate lack of use of the word "debate").

Don't say I didn't warn you people [/QUOTE]Davros, It been my experience in life the most close minded are the ones that complain about others being close minded. In a like manner the most arguementative are the ones that say to another "all you want to do is argue" while ignoring their own argueing. It takes at least two to disagree, how they handle the disagreement determinds weither or not the disagreement is an arguement.[/QUOTE][img]smile.gif[/img]
Interesting points you raise JD, and I'll debate them with you if I may as I have always known you to listen and think on both sides of the discussion.

A prime tenet of my proposal is that a clear correlation has been established, whereby it is the custom of one party to steadfastly take unalterable positions on numerous discussion topics.

For confirmatory evidence I cite the following "because some times I do just stir the pot (yes I can admit it)". Before I get accused of quoting out of context, I am at pains to point out that whilst the above quote has been cut from a larger statement, the communicative purpose has not been altered, and it nevertheless openly confirms something of which many of us were aware. Our combative interlocutor, in the most basic on venacular, "enjoys a good stoush".

I quite admire the first point you make - I'll even go so far as to wholeheartedly endorse it [img]smile.gif[/img] . The most close minded are the ones that complain about others being close minded. Of course, if I were to go back over the many and varied posts by our good friend on such topics as atheism, public health care, and (gasp) gun control - I am confident that you would often come across words like "your missing my point", "you have no idea what you are talking about", "you don't understand", "you're still not listening to me", ....... really, need I go on?

Don't take my word for it though - set yourself the task of looking through those threads and seeing how often that theme comes through. Of course the big M wasn't the only one saying those sort of things - they come when either side fails to see the others' point - look for a consistent correlation though, and judge for yourself.

Onwards then to your last statement - "It takes at least two to disagree, how they handle the disagreement determinds weither or not the disagreement is an arguement." First of all an apology [img]smile.gif[/img] for including your spelling mistakes in my quoting - I am however hoping to enrol in Father Bronze's Grammarian Brigade. I ask you this - how often have you known our good friend to be prepared to disagree? How many times have you seen him say "well I think we will have to agree to disagree on that". The mantra that he seems to live by is "my way or the highway".

You may not see things from my perspective JD, and if you don't, then we will have to agree to disagree.

Looking forward to your rebuttal though, and an open exchange of viewpoints on the topic [img]smile.gif[/img] [/QUOTE]Davros, Good post
Thank you, I do try to see things for the other side (as best I can give human limitations) even if I don't agree the conclusions reached. I understand the feeling of going round and round on certain topics and with certain parties. Lord there's probibly quite a few that feel the same about me. I've dicovered there are people on the board that because of, political, phisophical, or even writing styles, I butt heads with. I'm not perfect at it, but I've tried, without being rude, to ignor their posts and prevent a posible clash.

I see the problem with the spelling errors, you're using the Queen's English, I'm using the bastardized version "American Redneck"

My conclusions on the subject of the middleast are fairly much in line with the historical stance MajiK stated. On a highly emotional subject like the Middleast I try to stay away form the feelings and emotions aspect of the disagreement, because by their very nature feelings and emotions are subjective.

Is a Stoush anything like a Scrap?

Originally posted by Barry the Sprout: MagiK, this is another straw doll you have set up and managed to knock down wondrously easily. If there are any people on this board who actually are in favour of driving the Jews into the sea then I will happily join with you in arguing why the state of Israel is necessary. Well much as I know you love me, I have to tell you, I was not responsible for the information in my post. It is all publicly documented fact. Of course you may not agree with the history books that are being used to teach history in the US, but then you have a whole different argument and thread to start [img]smile.gif[/img] However, your post demonises "the Arabs" to an extent that I simply can't agree with. What is this homogenous mass you describe, with every member hell bent on irrational destruction and murder? I don't think such a mass of people exist, personally. There are people who attack the Isreali's, although it would be a great overstatement to say they threatened the security of the state as a whole. I do not support those people, and I doubt even the most radical IW member does either. What I do support is making a distinction between the suicide bombers, members of Hizbollah and Hamas, and the ordinary Palestinian citizens. I iddn't demonise the Arabs, Their history does it for me quite nicely, however, a couple of things here. First off. I never once claimed that nayone on IW supported the PLO, the Arab League or any of the otther Arab terror organizations. So Im not sure where your getting that. Secondly, Im not saying anything about any particular Arab "person" Im commenting on the governments and leadersships and Sponsored organizations as a whole, which have publicly and repeatedly announced their desires to "drive the jews into the sea" . So don't get angry with me for quoting the leaders. Lets face it, the Isrealis treat the ordinary Palestinians like "lice" (as a Lebanese friend who's spent a lot of time in Isreal described it to me). Isreal is effectively an apartheid state, with the government officially sanctioning discrimination against people on racial grounds. Palestinians are regularly forced off of land or simply not allowed to move around the country due to checkpoints. Its completely unbelievable to think that checkpoints make the peace situation any better, and as Azure pointed out, its not like settlements are exactly fair under international law. The Palestinians demands are far from unreasonable: the return of the Occupied territories, the end of the apartheid system of government, and an officially recognised Palestinian state. Im thinkin that your Lebanese friend might just be a leeetle bit biased. When I passe through Israel in my travels I saw no persecution of arabs in Israel, they appeared to be going about their lives quite freely, as freely as I was. I can't comment on your friends experiences because don't know him, but A. I don't have a single Israeli national as a friend, B. I don't know any one who lives there. C. I have no reason to love nor hate the Jews. D. I know what I have observed first hand, and now have researched historicly. The issue of the so called occupied territories are quite nicely written up in my very first post, so why not calmly read the whole thing and come back with a better argument? So just remember the next time you talk about "the Arab world" wanting the destruction of Isreal that it is a bit of a white lie really. I don't doubt that some people want that, but it would be like saying all Jews want to see the extirmination of the Arabs. Its simply not a fair description. Umm hardly, I can and DID point out a number of publicly stated objectives of the Arab LEADERS (not talking for every man woman and child here). The people who run those nations, the people who lead the groups such as Hezbolah and hamas and the PLO. So lets not go off like im just being some kind of racist troward Arabs. I am speaking about governments and political bodies here. Not individual citizens/people. Davros, I personally don't think that there is anything wrong in writing something contraversial on the board to promote discussion. If it was written to deliberately annoy people however, then that is a bit different. But trying to start an argument isn't exactly all that bad in my view, as long as the argument is conducted in a civil manner. Which admittedly does sometimes get a bit difficult...

As you said, I didn't start this thread to just "argue" Im hoping to gain some insights, learn a bit and maybe make some other people think. I am defending my research in this post and my reasoning. I think I have been able to be as unbiased about ISrael and the Arab nations as I can be about any issue. All I have to go on are historical text, personal observation and some nifty keen intel I used to be privy to. While I disagree with your assessment of the situation, I felt like what you were writing were more, personal opinions and based more on your friendships and aquaintences than on any real reasearch.

I neither hate Arabs nor do I love jews any more than I hate or love any other group. I suppose I am just a tad biased against Iraqi's, Libyans and Iranians since part of my personal life has been involved in hostilities with these nations. Im also miffed at Al-Queda, but they are a multi-national group so can't pin that on any group of people.

Ahh well. Im glad you responded but hope you will actually read what I posted and not just skim over it.

[Attalus]

Unlike some people here, I have no problem with conquest of land by military force. If they can keep it, well and good. I had to laugh at your reply, MagiK, to the question of what would happen if the Israelis did drive every Palestinian out of their territories. Mine is simpler: nothing except some wailing in the leftist press, who are pacifist anyway, so there would be no action taken. The Arabs would be too cowed by the Israeli victory to do anything. But, they don't, which I think is damn moral of them.

Originally posted by caleb: quote: Originally posted by MagiK: Thank you and good night gracie!

Originally posted by Davros: When someone holds an opinion this strongly, any attempt to debate them is pointless. Even if I cared enough to make any points in opposition, it is apparent that I would be dealing with a mind that has made its decision and is totally closed to other viewpoints. My advice to people is to simply avoid the argument (note the deliberate lack of use of the word "debate"). Don't say I didn't warn you people

[/QUOTE]Exquisitly researched and well thought out argument there Caleb, how could anyone refute your studies and researched facts. I salute your Historical and political acumen!

PS. can you spell S. A. R. C. A. S. M. ?

[Timber Loftis]

Originally posted by MagiK: quote:

Uh, magik are you forgetting the illegal settlements on land that is supposed to belong to palestine? What is that if not conquest of land albiet behind a thin facade.[/qb][/QUOTE]Did you read my very first post? I would say that you ought to. It covers that issue quite well. There are no "illegal settlements" unless you call all the arab settlements and cities on Jewish land illegal as well. Basicly the Jews did not evict the arabs from the lands that were given to them, and There is no legitimate reason to evict the jews on the west bank or the Gaza. The steps taken by Israel in 1967 were provoked, justifiable and reasonable in my mind, they had already been attacked twice by the combined might of the Arab League, how many times must they allow the Arabs to try and push them into the sea, without becomming a proactive nation instead of a reactive one? Please, do read the report [img]smile.gif[/img] I worked hard on it [img]smile.gif[/img] [/QB][/QUOTE]

Again - one last time - the action taken by Israel in 1967 was the annexing of land. They had originally taken much more, but then retreated to Golan Heights, Gaza, and West Bank, the occupied territories. Living there, controlling Palestinians there, acting as a sovereign there, and settling there is... let me say it once more only... ILLEGAL. Oh, hell let me drive it home:
il·le·gal Pronunciation Key (-lgl)
adj.
Prohibited by law.
Prohibited by official rules.
Illegal under the UN Charter and many other treaties, though most all others get absorbed by the UN Charter, which I'm probably gonna end up posting here some day to get the class to pay attention.

That's why they don't call it "New Israel." That's why they make excuses regarding these lands. Everyone knows it was illegal. It is tantamount to annexation. It is the conquest of land - whether or not behind a thin facade.

Maybe you think it *should be* legal, like some people think [img]graemlins/bonghit.gif[/img] should be legal, but it's not. What's worse, unlike the aforementioned drug law, this law applies to Israel for one reason only, the same one reason the UN Charter applies to any nation: THEY SIGNED AND AGREED TO IT. So, it's not just illegal, it's also the breaking of an oath, a bond.

Would it be nice if Israel could keep the land as a "buffer zone?" Well, maybe, and they do. But, I'm sure Pakistan thinks Kashmir would make a great "buffer zone," but it doesn't mean they own it (of course in that situation at least the location of the border is in dispute, whereas with Israel it's all very clear).

The peace between Egypt, the original 1967 instigator who was set invade, and Israel has worked out well, even though they *hate* each other. Maybe something like that perhaps.

But, I see this as one of the world's everlasting conflicts. From the European world's point of view (and I include it's imperial offshoots of like mind, government, and economy), it's the story of the Crusades going on and on ad infinitum and ad nauseum. From the middle eastern point of view, it's more like the continuation into the modern day of the old testament stories of once-tribal peoples chasing each other all around the subcontinent and taking turns enslaving each other.

Someone mentioned the Romans and that rowdy "Christ" cult. I'm not saying it was in reference to the relative age of Christianity vis-a-vis Muslinism, but if it was let's try to remember that Muslinism did come much later in time that Judaism, and in fact is a spin-off of Christianity. The point... erm, rather question, I'm getting around to here is one as to the religious vs. ethnic source of the fued. Isn't this fued so old and long-lasting due more to historically ethnic reasons rather than religious ones? I guess I'm not to up-to-speed on the birth of Muslinism, and maybe I should shut up now before I show my ignorance on that particular topic.

[Barry the Sprout]

Originally posted by The Hunter of Jahanna: I want to know why you think the state of Israel is necessary. Why should people of a certain religious leaning be given their own countrie? How come they get a "homeland" just because they are Jewish??Useing that logic christians,buddhist,wiccans and every other religion should be given a countrie for themselves as well because they need a "homeland" also. If they were given the land because they were persecuted by Hitler then the Palestinians deserve a homeland as well since they are currently being persecuted by Isreal.

Well, I don't think the fact that they are Jewish entitles them to special treatment, nor do I think that because they were persecuted they have divine right to take that land. What I do think though is that there was widespread anti-semitism in Europe and there had been for quite some time. I think it is understandable for a race of people so heavily persecuted to want a state of their own. Also, even if I were to follow your argument that the Jews have no more right to the land than anyone else, what do you propose we do about it? Where do we move all of them?

I think the question here is not: "Who are they to have the right to create a state for themselves?", but instead: "Who are you that you can deny the right of any peoples to a state?". But they are both pretty pertinent I suppose.

Don't get me wrong, I am still firmly in the belief that the Palestinians have had a hell of a rough time of things over the years, and I would consider myself "on their side" quite definately. However, I don't think I can support the view that the Jews should give up the whole of Isreal. The Occupied territories - yes, the illegal settlements - yes, everything - no.

And MagiK - the illegal settlements are the ones being created pretty much daily in Arab territory against the wish of the United Nations and causing the relocation and often death of hundreds of Palestinians. Not the same thing as the Occupied territories, as you seem to believe. They are isolated pockets in Palestinian territory that are heavily protected by the army - its a similar tactic as was used by the settlers of North America to take land off of the Indians. It goes a bit like this:

1. Make a peace treaty or agreement of some kind marking out who is allowed to live where and which bits of disputed land should be controlled by whom.
2. Make no effort whatsoever to enforce this on your side. I.e. let people attempt to settle land not technically part of the state.
3. The enemy attack these people as they are on their land and trying to evict people from it.
4. Send in a whopping great army and pummel the enemy in the area concerned into submission. Self defence is the justification - you have to defend your citizens.
5. After killing lots of people make a new peace treaty, however this one considers the land previously owned by your enemy that the settlers invaded as either disputed or simply yours. The enemy aren't in position to argue as they have been slaughtered.
6. Repeat from step 1 until all opposition is futile.

Its effective, thats precisely my problem with it. Its also illegal, which I'm not too keen on either.

[ 10-29-2002, 10:07 AM: Message edited by: Barry the Sprout ]

Originally posted by Davros: Thank you and good night gracie!

When someone holds an opinion this strongly, any attempt to debate them is pointless. Even if I cared enough to make any points in opposition, it is apparent that I would be dealing with a mind that has made its decision and is totally closed to other viewpoints. My advice to people is to simply avoid the argument (note the deliberate lack of use of the word "debate").

Don't say I didn't warn you people [/qb][/QUOTE]Davros, It been my experience in life the most close minded are the ones that complain about others being close minded. In a like manner the most arguementative are the ones that say to another "all you want to do is argue" while ignoring their own argueing. It takes at least two to disagree, how they handle the disagreement determinds weither or not the disagreement is an arguement.[/qb][/QUOTE] [img]smile.gif[/img]
Interesting points you raise JD, and I'll debate them with you if I may as I have always known you to listen and think on both sides of the discussion.

A prime tenet of my proposal is that a clear correlation has been established, whereby it is the custom of one party to steadfastly take unalterable positions on numerous discussion topics.

For confirmatory evidence I cite the following "because some times I do just stir the pot (yes I can admit it)". Before I get accused of quoting out of context, I am at pains to point out that whilst the above quote has been cut from a larger statement, the communicative purpose has not been altered, and it nevertheless openly confirms something of which many of us were aware. Our combative interlocutor, in the most basic on venacular, "enjoys a good stoush".

I quite admire the first point you make - I'll even go so far as to wholeheartedly endorse it [img]smile.gif[/img] . The most close minded are the ones that complain about others being close minded. Of course, if I were to go back over the many and varied posts by our good friend on such topics as atheism, public health care, and (gasp) gun control - I am confident that you would often come across words like "your missing my point", "you have no idea what you are talking about", "you don't understand", "you're still not listening to me", ....... really, need I go on?

Don't take my word for it though - set yourself the task of looking through those threads and seeing how often that theme comes through. Of course the big M wasn't the only one saying those sort of things - they come when either side fails to see the others' point - look for a consistent correlation though, and judge for yourself.

Onwards then to your last statement - "It takes at least two to disagree, how they handle the disagreement determinds weither or not the disagreement is an arguement." First of all an apology [img]smile.gif[/img] for including your spelling mistakes in my quoting - I am however hoping to enrol in Father Bronze's Grammarian Brigade. I ask you this - how often have you known our good friend to be prepared to disagree? How many times have you seen him say "well I think we will have to agree to disagree on that". The mantra that he seems to live by is "my way or the highway".

You may not see things from my perspective JD, and if you don't, then we will have to agree to disagree.

Looking forward to your rebuttal though, and an open exchange of viewpoints on the topic [img]smile.gif[/img] [/qb][/QUOTE]

[img]smile.gif[/img] I would love to meet you in real life and have a most wonderful debate with you [img]smile.gif[/img]

I would ask though that you take your critique of me, my posting styles (or lack of) to your own thread. This is not what this thread is for. Take also your objection for my points of view and the fact that I actually try to communicate with people who make it necessary for me to write the phrases you so goshly have taken out of context. Please feel free to talk behind my back so to speak and criticize me with all your little friends but really I must protest if you continue public personal attacks I will have to report a TOS violation.

[ 10-29-2002, 10:18 AM: Message edited by: MagiK ]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: Again - one last time - the action taken by Israel in 1967 was the annexing of land. They had originally taken much more, but then retreated to Golan Heights, Gaza, and West Bank, the occupied territories. Living there, controlling Palestinians there, acting as a sovereign there, and settling there is... let me say it once more only... ILLEGAL. Oh, hell let me drive it home: il·le·gal Pronunciation Key (-lgl) adj. Prohibited by law. Prohibited by official rules. Illegal under the UN Charter and many other treaties, though most all others get absorbed by the UN Charter, which I'm probably gonna end up posting here some day to get the class to pay attention. That's why they don't call it "New Israel." That's why they make excuses regarding these lands. Everyone knows it was illegal. It is tantamount to annexation. It is the conquest of land - whether or not behind a thin facade. Maybe you think it *should be* legal, like some people think [img]graemlins/bonghit.gif[/img] should be legal, but it's not. What's worse, unlike the aforementioned drug law, this law applies to Israel for one reason only, the same one reason the UN Charter applies to any nation: THEY SIGNED AND AGREED TO IT. So, it's not just illegal, it's also the breaking of an oath, a bond. Would it be nice if Israel could keep the land as a "buffer zone?" Well, maybe, and they do. But, I'm sure Pakistan thinks Kashmir would make a great "buffer zone," but it doesn't mean they own it (of course in that situation at least the location of the border is in dispute, whereas with Israel it's all very clear). The peace between Egypt, the original 1967 instigator who was set invade, and Israel has worked out well, even though they *hate* each other. Maybe something like that perhaps. But, I see this as one of the world's everlasting conflicts. From the European world's point of view (and I include it's imperial offshoots of like mind, government, and economy), it's the story of the Crusades going on and on ad infinitum and ad nauseum. From the middle eastern point of view, it's more like the continuation into the modern day of the old testament stories of once-tribal peoples chasing each other all around the subcontinent and taking turns enslaving each other. Someone mentioned the Romans and that rowdy "Christ" cult. I'm not saying it was in reference to the relative age of Christianity vis-a-vis Muslinism, but if it was let's try to remember that Muslinism did come much later in time that Judaism, and in fact is a spin-off of Christianity. The point... erm, rather question, I'm getting around to here is one as to the religious vs. ethnic source of the fued. Isn't this fued so old and long-lasting due more to historically ethnic reasons rather than religious ones? I guess I'm not to up-to-speed on the birth of Muslinism, and maybe I should shut up now before I show my ignorance on that particular topic.

TL I understand wht you are saying. I can also see the other side of the argument. Do you have any idea why the UN and all of the Civilized world doesnt do anything to correct that illegal action That some seem to think justifies all that has gone on and is going on?

[Moiraine]

Originally posted by MagiK: In the 1920's the British and French created the states that now define the middle east. These were Syria, Lebanon, and Iraq. Previously the Brittish promised the Jews a "National Home" in what is now known as the Palistine Mandate. But in 1921 the British seperated 80% of the mandate east of the Jordan rive and created the Arab Kingdom of Transjordan and gave it to the Arabian Monarch Abdullah instead of the Jews.

Incomplete. The British issued the Palestine Mandate on behalf of the the Council League of Nations. The League of Nations is the ancestor of the U.N. It was created just after WWI, at the initiative of Woodrow Wilson, then president of the U.S.A. The original members of the League of Nations were the victorious Allies of World War I (with the exception of the United States, whose Senate refused to ratify the Treaty of Versailles) and most of the neutral nations. The Council of the League of Nations included 5 permanent members (United States, which never took its seat, Britain, France, Italy, and Japan), and 4 non-permanent members elected by the Assembly of all League of Nations members. About the Palestinian Mandate, Britain was only the entrusted Mandatory of the League of Nations.