Double standards on Israel - Palestine

Originally posted by Yorick: G'kar, peace requires two parties to live without conflict. There is/was violence in Tibet. One side chose not to respond, but there is still a victim and a perpetrator. That is not peace.

OR peace requires is one individual who chooses to have it within unconditionally. Call it compassion, gods love, or what you may. And a group of those individuals is what I was refering too.
One can choose not to be a victim, although to an outsider it may appear that they are. I was not a victim when a warmonger threw a rock at me while I peacefully advocated peace. In my perspective, the perpetrator and victim are one and the same when it comes to violence. For being peaceful perpetrates peace, now who wants to be a victim of that?

[Yorick]

Originally posted by G'kar: OR peace requires is one individual who chooses to have it within unconditionally. Call it compassion, gods love, or what you may. And a group of those individuals is what I was refering too. One can choose not to be a victim, although to an outsider it may appear that they are. I was not a victim when a warmonger threw a rock at me while I peacefully advocated peace. In my perspective, the perpetrator and victim are one and the same when it comes to violence. For being peaceful perpetrates peace, now who wants to be a victim of that?

G'kar. Peace is life without conflict or violence. I too have had situations when I have had to show incredible restraint and not respond to violence. There certainly was not peace in the situation though, believe me.

As I said, it takes two to live in conflict and two to live in peace.



------------------
I am the walrus!.... er, no hang on....

A fair dinkum laughing Hyena!

Originally posted by Yorick: G'kar. Peace is life without conflict or violence. I too have had situations when I have had to show incredible restraint and not respond to violence. There certainly was not peace in the situation though, believe me. As I said, it takes two to live in conflict and two to live in peace.

I am two then, no I am One, errgh, I am Only An Egg!
Yorrick, Inner peace, unconditional...transcends outer conditions. It is an inner condition, one that we are not condition to expirience. It take self awareness and discipline of some measure. But it is peace. Ask the Dali Lama.
Peacefulness is accepting the limitations of the violent to be peaceful, for example. But to not have expirienced it for yourself, I am trying to describe breathing air to a fish. I agree to disagree.

[Yorick]

Originally posted by G'kar: I am two then, no I am One, errgh, I am Only An Egg! Yorrick, Inner peace, unconditional...transcends outer conditions. It is an inner condition, one that we are not condition to expirience. It take self awareness and discipline of some measure. But it is peace. Ask the Dali Lama. Peacefulness is accepting the limitations of the violent to be peaceful, for example. But to not have expirienced it for yourself, I am trying to describe breathing air to a fish. I agree to disagree.

G'kar. You are now talking about inner peace. Very different from the peace you and I were discussing.

I shall avoid being insulted by your above posts because you do not know me. You should not presume one you don't know to have not experienced inner peace.

I repeat. Peace and conflict require two parties to exist.

Inner peace is something totally different, and let us say that I strongly, very very strongly disagree with the Dalai Lamas method of attaining it.


------------------
I am the walrus!.... er, no hang on....

A fair dinkum laughing Hyena!



[This message has been edited by Yorick (edited 09-25-2001).]

[Silver Cheetah]

Originally posted by Conan: Originally posted by Silver Cheetah: the native Americans would appear to have far more right to North America than the Jews do to Palestine. I am not sure about that Silver C. But I can tell you that many casinos with extra money does buy influence. Land rights have been huge...fishing rights..hunting rights...casino rights. Heres an example of just a humble legal joist. You have state stocked rivers, lakes and forests in the US. The DNR controls most government wide stocking and trys to preserve Americas fish and game. They are doing good but there is always room for improvement in these areas Well, stay with me here..Im getting to it On reservations many of these streams, lakes, and forests connect to state territorys. The DNR requires people , living in the US, to buy a state fishing and hunting licence and dictates techniques for doing so. Assureing breeding and game accuretly, food wise. So all in state areas you must have one to be legal. But in Reservations ,the areas of woods and flow, Natives are taking fish and game illegally according to US law. Canadians might have some input here also. Standing on the "right spot" will yeild a high quantity of game when a systematic drive is taken. Bears knew this age ago Alot of land right tensions are here also.(have you been to Isreal?)

Sorry Conan, not quite sure what your point is here in relation to my original point?


------------------

[Silver Cheetah]

. Aditionally the Arabs have many many nations where they can exist in an Islamic state with Arabic as there national language and be ruled by their own people. Hebrew is the only official language of one state. Judaism is the only official of one state. From nation to nation they have been oppressed, victimised and been ruled by non-Jews. Give them a break. What do you want them to do? Die? That was Hitlers "final solution" to the "Jewish problem" wasn't it? Is that what you propose Silver? [/B]

Yorick, there was no need to respond quite so aggressively to my post. Could we just take a deep breath and chill for a moment?

Ok. The text I based the above information on is actually Jewish in origin. It is called The Origin of the Palestine-Israel Conflict, and is published by Jews for Justice in the Middle East. The writers themselves make the point that as Jews, they are not anti-semitic, and 'do not believe that the Jews acted any worse than any other group might have acted in their situation.'

Their goal was simply to outline the history of Palestine to provide some insight into the roots of the conflict. 'Our position is that the Palestinians, rather than being irrational terrorists who have no point of view worth listening to, have a real grievance. Their homeland for over a thousand years was taken, without their consent and mostly by force, during the creation of the state of Israel. All subsequent crimes, on both sides, inevitably follow from this original injustice.

That is my view also, and I used information from the above mentioned publication to support my view. No, I do not believe that the Jews should just 'die'. Please Yorick, do not read things into my posts that are not there! Why do you assume I am anti-semitic? I am not at all. (To slightly adapt the old cliche, some of my best (read nicest ) lovers have been Jewish..... )

Although I do not condone many of the actions that Palestinians have taken to retrieve their land, I do find the representation of the Palestine - Israeli conflict presented in the media to be unbalanced and untrue.

Rather than argue the point here, which we could do for ever, - you quoting from your sources and I from mine (and I'm sure you are a much better debater than I am, and will probably run rings around me! might I suggest that you, and anyone else who is interested, take a look at the booklet I used as source. The address is http://www.cactus48.com/truth.html

The reason I posted my post was because I am getting very tired of the media and political portrayal of the Palestinians as merely terrorists, whilst the Israelis, who fight just as dirty, are seen as being defenders of their state, and justified and legal in what they do, which is far from the case.

I have a certain sympathy for both sides, for different reasons. I wish both sides could agree to live together in peace and harmony. However, at present that looks like a dream that is very far from being realised.

I think that the little booklet I mention is very illuminating on this whole topic. People owe it to themselves to look at the background, rather than just accept the generally accepted point of view which is perpetrated in the media. (Before you start stamping on my head here - I am not talking about you here! Although I do not agree with your viewpoint, I accept that you have researched your point. There are many views of history, depending on who is doing the telling. In the end, which version you go with is going to depend on whether it acceptable, given your own personal beliefs, experience and world view, and the same goes for me.)

Yorick - if we are to talk further on this, can we please keep it friendly and polite? I do not want to enter into an aggressive discussion on this matter, and will not. I will post more on this later or tomorrow. For the present I must leave it there, as I have little time.

------------------

[Silver Cheetah]

Originally posted by Moridin: Again you disappoint me Encouraging someone to post nothing more than slanderous comments about those that actually try to put thought into their posts!

Goodness me Moridin, do lighten up chuck!! Striking the odd light note once in a while doesn't hurt either you know! My comment was JOKEY, ok?

Come ON you people!

Humour is not just allowed on this thread, it is WELCOMED!!

The situation is sad and serious - but we ain't go to build a better world by going about with long faces ALL the time. And can we please respond to each other without quite so much snap, crackle and pop. This is a debate between equals, not a fight to the death!





------------------

[Silver Cheetah]

Originally posted by Shadowstrider: I am well aware of this, however if you are using the monotheistic God then you must capitolize it. I am an atheist, I normally do not capitolize god, because I do not believe in him, then again I never say "thank God" or use the name. However since he said "Thank God" it was refering to the monotheistic lord, thus requires capitolization. If you read a bible, god is always God, just as nearly all anglo-saxon literature(Beauwolf is a good one for seeing this) I dunno who luther is, but I assume it was the person I quoted prior. Well, I'll leave "Luther" alone if he doesn't make childish postings like that one.

I don't know who Luther is either! Who is this mysterious Luther, come out, come out, wherever you are! (Looks like you've scared him off, Shadowstrider

Anyway, to respond to both you and Yorick on this, very briefly..... saying thank god doesn't entail believing in any kind of god. When people in the UK (not a very religious country at all), say thank god, they just mean 'Oh I'm so relieved it turned out that way'. Because the god concept is so deeply engrained in the culture, and hence the language, in many cases people are using the word completely detatched from its original meaning.

I really don't see the need to capitalise god in this case.

Of course, some people purposely don't capitalise it, to show that they are not believers. I suspect the majority don't give it a thought - and Luther probably comes into that category.

Anyway, not that it really matters...... I suggest those who want to capitalise it, do so, and those who don't, go with the lower case!




------------------

Originally posted by Silver Cheetah: Sorry Conan, not quite sure what your point is here in relation to my original point?

Sometimes people who have occupied a land longer may not end up with it in the end. And borders become a state of mind rather than physical. oh nuts..why am I a misfit when it comes to writing ideas (:

------------------
*\Conan/*

[Ryanamur]

Back to the original post, I personally think that the creation of Israel (assisted by the Western World) is by far the BIGGEST political blunder of the XXth Century. The rightfull owners of Palestine were the Palestinians, not the Jews.

As a side note, it's followed by the Great War and the United Nations.

------------------
If I am because I think, then, if I talk without thinking, I'm not really talking! Am I?

[This message has been edited by Ryanamur (edited 09-25-2001).]