Israeli Troops kill unarmed teenagers during demonstration

[LeVelocar]

Israel has no right to exist.

 

There was already a nation of people living there, prior to 1948. Unless Israel had the explicit permission of everyone who was already there (and they did not), claiming the land to form a new country is called theft.

 

This is the simple truth that you refuse to see.

 

 

Quite frankly, the Palestinian attitude is entirely understandable and natural.

[sivispacem]

Well, that largely depends how you define "rights". Most countries exist because of the dubious displacement of particular ethnic and social groups in favour of others; it's just Israel's was more overt than most.

[Abel.]

It's not as if everyone rolled in in 1948. Zionism began in the 19th cenutry in large part as a reaction to near-intolerable levels of antisemitism in Europe. People also seem to ignore the fact that there has always been a Jewish presence in Eretz Israel, though this was greatly dimished by the likes of the Babylonians and later the Romans.

 

Thus, it is ambiguous at best to suggest that Israel was "created" in 1948 as a new country. Attempts were made to live peacefully with Arabs before 1948, but as soon as the State became official, the Arabs declared war and Israel had to fight for its modern survival.

Edited May 31, 2014 by elanman

[Melech]

Israel has no right to exist.

 

There was already a nation of people living there, prior to 1948. Unless Israel had the explicit permission of everyone who was already there (and they did not), claiming the land to form a new country is called theft.

 

This is the simple truth that you refuse to see.

 

[iMAGE]

 

Quite frankly, the Palestinian attitude is entirely understandable and natural.

Israel, just like any other country, has right to exist.

 

There has never been such thing as "Palestinian people". They claimed they were Syrian before 1948, and between 1948 and 1967 they claimed they were Jordanian. They did not ask any "Palestinian" state. Why? Because they just wanted to destroy Israel. "Palestinians" started to exist since 1967, after the Six-Day War.

 

You also say that "there was another people", as if we Jews were invaders. In fact, according to demographic data published from the 19th century onward, Jerusalem had a clear Jewish majority for most of the last two centuries. And between 1937 and 1939, the Jews were more than 60% of the city's population; a Jewish mayor, Daniel Auster, was even elected. He also served as mayor between 1944 and 1945. Towards the end of the British Mandate in 1948, the British estimated that the Jews were 56.1% of the Jerusalem population, the Muslims 27% and the Christians 16.9%.

 

Just look at this graphic*:

 

 

* = Pink: Jews (יהודים); green: Muslims (מוסלמים); yellow: Arab Christians (ערבים נוצרים).

 

Israel did not expel anyone, it was the Arab leaders who asked them to leave:

 

 

Edited May 31, 2014 by Palikari

[LeVelocar]

Pointing to a single small area of Palestine that happened to historically have a high percentage of jews in it means nothing.

 

Israel has no right to exist. Colonialism is immoral. This goes for the Americas, Australia, and everywhere else too.

 

And your talk of "we jews" is disturbing. Building a nation to the privilege of a single religious group is part of the problem. Though if you want to talk of "invasion", the mass postwar immigration that made this possible fits pretty well.

 

Well, that largely depends how you define "rights". Most countries exist because of the dubious displacement of particular ethnic and social groups in favour of others; it's just Israel's was more overt than most.

 

Aye, and usually it stops mattering once the two (or more) groups homogenise. It'd be useless, say, to try and return Britain to the British. Trying to tell a Briton from an Angle or a Saxon, or even those Norman buggers is impossible. They're now the same thing.

 

But when it happened recently, and you've clear cut groups with their own identities still there, fighting and trying to undo it, that's when I call BS on the whole thing.

Edited May 31, 2014 by LeVelocar

[Mr. House]

Whether or not Israel has a 'right' to exist or not is irrelevant. I'd expect a man with a Marx quote not to consider validity of states as a right to exist anyway. I don't see how re-displacing a population the size of Israel is going to fix any displacement that happened to Palestinians. The fact that Palestinians are having their homes destroyed illegally on occupied lands and Arabs have pretty terrible treatment in Israel if they're even allowed citizenship is the issue.

 

I have a question to Palikari and Elan (mainly Elan as Palikari seems like a lost cause); why do you have unwavering support for all the actions of the state of Israel? Firstly I'm unsure why anybody would put their support or trust into something like a nation, but that is a whole other thing. Specifically why support a state that has a variety of times had sanction after sanction implemented on it for it's actions toward minority populations in dubiously occupied lands and a large history of rather horrid treatment of POWs in secret internment camps. What do you personally have to gain from supporting this state, other than some sort of vague sense of self affirmation, which doesn't even make sense considering that the antisemitism of Europe is all but dead.

 

I get that brown people are bad and that's fine and Arab states hate Israel blah blah blah but mortar bombing schools and hospitals and mowing through towns in occupied and ripping them up to build new housing specifically for citizens of Israel seems likea pretty difficult thing to justify, even regardless of it being illegal in international law.

[Abel.]

Pointing to a single small area of Palestine that happened to historically have a high percentage of jews in it means nothing.

 

 

 

It's quite meaningful, actually. It exemplifies the significance of Jerusalem to the Jewish people, and Israel at large by extension, given that the city is important to all three (major) Abrahamic faiths. It also highlights that Zionism preceded 1948 by a large margin. The Jews form an ethnoreligious group with an intimate connection to the land--how is it disturbing for Palikari to describe himself and his countrymen as Jews if they are such?

 

Myron: I'm not trying to suggest that Israel has a pristine track record (I've even made mention of some of the darker periods of modern Isreal's history in a previous post) and concede that the settlements are not conductive to peace. I'm just trying to defend Israel's right to exist by enunciating the foundations of and initial need for Zionism. Antisemitism in Europe is nothing compared to what it was, but it explains why many of the Ashenkazi Zionists felt compelled to return to Israel--I'm not trying to use antisemitism to justify modern instances of making aliyah (though in some cases this could be done). My Jewish ancestry is not European (my grandparents were Moroccan Jews), if that means anything at all.

 

Furthermore, Israel does not actively attack civilians. If provoked by an aggressor, Israel will respond--naturally civilian loss of life can occur, but this is never Israel's intent and every attempt is made to curtail this (I have made mention of The Sabra and Shatila massacre and I think everyone in Israel agrees that the event was an aberration--as I said, Lebanese militiamen were to blame directly, but I'm sure Sharon bore a lot of guilt before he fell victim to his stroke).

 

 

I'm not trying to justify everything Israel does (I'm not qualified to talk about the settlements and have only conceded that their construction is not conductive to peace), I'm just trying to explain that Israel is a legitimate country and that the Jews have ancestral ties to Eretz Israel.

Edited May 31, 2014 by elanman

[SWEETSAPRIK]

Whether they kicked people out and stole their land is kind of a moot point now, and has been. They aren't going to be leaving and giving the land back any more than the 99% of people in the US who aren't Native American/Alaskan. Unless you live on a very small island where you've lived since it was connected to Pangaea, there's a very good chance that land was stolen from someone at some point, and likely more than a few someones before that.

 

Sadly, I don't think a two state solution is going to work until someone else steps in. There are crazy people on both sides that don't want to just move on from what has already happened, accept the reality of the current situation, and live in peace. Those people, whether they're the majority or the minority, seem to have more say about what tomorrow will bring than the ones that that would just like to not shoot at anyone or get shot at.

 

The idea that the two state solution will work when Palestine does anything is kind of laughable though. The idea that they are always the aggressors, they don't want peace, and Israel does, is not the case anymore than the inverse is. There are plenty of people in Israel, not just in the country, but in the government, that don't even want Palestinian citizens of Israel to have a vote, or remain there at all. Just like there are some that think any action they take is acceptable because it is what "god" wants. Views like that don't get you hounded from office either, which would indicate that there are more than enough people in the regular citizenry who agree. I tend to be wary of anyone who thinks they're doing "God's will" because people like that can use that to try to justify almost any actions they take. That isn't exactly a point of view only shared by the people on one side either.

 

I'd argue that most people on both sides want peace, but too many of those only want peace on their terms, and nothing less. "I want peace, and I'm willing to kill them all or drive them into the sea to get it" isn't exactly as simple as "wanting peace."

 

Not sure what any of this has to do with the original topic of this thread though. This is one of those topics nobody can even get close to without it degrading into the larger "Israel vs Palestine" argument. Even if "Israeli troops" had "killed unarmed teenagers during a demonstration", that would be one instance of individuals doing something. If they had done it, then they should be punished. Those individuals. Just like if someone on the other side lobbed some mortars at Israel, that person (or those persons) should be punished. Until both sides stop seeing the other side as this one connected group with a hive mind, nothing is going to change. One person, or a small group of people taking an action, doesn't magically become the fault or responsibility of the entire group.

[sivispacem]

Technically speaking, Israel has more of a "claim" to statehood than Palestine as, at some point in recorded history, Israel has actually been a sovereign state whereas Palestine never has.

 

As I said before, pretty much every nation on the planet is a product of intentional displacement of societies and peoples, indigenous or otherwise. I've never understood why people complain so extensively about how immoral the Israeli state's mere existence is whilst failing to acknowledge that most of sub-Saharan Africa, Latin and Central America and Asia is a product of exactly the same process. Except, of course, in thoses cases there was no international community to reach an agreement on forced displacement and recolonisation.

[LeVelocar]

Whether or not Israel has a 'right' to exist or not is irrelevant. I'd expect a man with a Marx quote not to consider validity of states as a right to exist anyway. I don't see how re-displacing a population the size of Israel is going to fix any displacement that happened to Palestinians. The fact that Palestinians are having their homes destroyed illegally on occupied lands and Arabs have pretty terrible treatment in Israel if they're even allowed citizenship is the issue.

 

 

 

Oh, I don't want them displaced. I'm an open borders kind of guy, actually, as far as I'm bothered anyone can live anywhere. I just take issue with a bunch rolling up and going "this is ours now" and shooting anyone who objects.

 

 

Pointing to a single small area of Palestine that happened to historically have a high percentage of jews in it means nothing.

 

 

 

It's quite meaningful, actually. It exemplifies the significance of Jerusalem to the Jewish people, and Israel at large by extension. It also highlights that Zionism preceded 1948 by a large margin. The Jews form an ethnoreligious group with an intimate connection to the land--how is it disturbing for Palikari to describe himself and his countrymen as Jews if they are such?

 

 

Israel is about as jewish as bacon. That's why they spend so much time making up nonsense like modern hebrew, when Yiddish was already real, and actually spoken by jews. It's disneyland nationalism.

 

A small part of the country historically having a large percentage of that religion's followers still means nothing. They're dramatically outweighed by the rest of that country.

Edited May 31, 2014 by LeVelocar

[Melech]

Pointing to a single small area of Palestine that happened to historically have a high percentage of jews in it means nothing.

 

Yeah, it means nothing that we Jews were the majority in the largest city of the Palestine area, the city where most of the population was concentrated. (Irony ON)

 

Israel has no right to exist. Colonialism is immoral. This goes for the Americas, Australia, and everywhere else too.

 

The US and Australia don't have right to exist? LOL. You're really funny.

I bet you're consequent and oppose the existence of most Arab Muslim countries, don't you?

And your talk of "we jews" is disturbing.

 

LOL. Why, habibi?

 

Building a nation to the privilege of a single religious group is part of the problem.

 

Israel is a country for all its citizens, where Jews and non-Jews have the same rights. Actually 25% of Israelis are not Jewish. Israel will not cease to be Jewish just like France will not cease to be French.

 

The Arab countries surrounding Israel are Judenfrei and non-Muslims have no rights or very limited rights. Israel is the only example of democracy, freedom and equality in the Middle East.

Edited May 31, 2014 by Palikari

[Abel.]

 

Whether or not Israel has a 'right' to exist or not is irrelevant. I'd expect a man with a Marx quote not to consider validity of states as a right to exist anyway. I don't see how re-displacing a population the size of Israel is going to fix any displacement that happened to Palestinians. The fact that Palestinians are having their homes destroyed illegally on occupied lands and Arabs have pretty terrible treatment in Israel if they're even allowed citizenship is the issue.

 

 

 

Oh, I don't want them displaced. I'm an open borders kind of guy, actually, as far as I'm bothered anyone can live anywhere. I just take issue with a bunch rolling up and going "this is ours now" and shooting anyone who objects.

 

 

Pointing to a single small area of Palestine that happened to historically have a high percentage of jews in it means nothing.

 

 

 

It's quite meaningful, actually. It exemplifies the significance of Jerusalem to the Jewish people, and Israel at large by extension. It also highlights that Zionism preceded 1948 by a large margin. The Jews form an ethnoreligious group with an intimate connection to the land--how is it disturbing for Palikari to describe himself and his countrymen as Jews if they are such?

 

 

Israel is about as jewish as bacon. That's why they spend so much time making up nonsense like modern hebrew, when Yiddish was already real, and actually spoken by jews. It's disneyland nationalism.

 

A small part of the country historically having a large percentage of that religion's followers still means nothing. They're dramatically outweighed by the rest of that country.

 

 

Modern Hebrew was necessary, though. Yiddish was the reserve of Ashenkazi Jews, just as Ladino was the reserve of Sephardi Jews. A common language was needed and one based primarily on the common language of the Jewish people was the most prudent choice. Sure, had the revival project been spearheaded by more Mizrahi or Moroccan Jews, then maybe it would've been a more Semitic language. However, as it stands, Modern Hebrew is as close a language to the original language of the people of Israel as can be pragmatically asked for.

 

Furthermore, Hebrew has developed hugely over time independent of Zionism. Mishnaic Hebrew, for example, is different in itself to the biblical Hebrew. Biblical Hebrew and Mishnaic Hebrew would be impractical in a modern context--it would be akin to speaking Shakespearean English today, which would be blind to the changes which English has gone through over the years.

Edited May 31, 2014 by elanman

[LeVelocar]

If it was a "common language", they wouldn't have needed to revive it.

 

Edit: Hey Palikani why do you lie so much? If they had the same rights you wouldn't knock their bloody houses down and force them on a different bus. Even America let black people on the same bus. And as for democracy, I'm fairly sure the Palestinians didn't vote to be colonized.

Edited May 31, 2014 by LeVelocar

[Clem Fandango]

Israel wants peace, the moderate Arabs want peace, but sadly Israel's enemies just want to undermine and ultimately destroy Israel. If Hamas and their ilk laid down their arms, there would be peace, but if the sons of Israel laid down their arms, there would be no Israel. A poignant quote of Golda Meir's springs to mind:

Here you seem to be implying that Israel is dominated by moderates and Palestine by hardliners. Which is funny because the Israeli government is far to the right of the Israeli population, while even Hamas has moderate, partisan elements.

[Melech]

Here you seem to be implying that Israel is dominated by moderates and Palestine by hardliners. Which is funny because the Israeli government is far to the right of the Israeli population, while even Hamas has moderate, partisan elements.

 

Most Israelis want peace and support a two-state solution, most Palestinians support Hamas, an Al Qaeda-like terrorist organization who's goal is to destroy Israel and throw all Jews to the sea. Most Palestinians are fanatics. The Israeli government is a center-right government, formed by centrist and rightist parties. It's a democracy, you know.

 

To talk about "moderate" Hamas terrorists is just like talking about "moderate" Al Qaeda terrorists or "moderate" nazis. If you're are a Hamas member or supporter, then you're not moderate.

 

To call "stupid" what you've just said is to give it a dignity it doesn't deserve.

 

Hey Palikani why do you lie so much? If they had the same rights you wouldn't knock their bloody houses down and force them on a different bus. Even America let black people on the same bus. And as for democracy, I'm fairly sure the Palestinians didn't vote to be colonized.

 

I am not lying.

 

The bulldozed homes belong to terrorists who killed a lot of people (this is what the British did in Northern Ireland), or to Palestinians or Israelis who ilegally built it. This happens in every country.

 

Force them on a different bus? You're lying. Arab Israelis and Palestinians can ride on every Israeli bus. Every day on the bus and railway I sit among Arabs.

 

"Palestinians" are not being colonized. Arab Israelis have the same rights in Israel. But why should Palestinians have the same rights in Israel? They are not Israelis, so they shouldn't have equal rights in Israel, just like Israelis should not have rights under the Palestinian Authority, because they are not Palestinian. Different countries, you know.

 

Just visit Israel and check the reality by yourself.

Edited May 31, 2014 by Palikari

[Melech]

Hey Palikani why do you lie so much? If they had the same rights you wouldn't knock their bloody houses down and force them on a different bus. Even America let black people on the same bus. And as for democracy, I'm fairly sure the Palestinians didn't vote to be colonized.

 

I am not lying.

 

The bulldozed homes belong to terrorists who killed a lot of people (this is what the British did in Northern Ireland), or to Palestinians or Israelis who ilegally built it. This happens in every country.

 

Force them on a different bus? You're lying. Arab Israelis and Palestinians can ride on every Israeli bus. Every day on the bus and railway I sit among Arabs.

 

"Palestinians" are not being colonized. Arab Israelis have the same rights in Israel. But why should Palestinians have the same rights in Israel? They are not Israelis, so they shouldn't have equal rights in Israel, just like Israelis should not have rights under the Palestinian Authority. Different countries, you know.

 

Just visit Israel and check the reality by yourself.

[Abel.]

If it was a "common language", they wouldn't have needed to revive it.

 

Edit: Hey Palikani why do you lie so much? If they had the same rights you wouldn't knock their bloody houses down and force them on a different bus. Even America let black people on the same bus. And as for democracy, I'm fairly sure the Palestinians didn't vote to be colonized.

 

They aren't forced on different buses--Israel is not an Apartheid state. Furthermore, the Hebrew language has been kept alive for thousands of years by scholars--it wasn't revived so much as adapted for use by people from all around the world whose Hebrew had been influenced by the gentile languages around them. Further adaptation to accommodate a more extensive vocabulary than that of the Torah was also needed. I don't think you appreciate the nuances involved in dialects and colloquial usage--there are pronounced differences between the Welsh spoken in north Wales and south Wales, as there are between German spoken in Bavaria and northern Germany, for example.

 

 

 

Israel wants peace, the moderate Arabs want peace, but sadly Israel's enemies just want to undermine and ultimately destroy Israel. If Hamas and their ilk laid down their arms, there would be peace, but if the sons of Israel laid down their arms, there would be no Israel. A poignant quote of Golda Meir's springs to mind:

Here you seem to be implying that Israel is dominated by moderates and Palestine by hardliners. Which is funny because the Israeli government is far to the right of the Israeli population, while even Hamas has moderate, partisan elements.

 

 

I was referring to the moderate Arab citizens of the Palestinian authority and the rest of the Arab world.

Edited May 31, 2014 by elanman

[Clem Fandango]

You've essentially launched into a rant about the virtuous nature of Israel vs. the Arab filth, while failing to properly address any of my points. I can't think of a response that doesn't boil down to "Arabs are people too, y'know."

 

EDIT: Directed at Palikari

Edited May 31, 2014 by Melchior

[Melech]

You've essentially launched into a rant about the virtuous nature of Israel vs. the Arab filth, while failing to properly address any of my points. I can't think of a response that doesn't boil down to "Arabs are people too, y'know."

 

EDIT: Directed at Palikari

LOOOOOL.

 

"[...] while failing to properly adress my points." This is what you've just done; youv've just demagogically and hilariously disquialified my comment without adressing any point. What you've said (that Hamas is "moderate") is an insult to any sane person.

 

"The Jews are people!" That's what you should say to you Hamas friends, who say we are not human but "the sons of the apes and pigs".

[Clem Fandango]

It's like talking to a goat.

[Abel.]

It's like talking to a goat.

 

Hmm. I understand your reservations to an extent, Mel--you're predisposed to oppose Palikari because you're both polarised politically. However, I know him as a friend to be a clever bloke who's fluent in several languages with an extensive knowledge of diplomacy and world affairs--no need to insult him.

 

His sentiments regarding Hamas are valid, too--they are virulently antisemitic and I wouldn't put it past them to suggest that we are "the sons of apes and pigs".

 

 

Hamas might have moderate elements, but, predominantly, it is an organisation intent on at least undermining and at worst destroying Israel. They are utterly intolerant to the Jewish state and this is why it's virtually impossible to negotiate with them.

Edited May 31, 2014 by elanman

[sivispacem]

Nothing good is going to come of this so I'm going to nip it in the bud. If you want to discuss it properly and in intense detail, take it to D&D. If you want to keep it succinct and confrontational, take it to PM.