john5746 Posted January 8, 2009 Posted January 8, 2009 The previous status quo? Daily rockets lobbed at Israel while Israel sits on its hands and the Palestinians do nothing to police their own? That's acceptable? Do you really think those Israelis within the range of those rockets think that's the acceptable thing to do? You need to read that first sentence again. I suppose next they're going to suggest it all be done by computer and have equal numbers of each side reporting to "disintegration chambers". I thought about this very episode when I first heard appropriate response. Its like people expect war to be clean and acceptable. Of course, in this episode, Kirk assumes that humans would try and avoid ugly wars like those in WWII. I'm not sure this is true with Hamas. They need something to lose.
mooeypoo Posted January 8, 2009 Posted January 8, 2009 I have to put in just one tiny remark (I'll hve more time to read your posts a bit later and then properly answer, just one thing I had in mind I had to share) -- You know, this conflict is *not* "accross generations". The conflicts Israel had in the past were ENTIRELY different, and not with the Palestinians. My mother still remembers the day where she went into Gaza to buy the best potatoes in the market. We used to live in relative peace, yaknow. Not too long ago, either. Things changed (fault of both sides), and the nationalism of the Palestinians (they used to be "ARABS", then they became "palestinians" specifically, with an emphasis. If you read history you'll see they weren't always like that, nor were they exactly always there, but that's irrelevant). Anyhoo my piont is that my mom's story about going into Gaza in peace (and having Gazans come to their Kibbutz for milk product or something like that) gives me *HOPE* that the situation doesn't HAVE to be like that. Israel was at war with the entire arab world for generations too, and yet Israel has peace with Jordan and Egypt... so.. it's possible. Just hard.
doG Posted January 8, 2009 Posted January 8, 2009 You need to read that first sentence again. This one? I think that the idea that a return to the previous status quo is an acceptable thing to do because the rocket attacks are less severe than the Israeli response is a very dangerous one.
bombus Posted January 8, 2009 Posted January 8, 2009 Stealing? How did the Palestinians earn that land? How do countries claim land, Bombus? Who decides how much land to claim? Couldn't the first humans to conjure up silly notions of ownership just have claimed the earth as their land? Aren't we all stealing? No matter what people claim land, there's always people before them. Like I said, borders are negotiable by force and very rarely, if at all, by any philosophical justice. The earth's resources are for us to divide and nature chose competition as the method. Humans have thus far complied gloriously with nature's rules. Sorry, but land and borders are one of those subjects that nobody is really in any position to judge in terms of right and wrong - we're all living on somebody else's home. Aw, c'mon. The creation of modern Israel is hardly the same as say the Europeans colonizing the Americas, or Australia, or Paleolithic man colonizing Europe after the Ice Age. This occurred in modern times when there were international laws, ideas (if not laws) concerning human rights etc. The ancestors of the modern Palestinians had always lived there - many probably being the decendents of converted Jews. I am not living on anyone else's home. Us Welsh go back to the Paleolithic... Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedI wish Israel good luck with stopping terrorism... I don't know any example in the history of mankind where any power has actually succeeded in stopping terrorism (which does not mean that the terrorists are right). Also, the amount of energy you have to spend to stop 1 man from firing 1 rocket is mindboggling... (And our society seems willing to pay for it). hear hear!
ecoli Posted January 8, 2009 Posted January 8, 2009 I am not living on anyone else's home. Us Welsh go back to the Paleolithic.. That's really convenient for you, but Jews weren't so lucky, being displaced from their homes many times over the course of history... but as long as social conventions of a nation's land ownership from 1947 and on are conserved, there's no problem, right? edit: I just realized that that would make Israel still british territory...
bombus Posted January 8, 2009 Posted January 8, 2009 (edited) There had been Jews living side by side with Arabs in Palestine for millennia. A problem started when the UN came up with the 'homeland for the Jews' idea. If Palestine had remained a single state for Jews and Palestinians all with equal rights and opportunities all would have been fine. It all went wrong on 14th May 1948 when the new Israeli State declared independence. That's when the Palestinians and Arabs got angry - and understandably so! It should never have happened. There will never be peace in the region, and it will continue to affect us all. Very sad, but all Israel's fault really - it ain't only their country! Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedThis unresolved, never ending conflict always gets me wondering about the moral dilemma: Is it better to string out combat across generations, incrementally piling up dead? Or would it be better to "have it out" in one big fight? Peace is not an option, obviously. Sometimes I wonder if it wouldn't be better for Israel to just wipe out the opposition and nuke every country that militarily objects to it. Sounds like warmongering insanity, but is there no moral disgust in indefinite historical conflicts that slowly kill off humans decade after decade? It's like we expect Israel to behave as if there is a viable pretense for peace one day. Err...this sounds like the Final Solution argument I referred to earlier? Are you saying that is what Israel really wants? Edited January 8, 2009 by bombus Consecutive post/s merged.
mooeypoo Posted January 8, 2009 Posted January 8, 2009 I'm sorry, but I disagree with your analysis of history. But that seems to be quiet irrelevant. It's the same as claiming that if Columbus wouldn't have made a booboo on a map, America would be a thriving Indian society. (1) you can't know that (2) does that mean USA, Canada and Mexico should dissemble and let the native american population rule? Or, alternatively, does that mean that if native americans start blowing themselves up or throwing missiles at American civilians, does that mean USA should shut up? On top of that, *ISRAELI CITIZENS* have citizen rights. There are Jews, Muslims and Christians living in Israel that are *CITIZENS* of Israel, who elected (and will go to vote in a month) and we have a fairly large Arab party in the parliament. Not all Arabs are the same; There are Palestinians and Arab Israelis, Jordanians, Egyptians, Lebanese, etc etc etc. What you seem to be doing is generalizing anyone you see fit to make your point. That's historically and realistically untrue and unfair. I'm glad you understand the Palestinians so well, seeing as you completely misrepresent their history, the neighboring countries history, and the Israeli and Jewish history. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedbombus, Israel *OFFICIALLY* supports a 2 state solution. That means that Israel wants the palestinians to have their own state. Where, exactly, does Israel say "it's all theirs" is beyond me, but perhaps when one only reads half information and ignores the other half, that's the impression that sticks.
Saryctos Posted January 8, 2009 Posted January 8, 2009 There had been Jews living side by side with Arabs in Palestine for millennia. A problem started when the UN came up with the 'homeland for the Jews' idea. If Palestine had remained a single state for Jews and Palestinians all with equal rights and opportunities all would have been fine. It all went wrong on 14th May 1948 when the new Israeli State declared independence. That's when the Palestinians and Arabs got angry I'd think that a more accurate date for arab anger(about the Jewish population specifically) started in the mid to late 30s actually http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Uprising using the Kibbutz Wiki entry as a starting point there is actually quite a lot of information available on the whole process of isreali-arab relations beginning with jewish migration starting in the late 1800s. Obviously it's not a complete history(it's wikipedia, use it as a launching post for inquiries not the end to them), but by the last link I ended up with a lot of new information.
bombus Posted January 8, 2009 Posted January 8, 2009 I'm sorry, but I disagree with your analysis of history. Its not my analysis it's what happened. The problems between Jews and 'Arabs' before then was largely as a result of British, US and UN meddling (as ever) from the early 1900's onwards. What I am meaning is that the country of Israel was effectively seized from the Palestinian majority. One could argue that it was seized from the British Empire, but they had no rights to the land either. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedWhere, exactly, does Israel say "it's all theirs" is beyond me, but perhaps when one only reads half information and ignores the other half, that's the impression that sticks. I mean the modern state of Israel. It once 'belonged' to the Palestinians under the 'protection' of the British Empire.
mooeypoo Posted January 8, 2009 Posted January 8, 2009 Bonbus, stop ignoring half my claims. How far ago would you like to go? There are evidence of the jewish nation IN ISRAEL for 2500 years in digs and archeological finds. The jewish nation was sent away from Israel (by force, driven out, exiled) during the Babylonian empire (presumably today's "Iraqis"). So one can also claim that the Jews *came back* to their country. And yet it is, as I said, utterly irrelevant. You can't keep having double standards, bombus. If you claim Israe shouldnt' exist because you picked an arbitrary date in history to claim wohoever was there to have a "CLAIM ON THE LAND", then you need to change the entire world map now, because every country has the same "problem" in its history and creation. EVERY COUNTRY. On top of that, arguing about who is where when has no bearing on the current situation. I find it slightly disturbing that while we were talking about what might be options for peace you, again, come to the thread, ignore the claims made by everyone other than those you can answer, and incite towards a "no solution" argument. Are you not pro peace? What is it, exactly, do you expect Israel to do right now, roll over and die? I think not. ~moo P.S: I wonder if during the current (and previous) war in Iraq you demanded that the United States be dissembled and given back to the native americans, because it has no right one the land. Do you seriously find this a relevant claim? 1
john5746 Posted January 8, 2009 Posted January 8, 2009 I think that the idea that a return to the previous status quo is an acceptable thing to do because the rocket attacks are less severe than the Israeli response is a very dangerous one. If diplomacy cannot resolve the current situation then it surely cannot stop the rocket attacks either. But it CERTAINLY can't stop them without international attention, and now that attention exists. I read the first sentence to mean that the idea of returning to the previous status quo(rocket attacks) is a dangerous one. The context of that post supports this as well. How did you read it? I am not living on anyone else's home. Us Welsh go back to the Paleolithic... I guess your blood lines are all indigenous to that area, otherwise you might hate yourself. P.S: I wonder if during the current (and previous) war in Iraq you demanded that the United States be dissembled and given back to the native americans, because it has no right one the land. Do you seriously find this a relevant claim? Oh, Bomb-US would love that I think
ParanoiA Posted January 8, 2009 Posted January 8, 2009 Err...this sounds like the Final Solution argument I referred to earlier? Are you saying that is what Israel really wants? No, I'm not qualified to answer what Israel really wants, and I barely have any grasp on their history there. That's why my posts are more directed to the philosophical component of this. I meant that moral query exactly as I presented it. A kind of critical pondering about war and indefinite generational conflicts. (Though I did note Mooey's criticism about the difference in the generations and peace in years past). Unlike you, I don't see a victim and a perpatrator. I see two grownups. It takes two for peace, and one for war. Israel seems prepared for both, while Hamas seems prepared for the one - war.
bombus Posted January 8, 2009 Posted January 8, 2009 I guess your blood lines are all indigenous to that area, otherwise you might hate yourself. Well, anyone can come and live here and call themselves Welsh if they like. However, if a group came here then siezed the majority of the country by force and called it Israel and forced me off my land to live in a wasteland I'd probably want to fight them until they were destroyed.
padren Posted January 8, 2009 Posted January 8, 2009 Well, anyone can come and live here and call themselves Welsh if they like. However, if a group came here then siezed the majority of the country by force and called it Israel and forced me off my land to live in a wasteland I'd probably want to fight them until they were destroyed. Do you think Israel should be dissolved? If Hamas is determined to fire missiles into Israel until Israel ceases to exist, and Israel has no moral options to stop the missiles in your mind - what other solution can there be?
bombus Posted January 8, 2009 Posted January 8, 2009 (edited) Bonbus, stop ignoring half my claims. How far ago would you like to go? There are evidence of the jewish nation IN ISRAEL for 2500 years in digs and archeological finds. The jewish nation was sent away from Israel (by force, driven out, exiled) during the Babylonian empire (presumably today's "Iraqis"). So one can also claim that the Jews*came back* to their country. Yes and most of those Jews were still there 2500 later, many of them having converted to Islam or Christianity many centuries ago. And yet it is, as I said, utterly irrelevant. It is not! You can't keep having double standards, bombus. If you claim Israe shouldnt' exist because you picked an arbitrary date in history to claim wohoever was there to have a "CLAIM ON THE LAND", then you need to change the entire world map now, because every country has the same "problem" in its history and creation. No double standards by me. I have not picked an arbitrary date - I picked 14th may 1948 as the day the Palestinians lost a great deal of their homeland. You can argue that they lost it fair and square to a superior military force - but we are not supposed to act like that in the 20th/21st Centuries as we are supposed to be a little more civilised. On top of that, arguing about who is where when has no bearing on the current situation. I find it slightly disturbing that while we were talking about what might be options for peace you, again, come to the thread, ignore the claims made by everyone other than those you can answer, and incite towards a "no solution" argument. It is TOTALLY relevent to the current situation! Why do you think Hamas hate Israel so much. The siezure of Palestinian land took place in living memory! What is it, exactly, do you expect Israel to do right now, roll over and die? I think not. Well, basically YES, but it depends exactly what one means by that. It would mean the dissolving of the current state of Israel and it merging with the Palestinian lands to form one new united country. Palestinians who have lost their farms etc would be given it back and the new state could look forward to a peaceful future with everyone having equal rights and opportunities. P.S: I wonder if during the current (and previous) war in Iraq you demanded that the United States be dissembled and given back to the native americans, because it has no right one the land. Do you seriously find this a relevant claim? The difference is that the colonization of the Americas was a long slow process that started a very long time ago and done by people who regarded the Indians as savages and rather less than human. It was an abysmal crime but done when no-one considered things like the rights of indiginous people. That is NOT the same as the situation in modern day (post 1945) Israel/Palestine. Edited January 8, 2009 by bombus
padren Posted January 8, 2009 Posted January 8, 2009 It's a bit weird to call Fatah (Arafat's party) "moderate", but it is, relatively. It was just thrown off and sent into hiding (when the ground-forces started to go into Gaza, Hamas rounded up Fatah people and Fatah "helpers" and either shot them in the legs or killed them), everyone is hoping that Abu Mazen (Palestinian prime minister) would rise back up and stop being a puppet of Hamas (he was talking to Israel before) so the Peace process can go on. What do you think about the "Exiled Authority" concept - it seems we've tried to play it in Cuba before, I think it came up in Afghanistan, and I know it was a major factor in Iraq. The down side that I see, is where they could be exiled to, if it's an Arabic nation it'll be more appealing to the Palestinians, but risks raising tensions with countries that support Hamas. If it's a country that is far enough removed from the Middle East, it could appear too much like they are just "Western Puppets" to the Palestinians. But, if a group could be from Gaza, with a reasonable claim to authority (such as the prime minister) and work with the international community to propose a peaceful solution that actually gives Palestinians hope for a better quality of life and more open borders - do you think it could resonate with them? From what I see, no one in Gaza is safe speaking out against Hamas in any real way, so it is actually hard to get a read on what people are really thinking there. Obviously the citizens that run into buildings because Hamas has told them Israelis alerted them it would be bombed are pretty hardcore in line with Hamas, but I can only suspect that many just want to find some sort of peaceful life for themselves and their kids - their largest concern is if that can be better achieved by taking up or putting down arms. I'm not sure if this approach could work, but I am curious what others think.
bombus Posted January 8, 2009 Posted January 8, 2009 Do you think Israel should be dissolved? If Hamas is determined to fire missiles into Israel until Israel ceases to exist, and Israel has no moral options to stop the missiles in your mind - what other solution can there be? Yes I do. I think it's a failed and outdated model that is more hassle than it's worth. It creates never ending problems that end up with 911, and with Israeli Jews being more hated than ever. I think it does more harm than good for everyone.
mooeypoo Posted January 8, 2009 Posted January 8, 2009 Again you're picking and choosing what you're comfortable answering. How comfortable for you, bombus. But perhaps I should not be so surprised from someone who seems to pick and choose (and create) his history, too. Here, in the spirit of a decent science forums, here are some historical REFERENCES (shriek!) for you to look at (even though you probably won't): Bibliography http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/bibhist.html “The Jews have no claim to the land they call Israel.” http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/myths/mf1.html#a 1
bombus Posted January 8, 2009 Posted January 8, 2009 Unlike you, I don't see a victim and a perpatrator. I see two grownups. It takes two for peace, and one for war. Israel seems prepared for both, while Hamas seems prepared for the one - war. The trouble is that the very existance of Israel provokes the whole conflict. The analogy is a bit like me coming to sleep in your spare room, then you come home one day to find that I have claimed your house, changed the locks and banished you to the garden shed, and then when you throw a brick at the window everyone blames you for being violent.
mooeypoo Posted January 8, 2009 Posted January 8, 2009 ... It creates never ending problems that end up with 911, ... Oookay then. I think that says it all.
bombus Posted January 8, 2009 Posted January 8, 2009 Again you're picking and choosing what you're comfortable answering. How comfortable for you, bombus.But perhaps I should not be so surprised from someone who seems to pick and choose (and create) his history, too. Here, in the spirit of a decent science forums, here are some historical REFERENCES (shriek!) for you to look at (even though you probably won't): Bibliography http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/bibhist.html “The Jews have no claim to the land they call Israel.” http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/myths/mf1.html#a Well I'd hardly call these independent sources!
mooeypoo Posted January 8, 2009 Posted January 8, 2009 Which, the HUGE bibliography, or the fact there's "JEW-something" in the link? Have you *READ* them?
bombus Posted January 8, 2009 Posted January 8, 2009 (edited) Oookay then. I think that says it all. Err... did no-one tell you? Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedWhich, the HUGE bibliography, or the fact there's "JEW-something" in the link? Have you *READ* them? No, but I have read other sources of historical information on the subject. Edited January 8, 2009 by bombus Consecutive post/s merged.
Sayonara Posted January 8, 2009 Posted January 8, 2009 I am closing this thread for (a) staff review and (b) for people to cool off a bit.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now