Israel

For the serious discussion of weighty matters and worldly issues. No off-topic posts allowed.

Moderators: Azrael, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
fjafjan
THE fjafjan
Posts: 4766
Joined: Fri Oct 06, 2006 12:22 pm UTC
Location: Down south up north in the west of eastern west.
Contact:

Israel

Postby fjafjan » Wed Mar 28, 2007 7:00 pm UTC

Established in 1948, Israel is cause for debate

What is your opinions of this state, it's right of existance, its Nuclear capabilities, it's regional policies, the Palestine issue?
There is much to get upset over, no doubt in that, so try and keep it civil...
//Yepp, THE fjafjan (who's THE fjafjan?)
Liza wrote:Fjafjan, your hair is so lovely that I want to go to Sweden, collect the bit you cut off in your latest haircut and keep it in my room, and smell it. And eventually use it to complete my shrine dedicated to you.

User avatar
3.14159265...
Irrational (?)
Posts: 2413
Joined: Thu Jan 18, 2007 12:05 am UTC
Location: Ajax, Canada

Postby 3.14159265... » Wed Mar 28, 2007 7:28 pm UTC

Well there are 3 types of Israel that I see:

Political Israel. Defended by the USA as an ally in a oil rich area.

Religious zionism Israel: Fundamentalist Rabbis' wanting to go back to the land that Yehovah has promised them.

Jewish State of Israel: Like every other religion, Jews want their own country, with their own laws.

The first 2 I am not happy about, and I think should be destroyed with force.

The third, its a great Idea, go for it! Specially after the holocaust, I actually recomment the world helps them go for it.
Though remember that if thats the only reason, it doesn't have to be in the middle of all the Arab states, where you have to kill civilians to defend yourself. It CAN be in Uganda, where the original zionist movement bought alot of land that no one ever used anyway and wanted to actually go, before Britain promised them Israel.

Also, anti-zionism is NOT anti-semitism.
Saying Israel doesn't have the right to exist is NOT the same as saying "I hate jews".

Those two always seem to cause confusion, so we should get them out of the way before we start this.
"The best times in life are the ones when you can genuinely add a "Bwa" to your "ha""- Chris Hastings

User avatar
Rorgg
Posts: 78
Joined: Fri Dec 29, 2006 6:06 pm UTC

Postby Rorgg » Wed Mar 28, 2007 7:47 pm UTC

While Britain's involvement with the creation was messy, to say the least, I think we can all appreciate them deciding to wash their hands of the mess, only 2 years after the end of the Holocaust.

There have been a lot of people of a lot of ethnic groups in that area for millennia. That the territory of the original state of Israel was largely purchased from those who were via the ruling governance the legitimate ownership gives the current state there as much of a claim to it as anyone.

The Arab states in the region, in my opinion, caused themselves the great majority of this pain by the rejection of the partition plan and the series of wars on the state of Israel. What else didn't help is that Syria, Jordan, and Egypt variously officially annexed parts of the territory and the Palestinians claimed it as a native land. Then they continued to attack Israel and lose, losing de facto control of the regions.

Israel can be very harsh and scary, but as a country living on the brink of extinction, with a formation coming out as its had, I feel like a lot of it is warranted, if not excused. Also, it doesn't hurt that it's one of the only functional democracies in the region -- only Egypt comes close, and it's facing increasing religious fundamentalism in politics.

User avatar
3.14159265...
Irrational (?)
Posts: 2413
Joined: Thu Jan 18, 2007 12:05 am UTC
Location: Ajax, Canada

Postby 3.14159265... » Wed Mar 28, 2007 7:55 pm UTC

You make good points Rorgg, and I agree with many except one. That is that your idea of who has claim to the land. As far as I am concerned NO ONE does.

The zionist movement was not based on the idea of living peacefully with others in jerusalem. It was based on taking over the then palestine, and then kicking out the Arabs, and creating a jewish state.

The problems I have with this are:

If it was for religious zionism, then its flat out as wrong as wanting to set up the Caliphate again or the crusades.

If it was just to set up a jewish state, then why there? Why not somewhere that was not already populated?
"The best times in life are the ones when you can genuinely add a "Bwa" to your "ha""- Chris Hastings

User avatar
bbctol
Super Deluxe Forum Title of DESTINYâ„¢
Posts: 3137
Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2007 10:27 pm UTC
Location: The Twilight Zone
Contact:

Postby bbctol » Wed Mar 28, 2007 8:01 pm UTC

3.14159265... wrote:Why not somewhere that was not already populated?

Um... name a habitable spot on the globe that's not populated. Though I agree the placement was a little odd consider that:
1. The are is sacred to Judaism, in a way.
2. There aren't any other really excellent places for putting it, that are both culturally significant and relatively safe.
3. There are a LOT of worse places.

User avatar
3.14159265...
Irrational (?)
Posts: 2413
Joined: Thu Jan 18, 2007 12:05 am UTC
Location: Ajax, Canada

Postby 3.14159265... » Wed Mar 28, 2007 8:10 pm UTC

bbctol wrote:
3.14159265 wrote:
Why not somewhere that was not already populated?


Um... name a habitable spot on the globe that's not populated. Though I agree the placement was a little odd consider that:
1. The are is sacred to Judaism, in a way.
2. There aren't any other really excellent places for putting it, that are both culturally significant and relatively safe.
3. There are a LOT of worse places.


I already named Uganda, where the orginal leaders of the Zionist movement bought lands. It was less populated. Also the people in Uganda don't have a rich history of fighting with the jewish people.

1. Thats my point about religious zionism. This point is not only obsolete, but if this is a cause for it then it actually makes it more wrong!
2. Culturally significant? As in historically? Jews spent much more time in Persia and Europe than they did in Israel. Or did you mean religiously? Refer to point 1.
3. Thats a stupid reason to put it there.
"The best times in life are the ones when you can genuinely add a "Bwa" to your "ha""- Chris Hastings

User avatar
space_raptor
Posts: 1497
Joined: Fri Nov 17, 2006 5:02 pm UTC
Location: Calgary
Contact:

Postby space_raptor » Wed Mar 28, 2007 8:11 pm UTC

I think that questioning whether Israel has a right to exist is pointless. It does exist. It has existed for a long time. It is impossible to make it not exist, barring nuclear explosions. The obsession some people have with an event that happened in 1948 frustrates me, because it is ignoring reality. Israel is never going to go back to being a British Mandate, or whatever it was before that, or before that, or before that. Let's accept the situation as it is now, and try to make changes to the current situation that are realistic.

The Palestinian situation is not solely Israeli-made. Those people are the punching bag of the Arab world as well. They are used as tools of other countries that have their own reasons to hate Israel. Pretty much every single Arab country in the area has committed their own crimes against Palestine, whether it be blatant slaughter or just spreading discord in the region.

The whole situation just makes me want to throw up my hands. I think the Palestinian people deserve as much help as they can get. At the same time, I think their leaders are failures in almost every way. They are corrupt or they are zealots, and they are leading their people to disaster. And without leaders you can trust, you can't really help the people there because you can't trust that aid you send will be used correctly. And in international politics, you can't support a group which has declared that their goal is the destruction of another country and their people. You just can't.

Israel is up against the wall, and has been for a long time. I think they have just as much right to exist as anyone else. Their atrocities I cannot condone, but they are not reasons to condemn the whole country.

It is amazing to me that people who are so against the Iraq war can be for taking Israel over by force. It's 8 million people. Not just Jews. There are Christians, and Muslims, and atheists, just like everywhere else. Before Israel there wasn't a peaceful Palestinian state that was defeated. The Palestinians didn't own the land, the British did. And there were Jews living in the Palestinian Mandate. These Jews had just as much right to the land as the Palestinian Arabs did. The idea that the land was taken from the Palestinian Arabs is a dishonest simplification.
The drinking will continue until morale improves.

User avatar
3.14159265...
Irrational (?)
Posts: 2413
Joined: Thu Jan 18, 2007 12:05 am UTC
Location: Ajax, Canada

Postby 3.14159265... » Wed Mar 28, 2007 8:19 pm UTC

Agreed to the full with space_raptor!

Question though, what do you think of my idea on what is the purpose of Israel, (the other two options I mentioned)?

Religious zionism and Americas little buddy. How do these fair in wondering whether Isreal as an idea, if its based on those, is a good or bad one?
"The best times in life are the ones when you can genuinely add a "Bwa" to your "ha""- Chris Hastings

User avatar
Rorgg
Posts: 78
Joined: Fri Dec 29, 2006 6:06 pm UTC

Postby Rorgg » Wed Mar 28, 2007 8:33 pm UTC

I think you can basically dismiss religious Zionism as long as it stays within otherwise legitimate political boundaries. Who cares WHY they want to be there, if they want to be there and it's a legitimate place to be? Now, when it gets in the way of things like the land-for-peace negotiations, then there's a problem, but even that's a subsection of the Zionist movement.

Secondly, Israel exists where it is for reasons unrelated to America's involvement. The US came to support Israel during the Cold War because it's a western-style democracy in a very strategic location, but it's not why the country exists.

User avatar
space_raptor
Posts: 1497
Joined: Fri Nov 17, 2006 5:02 pm UTC
Location: Calgary
Contact:

Postby space_raptor » Wed Mar 28, 2007 8:39 pm UTC

I think Israel is a place where millions of people have their homes and lives.
I think some people would like it if all of those people were dead. If the USA wants to help Israel protect itself from those people, I'm all for it.

Mistakes and outright crimes have been committed by Israel, but I don't see it as a reason to abandon millions of decent people to the wolves.
The drinking will continue until morale improves.

User avatar
Belial
A terrible sound heard from a distance
Posts: 30450
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 4:04 am UTC
Contact:

Postby Belial » Wed Mar 28, 2007 8:44 pm UTC

http://www.hellodamage.com/homedespot/rants.htm#SETTLERS

If that link doesn't take you to the right spot on the page (some of his bookmarks are fucked up) scroll down to, or search for the text
"In a June 26 speech today".

It's essentially a speech he wishes the leader of Israel would give, regarding a group within israel who really *should* be thrown to the wolves.

It's an amusing rant, and pretty true.
addams wrote:A drunk neighbor is better than a sober Belial.


They/them

User avatar
space_raptor
Posts: 1497
Joined: Fri Nov 17, 2006 5:02 pm UTC
Location: Calgary
Contact:

Postby space_raptor » Wed Mar 28, 2007 9:42 pm UTC

Well, Israel has withdrawn from the Gaza Strip. They forced the settlers to leave. Things have not improved.

I think that the eventual solution to the situation will involve a lot of settlers leaving the settlements, and them being very pissed about it. The settlements are just untenable in the long run. But I think that even if all the settlers left, the Palestinians would still be living in the same conditions.
The drinking will continue until morale improves.

User avatar
3.14159265...
Irrational (?)
Posts: 2413
Joined: Thu Jan 18, 2007 12:05 am UTC
Location: Ajax, Canada

Postby 3.14159265... » Thu Mar 29, 2007 12:57 am UTC

Space_raptor wrote:I think Israel is a place where millions of people have their homes and lives.
I think some people would like it if all of those people were dead. If the USA wants to help Israel protect itself from those people, I'm all for it.

Mistakes and outright crimes have been committed by Israel, but I don't see it as a reason to abandon millions of decent people to the wolves.


I seriously thought you were talking about the Palestinians at first.

Who ever wants the people of Israel dead is at best a racist and should be arrested for the threat of murder. If you are refering to Ahmedinijad and his Islamic regime, which I hate, he has not asked for the death of Israelis, but rather the destruction of the Zionist occupation. I say this because I SPEAK persian, as it is my mother tongue.

Anyone who wants Israel to stop existing, is NOT a racist, and is NOT necessarily asking for the death of Israelis. To think that, IS racist!

America didn't set up Israel, America however is continuing to help it exist even with the attrocities involved, and America is giving enough support that Israel feels those attrocities are justified.

Attrocities include, the attack on Beirut, the first one and the one last summer. The constant raids against Palestinian terrorists that end up killing many more civilians than terrorists.

America gave Israel millions of cluster bombs, which Israel dropped on Lebanon. Problem with cluster bombs, they don't hit specific targets, and alot of them go unexploded so as to take a leg or arm of civilian in a later time.

The aformentioned group, Kahane, is not only not being physically prosecuted against, but they are also given weapons by the state of Israel, as its members are Israeli citizens.

That all comes from someone that is pro-Israel existing, if they choose to first:
Make their country more secular and let Rabbis play a much smaller role. Arrest all Kahane members.
Arrest Sharone for the massacre he is known for.
Arrest other war criminals that are currently running that country.
Creating a state, where the national day is not the day the Arabs living in Israel were defeated.
Decrease the discrimination against the Arabs significantly.
Create a democratic state where, ALL citizens vote, and ALL citizens can run.
Create a non-jewish state.

If however the choice is to make a religion based state, then you know where I stand on religion.
"The best times in life are the ones when you can genuinely add a "Bwa" to your "ha""- Chris Hastings

User avatar
Vaniver
Posts: 9422
Joined: Fri Oct 13, 2006 2:12 am UTC

Postby Vaniver » Thu Mar 29, 2007 2:23 am UTC

To think that, IS racist!
How is that connected to a race? Bad logic is not necessarily bigotry.

America didn't set up Israel, America however is continuing to help it exist even with the attrocities involved, and America is giving enough support that Israel feels those attrocities are justified.
I am not sure I believe that Israel is committing atrocities. I think that atrocity would have to be strictly defined, and everyone in the area looked at objectively. I think that comparison would end well for Israel.

Decrease the discrimination against the Arabs significantly.
I invite you to compare discrimination against Arabs in Israel and discrimination against Jews in the rest of the Arab world. If you are still willing to call Arab the victims, I am not sure I am interested in hearing your opinions.

Create a non-jewish state.
This strikes me as a fairly silly requirement. Yes, it would be nice if all governments were secular, but I think asking Israel to secularize before asking, say, Iran to secularize shows mistaken priorities. Jews tend to retaliate; they do not tend to invade.
I mostly post over at LessWrong now.

Avatar from My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic, owned by Hasbro.

User avatar
3.14159265...
Irrational (?)
Posts: 2413
Joined: Thu Jan 18, 2007 12:05 am UTC
Location: Ajax, Canada

Postby 3.14159265... » Thu Mar 29, 2007 3:08 am UTC

Vaniver wrote: How is that connected to a race? Bad logic is not necessarily bigotry.


If you assume that there must be postive discrimination (i.e. no one has the right to question my religion's country) Then you are being racist.

Vaniver wrote: am not sure I believe that Israel is committing atrocities. I think that atrocity would have to be strictly defined, and everyone in the area looked at objectively. I think that comparison would end well for Israel.


You can't look at it objectively, when Israel claims to be a fair, and democratic country.
ex) Dropping cluster bombs. No one else in the region does that.
ex) Israel has killed 6 times more palestinian civilians then has Hammas (A terrorist group, much better than Kahane though, motives being the judge)

Vaniver wrote:I invite you to compare discrimination against Arabs in Israel and discrimination against Jews in the rest of the Arab world. If you are still willing to call Arab the victims, I am not sure I am interested in hearing your opinions.


People are the victims of religious and political disputes. I invite you to not hear my opinion if you wish not to.

Vaniver wrote:This strikes me as a fairly silly requirement. Yes, it would be nice if all governments were secular, but I think asking Israel to secularize before asking, say, Iran to secularize shows mistaken priorities.


All governments should be secular, specially ones with nuclear arms and cluster bombs, and the will to use cluster bombs. Iran is a fundemntalist islamist country, like Afghanistan. Thats why I am here. Don't mistake my motives.

Vaniver wrote: Jews tend to retaliate; they do not tend to invade.
I invite you to read the history of the Lebanese-Israely war. Or
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kbEv0T2rwgo

But of course if you have already made up your mind, this MP of the UK will be just another anti-semite.
"The best times in life are the ones when you can genuinely add a "Bwa" to your "ha""- Chris Hastings

User avatar
Vaniver
Posts: 9422
Joined: Fri Oct 13, 2006 2:12 am UTC

Postby Vaniver » Thu Mar 29, 2007 3:27 am UTC

If you assume that there must be postive discrimination (i.e. no one has the right to question my religion's country) Then you are being racist.
Ahh, ok. I thought you meant that it was racist against the people saying "Israel should not exist", not that one must be racist to believe that Israel should exist.
I would call that nationalistic or chauvinistic before I called that racist.

You can't look at it objectively, when Israel claims to be a fair, and democratic country.
So, your argument is that Israel is setting itself up to a higher standard, and thus we should judge it more harshly? Perhaps. But I would look at their high standards as being a mark in their favor. It is no sign of honor to stick to a depraved morality.

As well, what prevents a fair and democratic country from defending itself? The Palestinians aren't its citizens, and the Arabs that are are treated fairly (or so I have been led to believe by my Israeli friends and media reports).

ex) Dropping cluster bombs. No one else in the region does that.
Who else in the region can afford them?

People are the victims of religious and political disputes.
I've never argued otherwise. I just like to put crimes in perspective.

Don't mistake my motives.
One unfortunate side effect of discussing things in forums is that while responding to your post, I am not simply responding to you. So, sometimes I miss your specific argument, and sometimes it's on purpose. While I agree that secular governments are better than non-secular ones, I tend to focus on the worst ones first instead of all of them simultaneously. An argument for secular governments and an argument against Israel do not overlap well.

I invite you to read the history of the Lebanese-Israely war
The 2006 one?

As well, note why I said tend. If Israel started less than, say, a third to a half of the wars it fought, I would justify saying that they tended not to start their wars.

But of course if you have already made up your mind, this MP of the UK will be just another anti-semite.
I like to think I can disagree with people without disliking them, and am not blind to where other's arguments are coming from.
I mostly post over at LessWrong now.

Avatar from My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic, owned by Hasbro.

User avatar
3.14159265...
Irrational (?)
Posts: 2413
Joined: Thu Jan 18, 2007 12:05 am UTC
Location: Ajax, Canada

Postby 3.14159265... » Thu Mar 29, 2007 3:43 am UTC

We are reaching more common ground now.

There are Palestinian citizens in the state of Israel, that are discriminated against the way the Blacks were discriminated in America in the mid 1950s.

Also what state should Palestinians belong to. The state of palestine, Ok give them proportional land as to population, and make East Jerusalem the capital of that country. You think ANY Israeli politician considers that?

Its like saying the Native Americans are not victims because they were attacking George Washington's army. They didn't want to make them citizens, nor give them their own state. Thats an attrocity.

Who else in the region can afford them?
So America should have just nuked vietnam (They did use alot of chemical and biological weapons) still didn't nuke em. Cluster bombs are wrong because not only do they not really hit any target, they just kill civilians. So their only function is to demolish.

As for the tendency, I have stated the Israeli-Lebanese fight, both the 2006 one, and the earlier ones.

Also the Syrian-Israeli fight. The Palestinian-Israeli fight. The Iran-Israel fight that may start over Iran's nuclear program while Israel itself HAS nuclear weapons.

You state some in your favour now
"The best times in life are the ones when you can genuinely add a "Bwa" to your "ha""- Chris Hastings

User avatar
Vaniver
Posts: 9422
Joined: Fri Oct 13, 2006 2:12 am UTC

Postby Vaniver » Thu Mar 29, 2007 4:12 am UTC

make East Jerusalem the capital of that country.
I would suggest that Berlin shows that splitting cities between nations is a bad idea.
You think ANY Israeli politician considers that?
I think they did. I don't think they did for very long, and their conclusion probably included laughing.

[edit]Keep in mind the original plan was an Arab state and a Jewish state, and the Arabs were the ones who said "hah! We'll fight them for it!", and then were the ones that lost that war.

They didn't want to make them citizens, nor give them their own state. Thats an attrocity.
Throughout history, standard protocol has been to exterminate populations who possess the desired land, possibly assimilating some of them. Are you suggesting that displacing them is worse? And, if not, would it be an atrocity? (there are scales of atrocities, and so yes is a possible answer. I don't think it's a valid one)

So America should have just nuked vietnam (They did use alot of chemical and biological weapons) still didn't nuke em.
Nukes are very hard to instruct on who to kill and who to not kill, and are thus only useful in total war.

Cluster bombs are wrong because not only do they not really hit any target, they just kill civilians. So their only function is to demolish.
Cluster bombs do more than kill civilians.

The purpose of a cluster bomb is to do widespread amounts of small damage- enough to take down infantry over a large area, instead of overkill in a small area. It cannot discriminate and its design is conducive to collateral damage. But, to say "their only function is to demolish" is to describe nearly every bomb out there.

Since I don't think the Palestinians have large groups of solely combatants, a cluster bomb seems like a poor choice to use against them.

But- this brings up an interesting side issue. The trend in most developed militaries is to separate civilian and military areas. The trend in most guerrilla militaries is to blend civilian and military areas. Against a soft-hearted opponent, this makes them less likely to do widespread damage, as they will hit an unacceptably large number of civilians for the amount of soldiers they hit.
But- is the choice to sacrifice those civilians made by the developed military, or the guerrilla military? Should we say "if you allow a militant in your home, you are condemning your home for destruction"? Should we say "if you allow a militant in your hospital, you are condemning your hospital for destruction?" Such a wide definition of militant, from just someone shooting at you to anyone helping someone shooting at you, would probably be very troublesome to those who dislike killing civilians too. But, it might significantly reduce support for those militants.

What that requires, though, is the only reason for us avoiding civilian deaths being the moral repercussions of killing them. If we could turn that responsibility over to the other side with some argument (they *were* the ones who chose to fight in residential areas), then civilian deaths are arguably their fault. However, we want to preserve the civilians for other reasons, and so it's not a wise strategy.

The Iran-Israel fight that may start over Iran's nuclear program while Israel itself HAS nuclear weapons.
To be fair, weapons it has never used, and likely never will. I have no such degree of faith in Iran.

You state some in your favour now
I looked at the list here, which is probably not complete or free of bias. Nevertheless, it suggested that most of the conflicts were started by Arabs. What should be called the start of a war, though, is unclear. Does Egypt attempting to prevent Israeli shipping in 1954 and then in 1956 could as hostile action, or should we look at Israel's invasion in 1956 as the start of the war? Should Israel's preemptive strike in the Six-Day War count as it starting it, although it was Nasser and the Arabs who claimed they wanted it?
And, if we say that starting a war is a form of retaliation, how many of Israel's military actions have been unprovoked? This becomes harder to discuss since lines are blurry. What is the difference between a war on Hezbollah and a war on Lebanon? Can you fight one without fighting the other?
I mostly post over at LessWrong now.

Avatar from My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic, owned by Hasbro.

User avatar
3.14159265...
Irrational (?)
Posts: 2413
Joined: Thu Jan 18, 2007 12:05 am UTC
Location: Ajax, Canada

Postby 3.14159265... » Thu Mar 29, 2007 4:41 am UTC

Nukes are very hard to instruct on who to kill and who to not kill, and are thus only useful in total war.

So should cluster bombs.

The use of cluster bombs is totally unethical. Come on you know this! I will no longer argue this.

To be fair, weapons it has never used, and likely never will. I have no such degree of faith in Iran.


You are not god, so I am sorry but your "feelings" toward these countries mean jack.

What is the difference between a war on Hezbollah and a war on Lebanon? Can you fight one without fighting the other?

The government of Lebanon is FUCKED! only Christians can be presidents. etc. The government of Lebanon in the south IS Hezbollah. Hezbollah is as much a terrorist group in the formal sense, as Israel is a terrorist state!


As for gurrilla warfare etc. Good point, but its not the sign of bieng a fair country to drop bombs on cities (i.e. Beirut) just cuz u can!
"The best times in life are the ones when you can genuinely add a "Bwa" to your "ha""- Chris Hastings

User avatar
Vaniver
Posts: 9422
Joined: Fri Oct 13, 2006 2:12 am UTC

Postby Vaniver » Thu Mar 29, 2007 5:01 am UTC

So should cluster bombs.

The use of cluster bombs is totally unethical. Come on you know this! I will no longer argue this.
The use of cluster bombs in populated areas is a bad idea, if one is trying to minimize civilian deaths. The use of cluster bombs against infantry formations is a good idea, if one is trying to maximize military deaths. That they are unethical in the first situation does not mean they are unethical in the second.

You are not god, so I am sorry but your "feelings" toward these countries mean jack.
Well, my feelings *are* irrelevant. But, those are the feelings that the current nuclear powers have, and they intend to use their collective might to stop the proliferation of nuclear weapons, at least, proliferation among those they don't trust. I just agree with them.

The government of Lebanon in the south IS Hezbollah. Hezbollah is as much a terrorist group in the formal sense, as Israel is a terrorist state!
I admit I am not well-versed in why various groups should be classified as terrorist groups or not, but I feel we could both agree that Hezbollah is hostile to Israel, and that's far more worthwhile in this discussion than the subjectivity of terrorism. And, given that Hezbollah and Israel probably had a history of violence, it could be seen as retaliation to invade "Lebanon".

I don't think Israel is pure. I just prefer them to the opposition, for a wide number of reasons. If I come off as being too jingoistic, I apologize; I just have a sense of scale I do not find as common in discussions like these. Israel's hands may be blood-stained, but that doesn't mean they're in the wrong, especially if their opponent's hands are more blood-stained (since this blood is metaphorical, it's not just a comparison of kill-counts).
I mostly post over at LessWrong now.

Avatar from My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic, owned by Hasbro.

User avatar
NightStar
"Hold very still, Mr President....."
Posts: 342
Joined: Thu Mar 08, 2007 5:25 am UTC
Location: Transient/Nomadic

Postby NightStar » Thu Mar 29, 2007 7:12 am UTC

3.14159265... wrote:Arrest Sharone for the massacre he is known for.


I just wanted to point out that Ariel Sharon is in a persistent vegetative state...you could arrest him and he'd never know. By all means, research your stance on this issue from whichever sources you please, but check the accuracy of their information; that's your responsibility as a free-thinking individual.
Hawknc wrote:Madness?
THIS IS COLLEGE!
*Kicks a beer keg over a balcony*

User avatar
space_raptor
Posts: 1497
Joined: Fri Nov 17, 2006 5:02 pm UTC
Location: Calgary
Contact:

Postby space_raptor » Thu Mar 29, 2007 7:16 am UTC

As far as I can see, Israel takes an us vs. them attitude to this conflict. I don't see a real reason why they should care at all about "them".

Hezbollah is basically run by Iran. Hezbollah is an evil organization. I don't really care if you call them terrorist or not, I would be ok if they were wiped out, and real Lebanese ran the south of Lebanon.

Their name means Party of God. Pi, by definition you should hate these guys, according to your feelings about religion in politics.
The drinking will continue until morale improves.

User avatar
3.14159265...
Irrational (?)
Posts: 2413
Joined: Thu Jan 18, 2007 12:05 am UTC
Location: Ajax, Canada

Postby 3.14159265... » Thu Mar 29, 2007 3:09 pm UTC

it could be seen as retaliation to invade "Lebanon".


Watch the link I sent again please.
Cluster bombs were used in non military areas in the south of Lebanon, My best friends was there when they did this.

I do hate hizbullah for their religious ideals. However I hate them as much as I do the Israeli government. Since Israel is a in itself "The land of the jews". Its just as horrible.

Sharone, did massacre 60 innocent villagers. At least tell people he is bastard like Hassan Nassrullah, I want Israeli's to admit this! that thier former president was an evil bastard! See how hard that is now.

Also find information on what hizbullah does other than fight Israel. They GOVERN southern lebanon. They ARE a government, and quite a just one according to the people around there. This scares me, that an Islamist group is being just, while the government that was established by the foriegn militaries, and is now protected by Israel is not just.
"The best times in life are the ones when you can genuinely add a "Bwa" to your "ha""- Chris Hastings

User avatar
Bluesprite
Posts: 47
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2007 2:41 am UTC

Postby Bluesprite » Thu Mar 29, 2007 3:32 pm UTC

I see this thread is rapidly mirroring the haze of justification, counter-justification, grievance and counter-grievance that's going on west of the river Jordan.

Israel's relations with Syria are stable. Israel's conflict with Hizballah cannot exist if the Palestinian conflict is resolved on terms acceptable to the Palestinian people.

So here are the issues that stand in the way of a resolution that need to be answered.

1) Does Israel have a right to exist?
2) If yes, exactly what territory should it be allowed to control?
3) What happens to Jerusalem?
4) What happens to so-called Palestinian refugees?

The traditional answer to 1 has been "no" from the point of view of Palestinian people. Obviously this is a non-starter from the Israeli point of view and can only lead to conflict. There's no point in trying to convince them they shouldn't have a state, even if you believe they shouldn't.

Palestinian views are changing on 1), which means that peace might well be possible.

2) and 3) remain contentious, though it's possible something might happen. So to me, the most critical claim is 4), as it is also a non-starter.

It is also the one that I sometimes get angry about, because asserting that the people in these camps are refugees is patently false. If neighboring Arab nations had done their duty as nations, they wouldn't be refugees. The idea that a third generation individual is a refugee because his grandma is still in the refugee camp is unprecedented and repugnant. These folks should be Egyptian, Syrian, Jordanian or Lebanese citizens by now.

Except that that would invalidate the argument they should have the right of return.

Why is this still an issue?

Well, the nations I mentioned are in a position at any time to grant these people citizenship, or conveyance to a nation that will do so. They keep them as they are as bargaining chips, because they know that right of return would mean the end of the Israeli state.
Where does the light go when the light goes out?

User avatar
Rorgg
Posts: 78
Joined: Fri Dec 29, 2006 6:06 pm UTC

Postby Rorgg » Thu Mar 29, 2007 3:33 pm UTC

If Hezbollah is a government of southern Lebanon and has as its stated goal the elimination of the State of Israel including taking steps toward that goal, then it must follow that that state, as a recognized governmental body, has a legitimate right to defend itself.

User avatar
3.14159265...
Irrational (?)
Posts: 2413
Joined: Thu Jan 18, 2007 12:05 am UTC
Location: Ajax, Canada

Postby 3.14159265... » Thu Mar 29, 2007 3:45 pm UTC

But Hizbollah is younger than Israel.
Israel was built and had a mission of taking Arab lands, and it actullay attacked Lebanon, and seized the souther areas. Then the country of Lebanon since it is such a messed up government set up by the british and USA under military force did nothing. So the people of Lebanon created a group called Hizbollah and they defended themself from the invaders which were Israelis. This is very important.

Israel attacked Lebanon
Israel kidnapped Lebanese politicians
Lebanese people created Hizbollah, with the aid of dirty money from Iran
The Lebanese people are the soldiers of Hizbollah
Hizbollah is defending Lebanon, and Lebanese rights
Hizbollah is defending the lebanese from Israel

Watch the video I posted earlier.

Everyone is so cut off from Arabs, I as an Afghan do feel some relation to them, and so I will try and make an allegory.

Imagine that the decendents of the Moors, got up came to spain, and with the help of Iran that is now a super power (just imagine) took over half of spain. Now they claim a historical right to the land, and the spanish can't do anything to defend themselves.
Now the countries around europe should just take the spanish and make them their citizens?

No! they should make a coalition and Attack the invader and kick them out.

Now imagine that the moors were doing this for religious reasons.
Now imagine that Iran was helping the moors for political reasons against Europe.
Now imagine that the moors were dropping cluster bombs on Italy and Germany once a year, and justifying it by saying it was pre-emptive strikes. Or saying that spanish terrorists were hiding in Germany.

Now imagine If I were supporting the Moors. Thats how I see people who claim Israel is just.
"The best times in life are the ones when you can genuinely add a "Bwa" to your "ha""- Chris Hastings

User avatar
space_raptor
Posts: 1497
Joined: Fri Nov 17, 2006 5:02 pm UTC
Location: Calgary
Contact:

Postby space_raptor » Thu Mar 29, 2007 3:55 pm UTC

Bluesprite wrote:I see this thread is rapidly mirroring the haze of justification, counter-justification, grievance and counter-grievance that's going on west of the river Jordan.

Israel's relations with Syria are stable. Israel's conflict with Hizballah cannot exist if the Palestinian conflict is resolved on terms acceptable to the Palestinian people.

So here are the issues that stand in the way of a resolution that need to be answered.

1) Does Israel have a right to exist?
2) If yes, exactly what territory should it be allowed to control?
3) What happens to Jerusalem?
4) What happens to so-called Palestinian refugees?

The traditional answer to 1 has been "no" from the point of view of Palestinian people. Obviously this is a non-starter from the Israeli point of view and can only lead to conflict. There's no point in trying to convince them they shouldn't have a state, even if you believe they shouldn't.

Palestinian views are changing on 1), which means that peace might well be possible.

2) and 3) remain contentious, though it's possible something might happen. So to me, the most critical claim is 4), as it is also a non-starter.

It is also the one that I sometimes get angry about, because asserting that the people in these camps are refugees is patently false. If neighboring Arab nations had done their duty as nations, they wouldn't be refugees. The idea that a third generation individual is a refugee because his grandma is still in the refugee camp is unprecedented and repugnant. These folks should be Egyptian, Syrian, Jordanian or Lebanese citizens by now.

Except that that would invalidate the argument they should have the right of return.

Why is this still an issue?

Well, the nations I mentioned are in a position at any time to grant these people citizenship, or conveyance to a nation that will do so. They keep them as they are as bargaining chips, because they know that right of return would mean the end of the Israeli state.


4) is my biggest problem with the situation as well. If you ask me, Israel is the best friend the Palestinians have, compared to the Arab countries around them. In Jordan, thousands of Palestinians were massacred in 1970. Syria's interference in Lebanon and support of Hezbollah led to Israeli occupation of Lebanon and the recent conflict there. Groups like Hezbollah and Hamas only hurt the Palestinian cause, because there is no reason for Israel to make any concessions while their people are being bombed. Yet these groups get support from the Arabs and the Iranians, because they hate Israel. The Palestinian people are just background noise to these countries.
The drinking will continue until morale improves.

User avatar
Rorgg
Posts: 78
Joined: Fri Dec 29, 2006 6:06 pm UTC

Postby Rorgg » Thu Mar 29, 2007 4:19 pm UTC

Israel was built and had a mission of taking Arab lands,


If that's your starting contention, then this entire conversation is a no-go. You yourself said way upthread that no one had claim to the territory. How does that make them Arab lands?

User avatar
space_raptor
Posts: 1497
Joined: Fri Nov 17, 2006 5:02 pm UTC
Location: Calgary
Contact:

Postby space_raptor » Thu Mar 29, 2007 6:27 pm UTC

3.14159265... wrote:But Hizbollah is younger than Israel.
Israel was built and had a mission of taking Arab lands, and it actullay attacked Lebanon, and seized the souther areas. Then the country of Lebanon since it is such a messed up government set up by the british and USA under military force did nothing. So the people of Lebanon created a group called Hizbollah and they defended themself from the e Palestinian leaders don't think Israel should exist, and the Israeli settlers don'tinvaders which were Israelis. This is very important.

Israel attacked Lebanon
Israel kidnapped Lebanese politicians
Lebanese people created Hizbollah, with the aid of dirty money from Iran
The Lebanese people are the soldiers of Hizbollah

Hizbollah is defending Lebanon, and Lebanese rights
Hizbollah is defending the lebanese from Israel



This just isn't true. Now it is time for me to accuse you of listening to too much propaganda.
Palestine was never an "Arab land". It was a British mandate. Before that it was controlled by Turkey(the Ottoman Empire). Some Arabs may have a claim to some of the land there, but Jews have a legitimate one as well. There were hundreds of thousands of Jews living in the area. There were also Christians, and Druze, and small amounts of other people. The Arabs do not now, nor did they ever, have the sole claim to the land that Israel occupies now.

Israel absolutely has a right to exist. I would argue that so does an Arab Palestinian state. But the Arabs never had a sole claim to the region, and the Israelis did not start the war where they took new Palestinian lands. Any solution to the conflict, in my mind, would require borders drawn up that both sides accept. This is tough, because the settlers don't want to leave, and the Palestinians don't think Israel should exist at all.

Pi, You seem to be advocating that 8 million Israelis should be turned into refugees now, 60 years after their country was created. Think about the consequences of removing millions of Israelis from their homes. We're talking war and chaos. The cruelty of that idea alone is shocking to me. It is not a practical or moral solution.

In the 1948 war, Israel took a lot of territory that wasn't originally theirs, and displaced a lot of Palestinians. That is where the refugees came from. There would not have been Palestinian refugees if it was not for the war. Israelis were not the aggressors in that war. The blame for Palestinian refugees is to be shared with Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, and Egypt.


Hizbollah is NOT a friend to Lebanon. I think most of the people in Lebanon hate Hizbollah. They brought war to Lebanon. If you ask people in the south of Lebanon, they will tell you they like Hizbollah, because otherwise they'll get shot in the head. Hizbollah governs in the south by force. The Lebanese army cannot fight them and win. They are controlled from Syria and Iran, who are trying to control what should be a very successful, free, and democratic country. Hizbollah governs the people, they even distribute aid. How nice of them, considering they are the reason the Israelis bombed towns and villages. They are the reason for the destruction. I think that the Lebanese-controlled parts of Lebanon should receive all kinds of aid in every way possible, to show the Lebanese people under Hizbollah's control that they don't have to rely on Hizbollah. It wouldn't be easy, considering the control that Hizbollah exerts on the access people have to information, but it could be done.


There's a journalist named Michael Totten, who has a lot of good stuff written on Lebanon and the Middle East. He's completely independent. I've found him to be very good for solid information on that conflict.

http://michaeltotten.com
The drinking will continue until morale improves.

User avatar
3.14159265...
Irrational (?)
Posts: 2413
Joined: Thu Jan 18, 2007 12:05 am UTC
Location: Ajax, Canada

Postby 3.14159265... » Thu Mar 29, 2007 10:05 pm UTC

space_raptor wrote: Pi, You seem to be advocating that 8 million Israelis should be turned into refugees now, 60 years after their country was created.

First off there aren't 8 million people. That isn't relevant though. It was created under illigetimate conditions, that is relevant. The Arabs were dislocated by Israeli's. Israeli's have not yet been dislocated. Many of the citizens of Israel have made Aliya or w.e. They won't be refugees they are citizens of other countries too.

Isreali's STILL own the land in Uganda, they can go there. They like being in jerusalem, for RELIGIOUS and POLITICAL reasons, not social ones. Thats why I oppose them.

space_raptor wrote: Hizbollah is NOT a friend to Lebanon. I think most of the people in Lebanon hate Hizbollah. They brought war to Lebanon. If you ask people in the south of Lebanon, they will tell you they like Hizbollah, because otherwise they'll get shot in the head. Hizbollah governs in the south by force. The Lebanese army cannot fight them and win. They are controlled from Syria and Iran, who are trying to control what should be a very successful, free, and democratic country. Untill now, I was thinking you are not applying positive discrimination


Who are these Lebanese, I don't know ONE! other than those that make money from being against Hizbullah.

My best friend was Lebanese, My gf was Lebanese christian, and I worked for a Druze Lebanese family restaurant for a year. They dont' hate Hizbullah, they Hate Israel for having occupied their country for more than 2 decades now! Israel is STILL occupying Lebanon.

I beg you to watch that video I posted, No one has yet refuted his points, other than calling him an anti-semite Saddam loving communist.

I don't get my news from news agencies. I usually tend to get the human side more from people of those areas.

I currently have two Israeli roomates that I love.

Fox news and CNN are NOT news. they are BIASED news.

Edit: You are not the first to call Lebanon a free and democratic country.
The president can ONLY be christian. WTF
Each religions is asigned a certain amount of seats. WTF
If they decide to change their government system, Britian and the USA will oppose them with military force. WTF
Millions of people demonstrated this year in Beirut. MILLIONS. To change the government. WTF

Democratic, ya, Israel calls it democratic, and so does Sky news, and CNN, and FOX.
"The best times in life are the ones when you can genuinely add a "Bwa" to your "ha""- Chris Hastings

User avatar
space_raptor
Posts: 1497
Joined: Fri Nov 17, 2006 5:02 pm UTC
Location: Calgary
Contact:

Postby space_raptor » Thu Mar 29, 2007 11:52 pm UTC

3.14159265... wrote:
space_raptor wrote: Pi, You seem to be advocating that 8 million Israelis should be turned into refugees now, 60 years after their country was created.

First off there aren't 8 million people. That isn't relevant though.
Sorry. 7.1 million people. Of course it's relevant. If it was 40 people, you'd have an argument. 7.1 million people, in established cities and towns, can't just be moved. It's freaking impossible. If I told you and your family I was moving you to freaking Africa, would you go? I very much doubt it. I don't care what the circumstances are, people will not leave their homes without a fight. The Israelis will fight to the death. This is a completely impossible idea.
It was created under illigetimate conditions, that is relevant. The Arabs were dislocated by Israeli's. Israeli's have not yet been dislocated. Many of the citizens of Israel have made Aliya or w.e. They won't be refugees they are citizens of other countries too.

Isreali's STILL own the land in Uganda, they can go there. They like being in jerusalem, for RELIGIOUS and POLITICAL reasons, not social ones. Thats why I oppose them.

It was not created under illegitimate conditions. It was created by the United Nations. The original land was not controlled by Arabs when Israel was created. You're factually wrong, here.

When 4 nations invaded Israel after it was created, and the Palestinians fled a war zone, that's when the Arab land was taken.
Here you have an argument. Here I think it's possible that the Israelis will have to give back some land. But their original, before-the-1948-war borders? Israeli land. It was not taken from anybody.

Untilnow, I was thinking you are not applying positive discrimination

Who are these Lebanese, I don't know ONE! other than those that make money from being against Hizbullah.

My best friend was Lebanese, My gf was Lebanese christian, and I worked for a Druze Lebanese family restaurant for a year. They dont' hate Hizbullah, they Hate Israel for having occupied their country for more than 2 decades now! Israel is STILL occupying Lebanon.

I beg you to watch that video I posted, No one has yet refuted his points, other than calling him an anti-semite Saddam loving communist.

I don't get my news from news agencies. I usually tend to get the human side more from people of those areas.

I find it interesting that you think the only people who could be against Hizbollah are people that get paid to be against Hizbollah. That's just not true. That's propaganda. It has no place here.
I'm sure many Lebanese do hate Israel. Israel has not been their friend. They don't have to be. I am equally sure that many Lebanese hate Hizbollah. People in Beirut. People who aren't Shia.

I think George Galloway is an anti-semite Saddam loving communist. He's a liar. I have not mentioned anything about him because I just don't take him seriously. I think you should look hard into his history. I have, and he's just not trustworthy. I'm sorry to be a little harsh on this one, but if you believe him, I think you are being fooled.

Edit: Heck, even George Galloway only wants Israeli borders to go back to the 1967 borders.

Getting your news from individuals is fine and all, but you should check what they say. Humans are usually biased, and they may not know the full truth. Blindly believing an individual is just as bad as blindly believing CNN.
I currently have two Israeli roomates that I love.

How do they feel about you wanting to erase their country off the map, and move millions of people thousands of miles away? What right do you have, what right does anyone have to tell those people where they can and cannot live?
Fox news and CNN are NOT news. they are BIASED news.

Who said anything about FOX/CNN? This is irrelevant. I sure don't trust them, though.
Edit: You are not the first to call Lebanon a free and democratic country.
The president can ONLY be christian. WTF
Each religions is asigned a certain amount of seats. WTF

The prime minister can ONLY BE SUNNI. The speaker of Parliament can ONLY BE SHIA. Why don't you know this? If you know anything at all about how their government worked, you should know this. They worked out the system for a reason, so that one group will not have too much power over the others.
If they decide to change their government system, Britian and the USA will oppose them with military force. WTF
Millions of people demonstrated this year in Beirut. MILLIONS. To change the government. WTF
Democratic, ya, Israel calls it democratic, and so does Sky news, and CNN, and FOX.

Why would Britain and the USA send their militaries to Lebanon, of all places?
Some of the protests were started by Hezbollah, as anti-government protests. Some of the protests were started by people who are anti-Hezbollah. There are millions of people in Lebanon. Some of them will support Hezbollah. Some of them will be against Hezbollah.
Please take the time to look at all the facts, before claiming that every single person in Lebanon supports Hezbollah.
Last edited by space_raptor on Fri Mar 30, 2007 12:51 am UTC, edited 1 time in total.
The drinking will continue until morale improves.

User avatar
3.14159265...
Irrational (?)
Posts: 2413
Joined: Thu Jan 18, 2007 12:05 am UTC
Location: Ajax, Canada

Postby 3.14159265... » Fri Mar 30, 2007 12:43 am UTC

space_raptor wrote: The Israelis will fight to the death. This is a completely impossible idea.

I never said they will, I am just saying they are immoral.

space_raptor wrote:Here you have an argument. Here I think it's possible that the Israelis will have to give back some land. But their original, before-the-1948-war borders? Israeli land. It was not taken from anybody.

Its not just about land, its about no killing people too.

space_raptor wrote:I find it interesting that you think the only people who could be against Hizbollah are people that get paid to be against Hizbollah. That's just not true. That's propaganda. It has no place here.

My sources were a shia best friend, a christian girl friend, and a family of Druze bosses. They ALL supported Hizbullah. Thats not propaganda, thats personal experience, where do you get your information from?
Space_raptor wrote:I think George Galloway is an anti-semite Saddam loving communist.


Give a reason, other than those used by that Neo-con pro-Israel US senate member.

space_raptor wrote: How do they feel about you wanting to erase their country off the map, and move millions of people thousands of miles away? What right do you have, what right does anyone have to tell those people where they can and cannot live?


One of them hates it, but has learned to shut up and stop commiting positive discrimination. The other agrees with me on all points other than Israel should be moved to Uganda. He believes Israel should just have better policy and that will fix things. I am guessing thats because of social conformity.

Space_raptor wrote: The prime minister can ONLY BE SUNNI. The speaker of Parliament can ONLY BE SHIA.
If thats your definition of a democracy, than I can see why you are saying Israel is fair.

Space_raptor wrote: Why would Britain and the USA send their militaries to Lebanon
Because they established it under military force. Because America gave those cluster bombs to Israel to drop on Lebanon, and because British airports were used to transport those bombs.

space_raptor wrote:Please take the time to look at all the facts, before claiming that every single person in Lebanon supports Hezbollah.
I would like you to source your "facts". Mine are personal experience with many variety of Lebanese over about 5 years and Israelis now for 1 year.
"The best times in life are the ones when you can genuinely add a "Bwa" to your "ha""- Chris Hastings

User avatar
space_raptor
Posts: 1497
Joined: Fri Nov 17, 2006 5:02 pm UTC
Location: Calgary
Contact:

Postby space_raptor » Fri Mar 30, 2007 2:03 am UTC

I am saying that if anyone tries to move Israel, the Israelis will fight. Moving them to Uganda is impossible. I think we should accept that as a given, and talk about where the borders should be between Israel and the Palestinian Authority. I am fine with ideas where the West bank and part of Jerusalem is under Palestinian authority. I am not fine with destroying Israel as we know it.

3.14159265... wrote:One of them hates it, but has learned to shut up and stop commiting positive discrimination. The other agrees with me on all points other than Israel should be moved to Uganda. He believes Israel should just have better policy and that will fix things. I am guessing thats because of social conformity.

:o :o
So if your friend disagrees with you it must be because he doesn't have a mind of his own? Huh.
Space_raptor wrote: The prime minister can ONLY BE SUNNI. The speaker of Parliament can ONLY BE SHIA.
If thats your definition of a democracy, than I can see why you are saying Israel is fair.

I don't understand this point. You made it seem like only Christians had power in Lebanon. I think that if the Lebanese people thought it was a good idea to have a Christian president, a Sunni prime minister, and a Shia leader of parliament, then it is their right to do so. Nobody forced them to do it that way.

Space_raptor wrote: Why would Britain and the USA send their militaries to Lebanon
Because they established it under military force. Because America gave those cluster bombs to Israel to drop on Lebanon, and because British airports were used to transport those bombs.

And Iran supplies Hezbollah with missiles and guns.
All the killing is terrible. But Hezbollah's goal is the death of Israel. How can there ever be peace with that attitude?

space_raptor wrote:Please take the time to look at all the facts, before claiming that every single person in Lebanon supports Hezbollah.
I would like you to source your "facts". Mine are personal experience with many variety of Lebanese over about 5 years and Israelis now for 1 year.


Your friend's opinions are not "facts". That's not a legitimate source, because I can't check it. I don't have to trust somebody that only you know.

Here are some actual sources about the conflicts between Hezbollah supporters and other Lebanese, and between anti- and pro- government Lebanese. Here is evidence that not every Lebanese person supports Hezbollah.
This is about the strike and ensuing conflict that happened in January:
http://www.naharnet.com/domino/tn/NewsDesk.nsf/getstory?openform&DB9E0DE82C91AA3CC225726C0022B3F2
This is an article about a Shia cleric who is against Hezbollah, also from January:
http://www.michaeltotten.com/archives/001362.html
Found this while searching. A bonus for everybody! Should help to keep things civil.
http://tigerhawk.blogspot.com/2007/03/lebanon-progress-in-long-war.html
What the hell, here's the wikipedia entry on Nasrallah, Hezbollah's leader.
Note where he says the holocaust never happened.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nasrallah
The drinking will continue until morale improves.

User avatar
Vaniver
Posts: 9422
Joined: Fri Oct 13, 2006 2:12 am UTC

Postby Vaniver » Fri Mar 30, 2007 2:27 am UTC

Isreali's STILL own the land in Uganda, they can go there. They like being in jerusalem, for RELIGIOUS and POLITICAL reasons, not social ones. Thats why I oppose them.
Does religion no longer count as a social force? Are there no historical reasons that Israelis could want to live in Jerusalem?

I find it odd that you would agree with "Americans should be allowed to keep DC because of the Smithsonian", but would not agree with "Americans should be allowed to keep DC because of the National Cathedral". Both of them are important to the social fabric of the city; one just has a religious dimension as well.

I don't get my news from news agencies. I usually tend to get the human side more from people of those areas.
My sources were a shia best friend, a christian girl friend, and a family of Druze bosses. They ALL supported Hizbullah. Thats not propaganda, thats personal experience, where do you get your information from?
I was about to ask, where does the average Lebanese get his news about current events, and then saw this.
I think I'll take the experts at the BBC or NPR over the man down the street. Their experiences tend to be wider, and they tend to have more training at understanding history and current events.

Give a reason, other than those used by that Neo-con pro-Israel US senate member.
Do you mean to imply that you have researched him thoroughly, and have not found any reason to distrust him? Or are you honestly curious, not having looked at his history?

If thats your definition of a democracy, than I can see why you are saying Israel is fair.
Well, technically, it's not even a democracy. It's a republic. It's essentially just a system of checks and balances. While it seems odd in a secular society and/or a society that is religiously homogenous, I find it drastically decreases the chance of religious oppression (which tends to be good for democracies) in a society where there are multiple non-compatible religions. Secularity is not required for the definition of a democratic country.

I would like you to source your "facts". Mine are personal experience with many variety of Lebanese over about 5 years and Israelis now for 1 year.
Our sources are secondary. There's someone who was there and who was credible (not perfectly, but we're talking rather high), and then we've read their reports, or summaries of their reports.
Your sources are, at best, tertiary. There's someone who was there, but their friend's friend is the one you know. Being intimately connected, there's a strong likelihood they're biased, and bias on the part of any of the three people would skew the end result.

They dont' hate Hizbullah, they Hate Israel for having occupied their country for more than 2 decades now
You clearly empathize with the Lebanese. Have you attempted to see why Israelis might have reasons to hate the Lebanese?

Fox news and CNN are NOT news. they are BIASED news.
Fox news is garbage. CNN? I find it hard to believe that CNN is more biased than the majority of Middle Eastern stations.

I never said they will, I am just saying they are immoral.
If defending ones existence is immoral, I don't agree with your standards of morality.

I think we should accept that as a given, and talk about where the borders should be between Israel and the Palestinian Authority.
We kind of tried that sixty years ago. I see no reason to believe that Palestinians will be more accepting of it now, especially given the sixty years of injuries and insults that their wars have heaped upon their heads.
We should try, of course, but I find it hard to be optimistic when the Middle East is concerned.
I mostly post over at LessWrong now.

Avatar from My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic, owned by Hasbro.

User avatar
3.14159265...
Irrational (?)
Posts: 2413
Joined: Thu Jan 18, 2007 12:05 am UTC
Location: Ajax, Canada

Postby 3.14159265... » Fri Mar 30, 2007 2:31 am UTC

I am not a hizbullah supporter, I think the lebanese are Hizbullah supporters and justly so.

The government of lebanon was set up with Guns. The british or the US I can't remember, Either way it was for the sake of Israel and imperialism, that they formed the government with force not by the will of the poeple.

My friend disagrees with me because he is an idiot.
ex) As a joke our other roomate called me a goy (a non-jew in jewish terms), so I called him a Kafir (a non-muslim in muslim term, as I am an ex-muslim). The idiot roomate, got mad, he wasn't in the convo either.... and said I was being racist. Thats why he has learned to shut up about the subject, because he is stupid when it comes to these issues.

There can not be peace

Read the Harriri story to find out why president Saniora is a complete traitor and just a puppet of Syria. Yes Saniora is a puppet of syria NOT hizbullah. Hizbullah is financially bound to Iran, they way South Korea is to the USA.


I have stopped quoting as it is long and tiring.


Edit: Had Israel and Iran mixed up in writing, Irony!
"The best times in life are the ones when you can genuinely add a "Bwa" to your "ha""- Chris Hastings

User avatar
Vaniver
Posts: 9422
Joined: Fri Oct 13, 2006 2:12 am UTC

Postby Vaniver » Fri Mar 30, 2007 2:49 am UTC

The government of lebanon was set up with Guns.
Would you please point out to me a government *not* established by military might?

I'm probably not going to hold my breath.

There can not be peace
I'm going to assume this is talking about with respects to Israel.
Why can't there be peace? Because one people group doesn't want it. What are the options? 1) Appease them 2) Fight them 3) Exterminate them.

1 is laughable. 2 is what we've been doing. 3 is looking nicer and nicer, but probably won't happen, because the Israelis, and their allies, tend to be nice people. I would not wager the same for those fighting Israel.
I mostly post over at LessWrong now.

Avatar from My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic, owned by Hasbro.

User avatar
3.14159265...
Irrational (?)
Posts: 2413
Joined: Thu Jan 18, 2007 12:05 am UTC
Location: Ajax, Canada

Postby 3.14159265... » Fri Mar 30, 2007 2:57 am UTC

Vaniver wrote:3) Exterminate them (the palestinian population)


Vaniver wrote:3 is looking nicer and nicer, but probably won't happen, because the Israelis, and their allies, tend to be nice people.



Vaniver wrote:2 is what we've been doing



Can we ignore him space_raptor?
"The best times in life are the ones when you can genuinely add a "Bwa" to your "ha""- Chris Hastings

User avatar
Vaniver
Posts: 9422
Joined: Fri Oct 13, 2006 2:12 am UTC

Postby Vaniver » Fri Mar 30, 2007 3:00 am UTC

You can, it doesn't mean you should.

[edit]It would also be nice if you stopped selectively ignoring comments. Do you have an answer to the question in my previous post?
I mostly post over at LessWrong now.

Avatar from My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic, owned by Hasbro.

User avatar
3.14159265...
Irrational (?)
Posts: 2413
Joined: Thu Jan 18, 2007 12:05 am UTC
Location: Ajax, Canada

Postby 3.14159265... » Fri Mar 30, 2007 3:10 am UTC

You are being completely stupid, almost as stupid as a Kahane member.

I don't hold arguments with fundamentalists.

Here is the answer to your question: The government of Lebanon was formed when under the guns of OTHER countries. FORIEGN powers set up the government.

If you want to have a debate. You may apologize for your earlier comments, and we can talk then.

By that I mean, your advocation of murder.
"The best times in life are the ones when you can genuinely add a "Bwa" to your "ha""- Chris Hastings

User avatar
space_raptor
Posts: 1497
Joined: Fri Nov 17, 2006 5:02 pm UTC
Location: Calgary
Contact:

Postby space_raptor » Fri Mar 30, 2007 3:10 am UTC

3.14159265... wrote:I am not a hizbullah supporter, I think the lebanese are Hizbullah supporters and justly so.

I kinda proved you wrong there. Some Lebanese like Hezbollah. Most don't.
The government of lebanon was set up with Guns. The british or the US I can't remember, Either way it was for the sake of Israel and imperialism, that they formed the government with force not by the will of the poeple.

Actually, France was in charge, and the Lebanese formed their own government. The Lebanese chose their own form of government. If you're going to argue, please, please learn the facts first. It is very frustrating to see you say things that are untrue. Learning won't kill you, it's fun. And on the internet, it's easy.

My friend disagrees with me because he is an idiot.
ex) As a joke our other roomate called me a goy (a non-jew in jewish terms), so I called him a Kafir (a non-muslim in muslim term, as I am an ex-muslim). The idiot roomate, got mad, he wasn't in the convo either.... and said I was being racist. Thats why he has learned to shut up about the subject, because he is stupid when it comes to these issues.

Now he's just stupid. Okeydokey.
Read the Harriri story to find out why president Saniora is a complete traitor and just a puppet of Syria. Yes Saniora is a puppet of syria NOT hizbullah. Hizbullah is financially bound to Iran, they way South Korea is to the USA.

It's not black and white. Some Lebanese are against Hezbollah AND against Saniora. Some ally with Hezbollah to get rid of Saniora.
I understand that Saniora is controlled by Syria, and that Hezbollah is a puppet of Iran. It's a complicated situation. But just because a lot of Lebanese don't like Saniora, it doesn't mean they like Hezbollah.

Vaniver wrote:We kind of tried that sixty years ago. I see no reason to believe that Palestinians will be more accepting of it now, especially given the sixty years of injuries and insults that their wars have heaped upon their heads.
We should try, of course, but I find it hard to be optimistic when the Middle East is concerned.


I kinda meant us in this thread, not the actual Palestinians. I think it will be a very long time before the Palestinian situation is put to rest. I was just trying to say we should accept the existence of Israel and a Palestinian Authority, and give reasons for how they should be set up. Israel will have to make more concessions for peace, I think. That may be unfair, but the reality is, they can afford it. Peace should be the ultimate goal.

Pi, leave me out of it. The guy can say whatever he wants to say, same as you.
The drinking will continue until morale improves.


Return to “Serious Business”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests