Discussion
avinalarf said:
I do not believe that everything that successive Israeli governments have done has always helped towards the peace process.
However If one believes that Zionism is intrinsically wrong (a belief one is entitled to hold)that rather closes down the debate.
If one believes that Israel's actions have always been the cause of the many conflicts that also rather closes down the debate.
If one accepts that serious errors of judgement have been made by both P's and I's over the past 60 years then we may go forward with a reasonable discussion.
It depends on what you mean by "Zionism". If it means one group of people being entitled to sole occupation of an area of land because they think G-d promised it to them, and forcibly evicting or killing anybody who opposes this belief then, yes, I would argue that it is intrinsically wrong.However If one believes that Zionism is intrinsically wrong (a belief one is entitled to hold)that rather closes down the debate.
If one believes that Israel's actions have always been the cause of the many conflicts that also rather closes down the debate.
If one accepts that serious errors of judgement have been made by both P's and I's over the past 60 years then we may go forward with a reasonable discussion.
The seizure of (yet more) land in the WB sums up the main reason why this conflict is still going on.A reasonable solution which would result in peace is obvious to most if not anybody. The problem is Israel doesn't want a solution and frankly Israel doesn't need a solution, so it will keep on seizing more and more land until the Palestinians are either dead, have been forced to evacuate the WB, or are restricted to cantonments. In the meantime, every now and again, they might turn violent. At which point israel, and it's supporters, will once again hold up their hands in mock-horror and make various statements about the Palestinians attacking innocent civilians, and not wanting peace and denying Israel's inalienable right to exist.
QuantumTokoloshi said:
avinalarf said:
Don't you guys occasionally get fed up with bashing Israel ?
Using criteria that is not applied to virtually any other country.
Carefully inserting the odd back handed compliment to camouflage your undoubted bias.
You are entitled to be anti Zionist,non approving of Israeli government policy etc,etc
That's fine by me but why go on and on and on and on and on............................
I admire Israel for what is has achieved in its short history, I admire the pioneering spirit of the place and people. I do not admire what it has done and continues to do in regards to the Palestinians. The Israeli stance reminds me of Apartheid, the same words, the same justifications, the policies, the vociferous defending of the indefensible. Using criteria that is not applied to virtually any other country.
Carefully inserting the odd back handed compliment to camouflage your undoubted bias.
You are entitled to be anti Zionist,non approving of Israeli government policy etc,etc
That's fine by me but why go on and on and on and on and on............................
People mention the Arabs in the IDF as some kind of indication of equality. The South African army had a large contingent of excellent non-white troops, that fact did not make Apartheid right. Non-whites were allowed to vote in SA, they even had representation in the South African parliament, that did not make Apartheid right.
They were told where they could live, who they could associate with and this resulted in a frustration. This frustration spilled into violence. I do not condone the violence but I do understand it.
Edited by QuantumTokoloshi on Wednesday 3rd September 16:40
That alone would make it very difficult to govern,add on to that the seemingly intractable problem of the Palestinians and the extreme hostility of some surrounding countries is it really surprising that mistakes have been made ?
Your use of the emotive adjective "apartheid"in the context of a Israel is not one I recognise,takes no account of the context of the past 60 years.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Countdown said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Everyone knows how Israel react to the killing of their citizens by their enemies. Look at what they did in southern Lebanon after Hezbollah killed the 2 Israeli girls a few years back in Haifa. (the Israeli girls were Arabs, but Israel's fury was the same, as they were Israeli citizens.)
What Israel did in Lebanon had nothing to do with the two Israeli Arab girls. The conflict started before they were killed. They were casualties (along with 44 other Israelis, 17 of whom were arabs) and over 1000 lebanese civilians. Given the treatment of Israeli arabs by their Govt. I doubt very much they would have gone to war over their deaths.Israel's arab MPs are, proportionally, a fraction of Israel's arab population. 20% of Israel's population is of arab origin. It occupies less than 3% of Israeli land. There are numerous examples of discrimination against Israeli arabs. Israel as a democracy could be compared quite accurately to Alabama in the 1960's.
QuantumTokoloshi said:
Grumfutock said:
Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Iraq, Algeria, Kuwait, Libya, Morocco, Pakistan, Cuba, Tunisia. Just some of the countries that have tried to or supported attempts to occupy and force out the Israelis in the last 60 years. Hardly democratic.
Read the question.
avinalarf said:
Your use of the emotive adjective "apartheid"in the context of a Israel is not one I recognise,takes no account of the context of the past 60 years.
It is not designed as an emotive attempt, I am framing it from my own point of reference. The words used, the often quite ridiculous propaganda, the justifications of security, the heavy handed military and civilian interventions are one and the same, as those used by the white South African government to support and justify Apartheid. Funkycoldribena said:
http://www.iris.org.il/sizemaps/saudi.htm
Just look at the size of the evil nation taking all that Arab land....
And your point is? Just look at the size of the evil nation taking all that Arab land....
Something like "look how much land the Arabs have (shhh, let's forget that no-one can live on most of it) now, let's grab some and make a million Palestinians homeless"?
Countdown said:
Grumfutock said:
But I thought the Arab world was full of democratic parliaments?
What about the non-Arab world?Parliaments & democracy take a combination of time, education, wealth, and social conscience to develop.
king thing up. How long do you recommend? (joke & sarcasm)avinalarf said:
zuby84 said:
avinalarf said:
Don't you guys occasionally get fed up with bashing Israel ?
Using criteria that is not applied to virtually any other country.
You're right there, if anyone else did what Israel did - it would not be called a "fair and open Western style democracy" - it would be muttered in the same breath as many other countries with despicable leadership and quite frankly it is beginning to.Using criteria that is not applied to virtually any other country.
For an example of Israel behaving badly (a relatively minor one) see IDF testimony here.
Countdown said:
It depends on what you mean by "Zionism". If it means one group of people being entitled to sole occupation of an area of land because they think G-d promised it to them, and forcibly evicting or killing anybody who opposes this belief then, yes, I would argue that it is intrinsically wrong.
But that is not what Zionism is about. The Israelis want (need?) to be a majority in their territory for obvious reasons, and they want (need?) sufficient space to accomodate any Jewish people who may wish to settle in Israel (every Jew has the right to do so under Israeli law) but given those constraints they are perfectly willing to live together with non-Jewish people in the same land. Incidentally they don't base their arguments on 'God promised it to us' but rather 'we have always lived here', same as the Arabs.
Prior to the dissolution on the British Mandate in 1948 the Zionists were perfectly willing to partition the land into a mainly Jewish state and a mainly non-Jewish state, with shared access to Jerusalem i.e. to live in peace with their non-Jewish neighbours. It was the Arabs who rejected this, believing that they would simply crush Israel, which unfortunately for them they failed to do.
Another often overlooked point is that the Jewish settlers (Zionists) did not take over land from non-Jewish people except in the wars that were started by the Arabs. They BOUGHT the land. Who sold it to them? The Arabs.
TheRealFingers99 said:
Grumfutock said:
Because the evil Zionist empire must be stopped!
I've always though that argument by captioned gif is pretty much the realm of the brain dead. But you do realise that that one is anti Israel? Ayahuasca said:
The Israelis want (need?) to be a majority in their territory for obvious reasons, and they want (need?) sufficient space to accomodate any Jewish people who may wish to settle in Israel (every Jew has the right to do so under Israeli law) but given those constraints they are perfectly willing to live together with non-Jewish people in the same land.
But how do you square that with a right of return for Palestinians? Ayahuasca said:
Prior to the dissolution on the British Mandate in 1948 the Zionists were perfectly willing to partition the land into a mainly Jewish state and a mainly non-Jewish state, with shared access to Jerusalem i.e. to live in peace with their non-Jewish neighbours. It was the Arabs who rejected this, believing that they would simply crush Israel, which unfortunately for them they failed to do.
How does this explain the Zionist terrorism prior to the end of the British mandate? Ayahuasca said:
Another often overlooked point is that the Jewish settlers (Zionists) did not take over land from non-Jewish people except in the wars that were started by the Arabs. They BOUGHT the land. Who sold it to them? The Arabs.
This is a history that was taught to Israeli children 20 years or so ago. It bears little resemblance to what really happened. But, again, quote your sources. Ayahuasca said:
But that is not what Zionism is about. The Israelis want (need?) to be a majority in their territory for obvious reasons, and they want (need?) sufficient space to accomodate any Jewish people who may wish to settle in Israel (every Jew has the right to do so under Israeli law) but given those constraints they are perfectly willing to live together with non-Jewish people in the same land.
Ok. How will they have a Jewish majority if they annexe the West Bank? Short of carrying out ethnic cleansing? With regards to them being happy to live with non-Jewish people on the same land there are numerous restrictions placed on israeli Arabs both in Israel and in the WB.
http://www.haaretz.com/news/national/israeli-arabs...
http://www.btselem.org/planning_and_building/20140...
Ayahuasca said:
Incidentally they don't base their arguments on 'God promised it to us' but rather 'we have always lived here', same as the Arabs.
The thing is they haven't always lived there. They have only become the majority in Israel as a result of massive immigration, which, in turn led to forced displacement of the Palestinians. Palestine pre-1948 wasn't an unpopulated area waiting to be filled.TheRealFingers99 said:
Grumfutock said:
Well I thought the line "Because the evil Zionist empire must be stopped! " would give an ample demonstration of the intended sarcasm, but apparently not. Are you American by any chance?
No, I'm not George Clooney, either. note to self: Be more obvious, they are a slow lot on here. (Sarcasm, joke, humour and a little bit of piss take)
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff