Freethought & Rationalism Archive

slept2long · 06-27-2003, 04:19 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Corwin
No, their muslim brothers in Jordan, Syria and Egypt were more than happy to do it for them. (Note that the occupied territories are in areas that have been traditionally considered to be either Jordanian or Syrian territory. Egyptian too.... before Egypt recognized Israel's right to exist and got their land back.... without anyone getting shot by the way....)

The arabs were wrong for invading. The Israeli's were just as wrong for their invasion and occupation of Palestinian land. They should return it yesterday. Then we'll deal with their security because as it stands now their security problem is irritated by their continuing occupation.

Regarding your comment of them being traditionally considered... Didn't the creation of Israel also involve the creation of an arab state apart from the other arab states in the area nullifying the "traditional" line of reasoning?

Is this map agreeable for defining the borders proposed in '48? It looks like a bad idea from the start. How are you supposed to have security with those borders? It just begs for someone to try and mess them up.

Corwin · 06-27-2003, 04:25 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by slept2long
The arabs were wrong for invading. The Israeli's were just as wrong for their invasion and occupation of Palestinian land. They should return it yesterday. Then we'll deal with their security because as it stands now their security problem is irritated by their continuing occupation.

Regarding your comment of them being traditionally considered... Didn't the creation of Israel also involve the creation of an arab state apart from the other arab states in the area nullifying the "traditional" line of reasoning?

Is this map agreeable for defining the borders proposed in '48? It looks like a bad idea from the start. How are you supposed to have security with those borders? It just begs for someone to try and mess them up.

Yes, it did. And it should be done. I don't have a problem with requiring the palestinians to swear off violence as a condition for that to happen tho.

slept2long · 06-27-2003, 04:49 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Corwin
Yes, it did. And it should be done. I don't have a problem with requiring the palestinians to swear off violence as a condition for that to happen tho.

What actions/statements would qualify as swearing off violence? Do you expect the same of Israel?

Corwin · 06-27-2003, 04:57 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by slept2long
What actions/statements would qualify as swearing off violence? Do you expect the same of Israel?

Not hiding Hamas members would be a start.... and Israel has, several times. I don't expect them to hold to a truce that the other side doesn't honor.

slept2long · 06-27-2003, 05:13 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Corwin
Not hiding Hamas members would be a start.... and Israel has, several times. I don't expect them to hold to a truce that the other side doesn't honor.

Proof of hiding Hamas members or just speculation? It wouldn't surprise me if true. I'll look into Israels cessations of violence as I am not very familiar with the continuity of them. It's my impression they never stopped but I'll take a look around the web.

Quote:

I don't expect them to hold to a truce that the other side doesn't honor.

Are you speaking of the Israelis or Palestinians?

Sauron · 06-27-2003, 05:51 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Corwin
This has been going on to an extent in the occupied territories, mostly in areas terrorist groups like Hamas have been working out of. (Remember Jenin?)

Incorrect. It has been going on since 1948, both inside the boundaries of Israel as well as in the occupied territories. It went on in areas of Jerusalem and Tel Aviv after the 1948 war, as well as in Galilee. And it is still going on.

Quote:

While it may not be pleasant, I don't have nearly the problem with it...

No one here is asked what you personally find objectionable.
The question is whether or not it is going on, and whether it satisfies the definition of "ethnic cleansing". The answer is "yes" to both questions.

Quote:

and the whole thing would STOP if the neighboring countries would just accept that Israel has a right to exist.

You're on crack.

The attitudes of surrounding countries have absolutely nothing to do with Israel practicing ethnic cleansing of Arabs inside its own borders, and in the West Bank. This practice of Israel is occurring because it is a requirement of zionism, to have a fully Jewish state - or as close as they can possibly make it.

Quote:

Remember Sinai? Egypt accepted Israel's right to exist. Egypt got their territory back. It really IS that simple.

No, it really is not that simple. We're discussing the actions of the Israeli govt vis-a-vis Arabs under its control. Egypt doesn't even factor into this discussion - I don't know how you got yourself trapped down that gopher hole.

Quote:

It's 'inconvenient' if you ignore half the original argument.

Which I didn't do. If you think I did, then point out where.

Quote:

You are, in fact, missing the entire point.

No, I don't think I am. I already told you that I am not talking about any idea of formally dismantling Israel.

Quote:

But it does give them a place to run to. One which doesn't exist in the absense of Israel.

BZZT. Invalid assumption. You assume that without Israel, there would be no place for persecuted Jews to run to. However, the world is composed of many countries who would accept such persecuted individuals.

Quote:

You have got to be fucking joking.

Ever heard of the Crusades? Blah blah blah whine blah.....

Yep. I heard of all of these events. None of them were an attempt at genocide, however. I already stipulated to persecution, anti-semitism, and pogroms. But you confuse persecution with genocide. They aren't the same.

Quote:

The past twelve hundred years or so haven't exactly been a gentle period of history as far as jews in europe are concerned.

It really was not that bad. You might want to familiarize yourself with the history of this era, before trying to speak to it. From the University of Florida online course on life in the Middle Ages:
http://www.unf.edu/classes/medieval/med-26.htm

Quote:

The Jews in Medieval Europe

VI. Peaceful Interaction

Psalm 114 Hebrew/Latin [you can listen to this music if you have RealAudio installed]

It might appear that violence was the main method of cultural interaction and exchanged between the several worlds of Medieval Europe. But most people in fact lived peaceable most of the time.

Anti-Semitism and Violence do not describe Jewish life or contribution to medieval history. Peaceful existence for many decades at a time. Repeat - Most of the time, most people were not fighting

Jews were not persecuted in most years, or even most decades.

In Spain
* Jewish philosophers such as Maimonides cited Arab sources (and wrote in Arabic.
* Poets wrote poems in Arabic, Hebrew and Romance.
* Jews developed a Latin/Hebrew dialect called Ladino

In Latin Europe
* Trade routes were developed with the help of Jewish trade networks.
* New trading methods developed
* Music was interchanged.
* Catholic writers such as Thomas Aquinas cited Jewish and Muslim philosophers.

The Inquisition had relatively few people killed.

Peaceful interaction was not always equal
* The stress here is that peaceful interaction was as important as the violent interaction. BUT
* Peaceful interaction was not equally beneficial to all. Latin Christian culture benefited most.

Note also that the Inquisition, while a terrible thing, had relatively few people killed. Is that an excuse? Of course not. But it did not rise to genocide - which is the wild exaggerated claim you tried to make.

Quote:

Or, you could just do what the zionists did - find a piece of land, kick out the existing inhabitants, and when they complain, just tell them that God said it was OK.

All well and good.... except AS HAS BEEN DEMONSTRATED, this is not what actually happened.

"As has been demonstrated"?
By who?
Not by you, that's for sure.
This is precisely what happened in Israel.

Sauron · 06-27-2003, 05:54 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Loren Pechtel
Originally posted by Sauron
Why would they need a place to go? "Since they have no place to go, that's a reason for Israel to exist" doesn't work, because these Jews:

(a) aren't being evicted from their current country of residence;
(b) aren't being banned from the country in which they have dual citizenship;
(c) can go to the many *other* countries in the world that would accept them[/B]

Jat is proposing that Israel be disbanded. *ALL* the Jews would have to go somewhere or die. That's a lot of people to relocate.

Yes, in re-reading the thread, I saw where Jat proposed that. But I am not proposing that. I guess Jat and I part company on that point. As much as I hate what Israel has done, there are some things that are simply too impractical.

I hated apartheid. But the idea of shipping millions of white Afrikaners back to Europe was impractical as well.

However, having said all that, it is still cathartic for the oppressors in both scenarios to come clean and admit that they engaged in such oppression.

Quote:

I've long since given up on AI--they are too willing to believe what they are told about repression.

Translation: they won't repeat Israeli propaganda, so they are of no use to you.

Of course, Human Rights Watch and the US State Department came to the same conclusions as Amnesty did. But don't let that fact slow you down any, Loren.

Sauron · 06-27-2003, 05:56 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Loren Pechtel
"a bit" should be nominated for the understatement of the year.

While their intent is good their value as an information source is basically zero.

Actually, Amnesty is widely recognized as a fair and impartial source for accurate reporting on the topic of human rights abuses.

Too bad Israel can't make the same claim. I'd say that if you're looking for a zero-value information source, then Israel is your winning ticket.

Sauron · 06-27-2003, 05:58 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Corwin
You think incorrectly. The palestinians in Israel were openly encouraged to stay and live the way they had been.

No, they weren't. They were herded by the Israeli military and encouraged to get out.

And those who were too scared to stay and left to get out of the way of the fighting returned to find their lands and homes confiscated by the Israelis.

Sauron · 06-27-2003, 06:04 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Corwin
Yeah, well when you try to invade one of your neighbors, you run the risk of losing territory.

First you deny that the act (expansion of Israeli territory) ever occurred.

Now you admit that it did occur, but that it was OK since it was a reaction to an invasion.

Let's remember that the people being screwed here today, in the here and now, aren't the invaders of 1967. They're the people caught in between.

Moreover, how does your response server as an answer to the charge of ethnic cleansing?

Quote:

The solution is simple. Don't mass troops on your neighbors' border and expect them to not respond.

Sounds like a justification for Hamas, since Israeli forces are massed in the south of Lebanon.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.