Golan heights belongs to Syria and needs to be returned!!! My grandfather was from there and his adiga blood runs through my veins!!! I want and deserve it back!!!!! Oh and tell ur itf buddies to stop burning the hills in Berraqa..my cousins are tired of putting out the fires every summer... All they want to do is have fun not put out ur fires... They're only in there teens so let them have there fun.
I'm tired of the 242 argument. I've posted extensive interviews with the drafters of the resolution all of whom said explicitly that Israel is not required by the resolution to withdraw from all of the conquered territory, so I'm really not sure why you're arguing the point, unless you think you understand the resolution better than the people who wrote it.
Every year a vote is cast at the U.N on 242 and every year the outcome is the same. Roughly 156 - 6, with Israel and the U.S opposing world opinion. This vote asks for 242 to be implemented with a full Israeli withdrawal to the June 1967 borders.
You can try muddying the water all you like, but no one is buying it.
I have no idea why you've brought up the Golan heights. The fact that you did so simply further exposes the fact that you don't know the most basic facts about this region and this conflict.
Because only someone who has lived in Israel can possibly know the truth about this overly complex issue, right?
Golan heights belongs to Syria and needs to be returned!!! My grandfather was from there and his adiga blood runs through my veins!!! I want and deserve it back!!!!! Oh and tell ur itf buddies to stop burning the hills in Berraqa..my cousins are tired of putting out the fires every summer... All they want to do is have fun not put out ur fires... They're only in there teens so let them have there fun.
Ok, I'm not sure what you're talking about, but I guess I'll go look it up. If Syria is ever serious about making peace then maybe the golan will be returned. Who knows. It could happen.
you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane
And I would kinda like an apology for putting words in my mouth. And for generally misrepresenting my views.
Don't hold your breath.
So you're saying that when you said that I support the occupation, even though I had already written, and I quote "I do not support the occupation," you weren't misrepresenting me? Interesting.
you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane
I am a zionist. I do not support the settlements. There is no contradiction there. My question is why do you find it morally acceptable for the Palestinians to demand a state that is juden-rein?
Once again you try and turn reality on it's head.
I don't see any reason why Jews and Arabs can't live side-by-side in peace as they did for a thousand years before the Zionists began their ethnic cleansing campaign in 1948.
As to what the Palestinian leadership thinks of Jews living legally within the West Bank:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... inion_main
'Salam Fayyad, acting prime minister of the Palestinian Authority: "I'm not someone who will say that they would or should be treated differently than Israeli Arabs are treated in Israel. In fact, the kind of state that we want to have, that we aspire to have, is one that would definitely espouse high values of tolerance, coexistence, mutual respect and deference to all cultures, religions. No discrimination whatsoever, on any basis whatsoever. Jews, to the extent they choose to stay and live in the state of Palestine, will enjoy those rights and certainly will not enjoy any less rights than Israeli Arabs enjoy now in the state of Israel."
I'm tired of the 242 argument. I've posted extensive interviews with the drafters of the resolution all of whom said explicitly that Israel is not required by the resolution to withdraw from all of the conquered territory, so I'm really not sure why you're arguing the point, unless you think you understand the resolution better than the people who wrote it.
Every year a vote is cast at the U.N on 242 and every year the outcome is the same. Roughly 156 - 6, with Israel and the U.S opposing world opinion. This vote asks for 242 to be implemented with a full Israeli withdrawal to the June 1967 borders.
You can try muddying the water all you like, but no one is buying it.
I have no idea why you've brought up the Golan heights. The fact that you did so simply further exposes the fact that you don't know the most basic facts about this region and this conflict.
Because only someone who has lived in Israel can possibly know the truth about this overly complex issue, right?
No, certainly you could know the truth about this issue. You just don't seem to. And again, what does the Golan have to do with anything we were discussing. You still haven't cleared that up.
you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane
I am a zionist. I do not support the settlements. There is no contradiction there. My question is why do you find it morally acceptable for the Palestinians to demand a state that is juden-rein?
Once again you try and turn reality on it's head.
I don't see any reason why Jews and Arabs can't live side-by-side in peace as they did for a thousand years before the Zionists began their ethnic cleansing campaign in 1948.
As to what the Palestinian leadership thinks of Jews living legally within the West Bank:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... inion_main
'Salam Fayyad, acting prime minister of the Palestinian Authority: "I'm not someone who will say that they would or should be treated differently than Israeli Arabs are treated in Israel. In fact, the kind of state that we want to have, that we aspire to have, is one that would definitely espouse high values of tolerance, coexistence, mutual respect and deference to all cultures, religions. No discrimination whatsoever, on any basis whatsoever. Jews, to the extent they choose to stay and live in the state of Palestine, will enjoy those rights and certainly will not enjoy any less rights than Israeli Arabs enjoy now in the state of Israel."
I can only hope that this is the case. In fact I'm a big fan of Salam Fayyad. He's one of the few Palestinian leaders to come along in a while who really seems to not be corrupt, and to want to build functioning institutions that will benefit his people. I hope he succeeds. Not sure how I've turned reality on its head. From where I'm sitting everything still seems to be right-side-up. Maybe it's different in China.
you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane
And I would kinda like an apology for putting words in my mouth. And for generally misrepresenting my views.
Don't hold your breath.
So you're saying that when you said that I support the occupation, even though I had already written, and I quote "I do not support the occupation," you weren't misrepresenting me? Interesting.
I explained above why I dismissed your claim. I simply took everything you said in context. You've spent the last two pages arguing why you think Israel has no need to dismantle the settlements and withdraw to the '67 border. You then pretend that you don't support the occupation. You can't have it both ways.
You can continue contradicting yourself all you like. Just don't expect me to swallow it.
No, certainly you could know the truth about this issue. You just don't seem to. And again, what does the Golan have to do with anything we were discussing. You still haven't cleared that up.
You were trying to defend Israel's settlements by claiming they were strategic outposts whose aim was to protect Israeli citizens inside Israel. I brought up the Golan as a way of showing that there's another reason why you seek control of these areas.
I can only hope that this is the case. In fact I'm a big fan of Salam Fayyad. He's one of the few Palestinian leaders to come along in a while who really seems to not be corrupt, and to want to build functioning institutions that will benefit his people. I hope he succeeds. Not sure how I've turned reality on its head. From where I'm sitting everything still seems to be right-side-up. Maybe it's different in China.
Don't even get me started on corruption and the Israeli government.
Golan heights belongs to Syria and needs to be returned!!! My grandfather was from there and his adiga blood runs through my veins!!! I want and deserve it back!!!!! Oh and tell ur itf buddies to stop burning the hills in Berraqa..my cousins are tired of putting out the fires every summer... All they want to do is have fun not put out ur fires... They're only in there teens so let them have there fun.
Ok, I'm not sure what you're talking about, but I guess I'll go look it up. If Syria is ever serious about making peace then maybe the golan will be returned. Who knows. It could happen.
idk if I spelt bereqa right or not but it's the land Israel gave for the golan. And yes ur itf soldiers burn the hills seperating the two countries. There's a un outpost there and I think Poland is the country running it now. I didn't have to look that up, my cousin told me he helped put out the fires and he's only 16. And yosi I love how u talk. U have that charm a serial killer has. You say ur a ziolnist yet u dnt really share there views. U say killing palestinians is wrong, stealing land is wrong, blah blah blah. Smooth talker u are. But aren't all zionists smooth talkers??? Take it as a compliment. It just doesn't work with to many of us on the board.
I explained above why I dismissed your claim. I simply took everything you said in context. You've spent the last two pages arguing why you think Israel has no need to dismantle the settlements and withdraw to the '67 border. You then pretend that you don't support the occupation. You can't have it both ways.
You can continue contradicting yourself all you like. Just don't expect me to swallow it.[/quote]
This is really very tiresome and juvenile. I don't support the occupation or the settlements. I would like to see the occupation end, and most of the settlements taken down, or abandoned, or turned over to the Palestinians as part of a final peace agreement. There is really no contradiction in that. If you think that there is than I think we're functioning according to different rules of basic logic. I would like to see Israel withdraw to "secure and recognized" borders, as per 242, that will be close to, but not exactly the same as, the '67 line, and I would like Israel to compensate the Palestinians for the land kept in this fashion with land elsewhere that is currently part of Israel. There isn't a contradiction here. I do not support Israel acting outside of an agreement with the Palestinians in a manner that endangers Israel's security. I realize that this is a complex and nuanced position, and that you are apparently allergic to complexity and nuance, but hopefully you can read real slow, maybe out loud, and figure this out.
you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane
Golan heights belongs to Syria and needs to be returned!!! My grandfather was from there and his adiga blood runs through my veins!!! I want and deserve it back!!!!! Oh and tell ur itf buddies to stop burning the hills in Berraqa..my cousins are tired of putting out the fires every summer... All they want to do is have fun not put out ur fires... They're only in there teens so let them have there fun.
Ok, I'm not sure what you're talking about, but I guess I'll go look it up. If Syria is ever serious about making peace then maybe the golan will be returned. Who knows. It could happen.
idk if I spelt bereqa right or not but it's the land Israel gave for the golan. And yes ur itf soldiers burn the hills seperating the two countries. There's a un outpost there and I think Poland is the country running it now. I didn't have to look that up, my cousin told me he helped put out the fires and he's only 16. And yosi I love how u talk. U have that charm a serial killer has. You say ur a ziolnist yet u dnt really share there views. U say killing palestinians is wrong, stealing land is wrong, blah blah blah. Smooth talker u are. But aren't all zionists smooth talkers??? Take it as a compliment. It just doesn't work with to many of us on the board.
I'm not sure why you just got so hostile. Can't we disagree without being mean? Seriously. You seem to have a certain idea of what a zionist is. I'm not sure what that is, but it seems to be very bad. I am a zionist because I believe that the Jewish people should have a sovereign state in their historic homeland. Period. That's it. That is what it means to me to be a zionist. I don't get what is so bad about that. If you have a problem with ethnic nationalisms than your issue isn't really with Israel per se, but with the idea of the nation-state in general. And I am actually insulted by your comment. I have no idea about this burning business, but I'm fairly certain I never did anything to hurt you so I have no idea why all of a sudden you're equating me with a serial killer.
you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane
No, certainly you could know the truth about this issue. You just don't seem to. And again, what does the Golan have to do with anything we were discussing. You still haven't cleared that up.
You were trying to defend Israel's settlements by claiming they were strategic outposts whose aim was to protect Israeli citizens inside Israel. I brought up the Golan as a way of showing that there's another reason why you seek control of these areas.
I would still like an apology. As a basic sign of respect for your debating partner. You did say that I said the exact opposite of what I actually said. Come on it's easy. "I'm sorry that i said you support the occupation when you said you didn't, and that I said you support the settlements when you said you didn't." It's that easy.
you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane
I would like to see the occupation end, and most of the settlements taken down, or abandoned, or turned over to the Palestinians as part of a final peace agreement. There is really no contradiction in that. If you think that there is than I think we're functioning according to different rules of basic logic. I would like to see Israel withdraw to "secure and recognized" borders, as per 242, that will be close to, but not exactly the same as, the '67 line, and I would like Israel to compensate the Palestinians for the land kept in this fashion with land elsewhere that is currently part of Israel. There isn't a contradiction here. I do not support Israel acting outside of an agreement with the Palestinians in a manner that endangers Israel's security. I realize that this is a complex and nuanced position, and that you are apparently allergic to complexity and nuance, but hopefully you can read real slow, maybe out loud, and figure this out.
But the problem, as you see it, is that the Israelis 'can't trust the Palestinians not to use the West Bank and Gaza as bases to continue attacking them'. Therefore the saga continues.
Maybe it's now time for you to remind me that I'm an angry, self-righteous, link-happy blowhard, allergic to complexity and nuance, who doesn't know the most basic facts about this region and this conflict, and that what I have to contribute to a conversation on this topic is one-sided if not largely irrelevant?
I would like to see the occupation end, and most of the settlements taken down, or abandoned, or turned over to the Palestinians as part of a final peace agreement. There is really no contradiction in that. If you think that there is than I think we're functioning according to different rules of basic logic. I would like to see Israel withdraw to "secure and recognized" borders, as per 242, that will be close to, but not exactly the same as, the '67 line, and I would like Israel to compensate the Palestinians for the land kept in this fashion with land elsewhere that is currently part of Israel. There isn't a contradiction here. I do not support Israel acting outside of an agreement with the Palestinians in a manner that endangers Israel's security. I realize that this is a complex and nuanced position, and that you are apparently allergic to complexity and nuance, but hopefully you can read real slow, maybe out loud, and figure this out.
But the problem, as you see it, is that the Israelis 'can't trust the Palestinians not to use the West Bank and Gaza as bases to continue attacking them'. Therefore the saga continues.
Maybe it's now time for you to remind me that I'm an angry, self-righteous, link-happy blowhard, allergic to complexity and nuance, who doesn't know the most basic facts about this region and this conflict, and that what I have to contribute to a conversation on this topic is one-sided if not largely irrelevant.
Touche! You unwittingly hit the nail on the head. If everything were as simple as you make it out to be this conflict would have ended a long time ago. Unfortunately in the real world things are complex. Nations don't have the leaders they need. Peoples are unable to trust each other enough to take the steps necessary for peace. Extremists high-jack conflicts and make it ever harder to get to a resolution. All of this is true of both sides here. You simply don't want to admit it to yourself, or perhaps you're too allergic to nuance and complexity to even risk exposing yourself to any thinker you don't already agree with.
you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane
I believe that the Jewish people should have a sovereign state in their historic homeland. Period. That's it. That is what it means to me to be a zionist. I don't get what is so bad about that. If you have a problem with ethnic nationalisms than your issue isn't really with Israel per se, but with the idea of the nation-state in general. And I am actually insulted by your comment. I have no idea about this burning business, but I'm fairly certain I never did anything to hurt you so I have no idea why all of a sudden you're equating me with a serial killer.
Ethnic Nationalism is what the Nazis sought to establish. There's no place for it in this day and age, and the Jews of all people should really know better.
Touche! You unwittingly hit the nail on the head. If everything were as simple as you make it out to be this conflict would have ended a long time ago. Unfortunately in the real world things are complex. Nations don't have the leaders they need. Peoples are unable to trust each other enough to take the steps necessary for peace. Extremists high-jack conflicts and make it ever harder to get to a resolution. All of this is true of both sides here. You simply don't want to admit it to yourself, or perhaps you're too allergic to nuance and complexity to even risk exposing yourself to any thinker you don't already agree with.
All I'll say is, it would certainly be interesting if this year the U.S supported 242 instead of blowing it out of the water again. Where would Israel be then? It would have no choice but to try the peace option, in line with the whole world, including those evil Hamas terrorists:
Dr. Ahmed Yousef, senior advisor to Prime Minister Ismail Haniya, the leader of the Hamas government in Gaza.
Hamas' views on the future
RA: Hamas has long called for a long-term truce with Israel, an offer that Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas and Israel have rejected already. Is there a possibility that Hamas would consider other options?
AY: We still stick to our political vision which is based on the truce or long-term ceasefire of five, ten or twenty years if Israel accepts to withdraw to the pre-1967 border. This remains our vision of the basis for a peaceful settlement of the conflict.
RA: Abbas argues that a long-term truce will give Israel a chance to reoccupy the Palestinian territories. How do you view this?
AY: I don't think that Abbas understands fully what we mean by a truce. The truce means that the Israelis will withdraw in a specified period, maybe six months, from all the occupied Palestinian territories, and they can get a guarantee for security for these ten or twenty years. We think this might set the stage for confidence building. After twenty years maybe the new generation of Palestinians will have different views for how to settle the conflict.
When you do not have bloodshed maybe that would be a good time to talk about peace, but now while the cycle of death continues and we have daily funerals; I do not think this is a good time to talk about a full peaceful settlement. So we need to have time to heal from the injuries and from the bad memories of bloodshed between Muslims and Jews, between Palestinians and Jews. And after that this new generation will have its own political vision about how to settle the conflict maybe through a binational state or a one-state solution. I am sure they are going to come up with different proposals. But today this is what we can offer. A hudna -- twenty years of peace with the Palestinians having their own independent and free state on the pre-1967 borders.
RA: There is a lot of talk about the death of the two-state solution and increased activism calling for a one-state solution as in South Africa. How does Hamas relate to these discussions and what are the current trends in thinking about a long-term solution?
AY: It sounds good to talk about a one-state solution but this will be considered when the two-state solution fails. However, so far we are sticking to our position about a long-term truce. South Africa is a good model for coexistence, reconciliation and atonement. Until now we are still not addressing this issue. But in the future if the world's expectation of a viable independent Palestinian state fails because of expansionist Israeli policies -- already Israel has confiscated and annexed 50 percent of the land in the West Bank -- people will come to this issue and we will address it.
RA: Who does Hamas look to as a political model from other struggles in history?
AY: Of course there is Nelson Mandela, and we do look to non-Muslim and non-Arab countries as models. For example, Michael Collins in Ireland [Editor: Collins was one of the key leaders in Ireland's independence struggle]. I do believe that Hamas also looks at Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan of Turkey as a good model as well. We are not Taliban, we are Erdogan.
I believe that the Jewish people should have a sovereign state in their historic homeland. Period. That's it. That is what it means to me to be a zionist. I don't get what is so bad about that. If you have a problem with ethnic nationalisms than your issue isn't really with Israel per se, but with the idea of the nation-state in general. And I am actually insulted by your comment. I have no idea about this burning business, but I'm fairly certain I never did anything to hurt you so I have no idea why all of a sudden you're equating me with a serial killer.
Ethnic Nationalism is what the Nazis sought to establish. There's no place for it in this day and age, and the Jews of all people should really know better.
No, the Nazis sought to create an empire, which is by definition not a nation, and ethnicity played a very different role for them then it did for all other ethnic nations in the world, which include pretty much all of them, except perhaps for the U.S.
It's really amazing that you presume to lecture about what the Jews should or should not know. What we learned from thousands of years of getting the shit kicked out of us, culminating in the Holocaust, which no one in the world did anything to stop, is that you have to look out for yourself. It's all well and good to say that this is an antiquated way of thinking, but you know what, I don't really care. It's easy to think the way you do. You're in the majority. You aren't a target. You've got nothing to worry about. I have something to worry about. And you can say that the world is different now. But you know what, Jews in Germany thought the world was different then too, and then they got rounded up and shipped off to be gased. So I'm very sorry if we didn't take the same lesson away from WWII, but hey, the world looks real different when you're the one in the gas chambers.
you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane
Not sure about what anyone else thinks, but I think these are excellent points that deserve to be addressed. _outlaw's response: "wow".
Apologies in advance if you were going to say something deeper than that and got interrupted, outlaw.
you know what i think?
you know damn well _outlaw will be back to post. you read his posts all the time. you have been for years. you know he always comes back to clarify.
so you can carry on minding your own business now.
OK, and on an unrelated note, what is your problem, exactly? This is about the third time I've been on the receiving end of your caustic crap, and frankly, its starting to creep me out. I don't know what "minding my own business" has to do with it. And I know its not a general issue with tone on this board, because outlaw gets snippy with me all the time and you don't jump in then.
Touche! You unwittingly hit the nail on the head. If everything were as simple as you make it out to be this conflict would have ended a long time ago. Unfortunately in the real world things are complex. Nations don't have the leaders they need. Peoples are unable to trust each other enough to take the steps necessary for peace. Extremists high-jack conflicts and make it ever harder to get to a resolution. All of this is true of both sides here. You simply don't want to admit it to yourself, or perhaps you're too allergic to nuance and complexity to even risk exposing yourself to any thinker you don't already agree with.
All I'll say is, it would certainly be interesting if this year the U.S supported 242 instead of blowing it out of the water again. Where would Israel be then? It would have no choice but to try the peace option, in line with the whole world, including those evil Hamas terrorists:
Dr. Ahmed Yousef, senior advisor to Prime Minister Ismail Haniya, the leader of the Hamas government in Gaza.
Hamas' views on the future
RA: Hamas has long called for a long-term truce with Israel, an offer that Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas and Israel have rejected already. Is there a possibility that Hamas would consider other options?
AY: We still stick to our political vision which is based on the truce or long-term ceasefire of five, ten or twenty years if Israel accepts to withdraw to the pre-1967 border. This remains our vision of the basis for a peaceful settlement of the conflict.
RA: Abbas argues that a long-term truce will give Israel a chance to reoccupy the Palestinian territories. How do you view this?
AY: I don't think that Abbas understands fully what we mean by a truce. The truce means that the Israelis will withdraw in a specified period, maybe six months, from all the occupied Palestinian territories, and they can get a guarantee for security for these ten or twenty years. We think this might set the stage for confidence building. After twenty years maybe the new generation of Palestinians will have different views for how to settle the conflict.
When you do not have bloodshed maybe that would be a good time to talk about peace, but now while the cycle of death continues and we have daily funerals; I do not think this is a good time to talk about a full peaceful settlement. So we need to have time to heal from the injuries and from the bad memories of bloodshed between Muslims and Jews, between Palestinians and Jews. And after that this new generation will have its own political vision about how to settle the conflict maybe through a binational state or a one-state solution. I am sure they are going to come up with different proposals. But today this is what we can offer. A hudna -- twenty years of peace with the Palestinians having their own independent and free state on the pre-1967 borders.
RA: There is a lot of talk about the death of the two-state solution and increased activism calling for a one-state solution as in South Africa. How does Hamas relate to these discussions and what are the current trends in thinking about a long-term solution?
AY: It sounds good to talk about a one-state solution but this will be considered when the two-state solution fails. However, so far we are sticking to our position about a long-term truce. South Africa is a good model for coexistence, reconciliation and atonement. Until now we are still not addressing this issue. But in the future if the world's expectation of a viable independent Palestinian state fails because of expansionist Israeli policies -- already Israel has confiscated and annexed 50 percent of the land in the West Bank -- people will come to this issue and we will address it.
RA: Who does Hamas look to as a political model from other struggles in history?
AY: Of course there is Nelson Mandela, and we do look to non-Muslim and non-Arab countries as models. For example, Michael Collins in Ireland [Editor: Collins was one of the key leaders in Ireland's independence struggle]. I do believe that Hamas also looks at Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan of Turkey as a good model as well. We are not Taliban, we are Erdogan.
Yes, and Hamas has done so much to make Israel trust them. The least they could do is to scrap their charter, which is a piece of anti-semitic genocidal garbage. It's easy to speak soothingly for an international audience. Doesn't mean you're sincere.
you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane
Yes, and Hamas has done so much to make Israel trust them. The least they could do is to scrap their charter, which is a piece of anti-semitic genocidal garbage. It's easy to speak soothingly for an international audience. Doesn't mean you're sincere.
Nobody asked the Russians to tear up the Communist Manifesto at the end of the Cold War. As for genocidal garbage, I could pull out some choice quotes from members of the Zionist leadership down the years if you're interested in that kind of thing?
Not sure about what anyone else thinks, but I think these are excellent points that deserve to be addressed. _outlaw's response: "wow".
Apologies in advance if you were going to say something deeper than that and got interrupted, outlaw.
you know what i think?
you know damn well _outlaw will be back to post. you read his posts all the time. you have been for years. you know he always comes back to clarify.
so you can carry on minding your own business now.
OK, and on an unrelated note, what is your problem, exactly? This is about the third time I've been on the receiving end of your caustic crap, and frankly, its starting to creep me out. I don't know what "minding my own business" has to do with it. And I know its not a general issue with tone on this board, because outlaw gets snippy with me all the time and you don't jump in then.
you have never been on the end of my ''caustic crap'', until you provoked me. you crossed the line. big time. i'm referring to the rachel corrie thread where i did everything i could, to try and keep that a positive thread so that we could honor her life. this thread had already gone to the shitter with your rachel corrie comments but that wasn't enough for you. you had to try and start shit there.
don't you ever insinuate again that i would perhaps become a suicide bomber and blow up kids. that is the most revolting, disgusting, thing i have EVER had directed at me. totally out of line.
I'm not Rachel, but because she's not here, I'll ask instead ... You would what? Use violent resistance? If so, what form? Become a suicide bomber and blow up someone else's kids?
It's really amazing that you presume to lecture about what the Jews should or should not know. What we learned from thousands of years of getting the shit kicked out of us, culminating in the Holocaust, which no one in the world did anything to stop, is that you have to look out for yourself. It's all well and good to say that this is an antiquated way of thinking, but you know what, I don't really care. It's easy to think the way you do. You're in the majority. You aren't a target. You've got nothing to worry about. I have something to worry about. And you can say that the world is different now. But you know what, Jews in Germany thought the world was different then too, and then they got rounded up and shipped off to be gased. So I'm very sorry if we didn't take the same lesson away from WWII, but hey, the world looks real different when you're the one in the gas chambers.
Who are you trying to kid? Israel has the second largest fleet of F16's in the world. You also have a massive, though secret, nuclear arsenal. You are fighting a poor, largely unarmed civilian population that possess, at most, some crappy homemade rockets.
As someone that has lived through this conflict myself, I think that I'm qualified to tell you that just because Chomsky writes something doesn't make it true.
not a fan of Chomsky?, personally i'm grateful for people like Chomsky, but each to his own.
what about Anna Baltzer? are you a fan of hers? i'm sure you are aware of who she is. for anyone else not familiar with her, she is a Jewish-American activist for Palestinian human rights who has experienced the desperate situation of the Palestinians first hand.
Like many Americans and many Jews, I grew up with a positive view of Israel as a peace-seeking democracy. Israel symbolized to me the one protection that Jews had against the type of persecution that had plagued families like mine throughout history. I saw the Jewish state as a tiny and victimized country that simply wanted to live in peace but couldn’t because of its aggressive, Jew-hating Arab neighbors.
In 2003, during a backpacking trip through the Middle East, I began to meet Palestinian refugees from 1948. I didn’t know who the Palestinians were, or where Palestine was, and through my new acquaintances I began to hear a narrative about the history and present of Israel/Palestine that was entirely different from the one I had learned growing up in the United States.
My first reaction was disbelief, and anger. Families told me stories of past and present military attacks, house demolitions, land confiscation, imprisonment without trial, and torture. It seemed that these actions were not carried out for the protection of Jewish people, but rather for the creation and expansion of a Jewish state at the expense of the rights, lives, and dignity of the non-Jewish people living in the region. It was hard for me to believe that Israel could act so unjustly.
Not believing what I heard, I decided to do some research to prove myself right. Immediately, I was shocked to find how much I didn’t know about the situation on the ground. Not knowing who or what to believe anymore, I decided to go to see the situation with my own eyes. Since I returned, I’ve dedicated my life to informing fellow Americans and others about what I found, and what they can do to support a just peace for all peoples in Israel/Palestine.
I believe that the Jewish people should have a sovereign state in their historic homeland. Period. That's it. That is what it means to me to be a zionist. I don't get what is so bad about that. If you have a problem with ethnic nationalisms than your issue isn't really with Israel per se, but with the idea of the nation-state in general. And I am actually insulted by your comment. I have no idea about this burning business, but I'm fairly certain I never did anything to hurt you so I have no idea why all of a sudden you're equating me with a serial killer.
Ethnic Nationalism is what the Nazis sought to establish. There's no place for it in this day and age, and the Jews of all people should really know better.
No, the Nazis sought to create an empire, which is by definition not a nation, and ethnicity played a very different role for them then it did for all other ethnic nations in the world, which include pretty much all of them, except perhaps for the U.S.
It's really amazing that you presume to lecture about what the Jews should or should not know. What we learned from thousands of years of getting the shit kicked out of us, culminating in the Holocaust, which no one in the world did anything to stop, is that you have to look out for yourself. It's all well and good to say that this is an antiquated way of thinking, but you know what, I don't really care. It's easy to think the way you do. You're in the majority. You aren't a target. You've got nothing to worry about. I have something to worry about. And you can say that the world is different now. But you know what, Jews in Germany thought the world was different then too, and then they got rounded up and shipped off to be gased. So I'm very sorry if we didn't take the same lesson away from WWII, but hey, the world looks real different when you're the one in the gas chambers.
yosi,
when does the mandate of victimhood expire? at what point does the Nazi genocide of Europe's Jews cease to excuse the state of Israel from the demands of international law and of common humanity?
'No person fearful of being a victim can be rewarded with special rights or special powers. If we -- Americans, Israelis, everyone -- want to deserve our freedom, we must agree to live in a moral world where people are responsible for themselves. And just as we cannot be punished for the things that our parents did, so the crimes we commit can never be justified by the things our parents suffered.'
Comments
Every year a vote is cast at the U.N on 242 and every year the outcome is the same. Roughly 156 - 6, with Israel and the U.S opposing world opinion. This vote asks for 242 to be implemented with a full Israeli withdrawal to the June 1967 borders.
You can try muddying the water all you like, but no one is buying it.
Because only someone who has lived in Israel can possibly know the truth about this overly complex issue, right?
Don't hold your breath.
Ok, I'm not sure what you're talking about, but I guess I'll go look it up. If Syria is ever serious about making peace then maybe the golan will be returned. Who knows. It could happen.
So you're saying that when you said that I support the occupation, even though I had already written, and I quote "I do not support the occupation," you weren't misrepresenting me? Interesting.
Once again you try and turn reality on it's head.
I don't see any reason why Jews and Arabs can't live side-by-side in peace as they did for a thousand years before the Zionists began their ethnic cleansing campaign in 1948.
As to what the Palestinian leadership thinks of Jews living legally within the West Bank:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... inion_main
'Salam Fayyad, acting prime minister of the Palestinian Authority: "I'm not someone who will say that they would or should be treated differently than Israeli Arabs are treated in Israel. In fact, the kind of state that we want to have, that we aspire to have, is one that would definitely espouse high values of tolerance, coexistence, mutual respect and deference to all cultures, religions. No discrimination whatsoever, on any basis whatsoever. Jews, to the extent they choose to stay and live in the state of Palestine, will enjoy those rights and certainly will not enjoy any less rights than Israeli Arabs enjoy now in the state of Israel."
No, certainly you could know the truth about this issue. You just don't seem to. And again, what does the Golan have to do with anything we were discussing. You still haven't cleared that up.
I can only hope that this is the case. In fact I'm a big fan of Salam Fayyad. He's one of the few Palestinian leaders to come along in a while who really seems to not be corrupt, and to want to build functioning institutions that will benefit his people. I hope he succeeds. Not sure how I've turned reality on its head. From where I'm sitting everything still seems to be right-side-up. Maybe it's different in China.
I explained above why I dismissed your claim. I simply took everything you said in context. You've spent the last two pages arguing why you think Israel has no need to dismantle the settlements and withdraw to the '67 border. You then pretend that you don't support the occupation. You can't have it both ways.
You can continue contradicting yourself all you like. Just don't expect me to swallow it.
You were trying to defend Israel's settlements by claiming they were strategic outposts whose aim was to protect Israeli citizens inside Israel. I brought up the Golan as a way of showing that there's another reason why you seek control of these areas.
Don't even get me started on corruption and the Israeli government.
idk if I spelt bereqa right or not but it's the land Israel gave for the golan. And yes ur itf soldiers burn the hills seperating the two countries. There's a un outpost there and I think Poland is the country running it now. I didn't have to look that up, my cousin told me he helped put out the fires and he's only 16. And yosi I love how u talk. U have that charm a serial killer has. You say ur a ziolnist yet u dnt really share there views. U say killing palestinians is wrong, stealing land is wrong, blah blah blah. Smooth talker u are. But aren't all zionists smooth talkers??? Take it as a compliment. It just doesn't work with to many of us on the board.
I explained above why I dismissed your claim. I simply took everything you said in context. You've spent the last two pages arguing why you think Israel has no need to dismantle the settlements and withdraw to the '67 border. You then pretend that you don't support the occupation. You can't have it both ways.
You can continue contradicting yourself all you like. Just don't expect me to swallow it.[/quote]
This is really very tiresome and juvenile. I don't support the occupation or the settlements. I would like to see the occupation end, and most of the settlements taken down, or abandoned, or turned over to the Palestinians as part of a final peace agreement. There is really no contradiction in that. If you think that there is than I think we're functioning according to different rules of basic logic. I would like to see Israel withdraw to "secure and recognized" borders, as per 242, that will be close to, but not exactly the same as, the '67 line, and I would like Israel to compensate the Palestinians for the land kept in this fashion with land elsewhere that is currently part of Israel. There isn't a contradiction here. I do not support Israel acting outside of an agreement with the Palestinians in a manner that endangers Israel's security. I realize that this is a complex and nuanced position, and that you are apparently allergic to complexity and nuance, but hopefully you can read real slow, maybe out loud, and figure this out.
I'm not sure why you just got so hostile. Can't we disagree without being mean? Seriously. You seem to have a certain idea of what a zionist is. I'm not sure what that is, but it seems to be very bad. I am a zionist because I believe that the Jewish people should have a sovereign state in their historic homeland. Period. That's it. That is what it means to me to be a zionist. I don't get what is so bad about that. If you have a problem with ethnic nationalisms than your issue isn't really with Israel per se, but with the idea of the nation-state in general. And I am actually insulted by your comment. I have no idea about this burning business, but I'm fairly certain I never did anything to hurt you so I have no idea why all of a sudden you're equating me with a serial killer.
I would still like an apology. As a basic sign of respect for your debating partner. You did say that I said the exact opposite of what I actually said. Come on it's easy. "I'm sorry that i said you support the occupation when you said you didn't, and that I said you support the settlements when you said you didn't." It's that easy.
No seriously, you're insulted because we have a political disagreement?!
No, you'll just spend 5 pages of a thread defending them.
But the problem, as you see it, is that the Israelis 'can't trust the Palestinians not to use the West Bank and Gaza as bases to continue attacking them'. Therefore the saga continues.
Maybe it's now time for you to remind me that I'm an angry, self-righteous, link-happy blowhard, allergic to complexity and nuance, who doesn't know the most basic facts about this region and this conflict, and that what I have to contribute to a conversation on this topic is one-sided if not largely irrelevant?
Touche!
Ethnic Nationalism is what the Nazis sought to establish. There's no place for it in this day and age, and the Jews of all people should really know better.
All I'll say is, it would certainly be interesting if this year the U.S supported 242 instead of blowing it out of the water again. Where would Israel be then? It would have no choice but to try the peace option, in line with the whole world, including those evil Hamas terrorists:
http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article9917.shtml
Dr. Ahmed Yousef, senior advisor to Prime Minister Ismail Haniya, the leader of the Hamas government in Gaza.
Hamas' views on the future
RA: Hamas has long called for a long-term truce with Israel, an offer that Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas and Israel have rejected already. Is there a possibility that Hamas would consider other options?
AY: We still stick to our political vision which is based on the truce or long-term ceasefire of five, ten or twenty years if Israel accepts to withdraw to the pre-1967 border. This remains our vision of the basis for a peaceful settlement of the conflict.
RA: Abbas argues that a long-term truce will give Israel a chance to reoccupy the Palestinian territories. How do you view this?
AY: I don't think that Abbas understands fully what we mean by a truce. The truce means that the Israelis will withdraw in a specified period, maybe six months, from all the occupied Palestinian territories, and they can get a guarantee for security for these ten or twenty years. We think this might set the stage for confidence building. After twenty years maybe the new generation of Palestinians will have different views for how to settle the conflict.
When you do not have bloodshed maybe that would be a good time to talk about peace, but now while the cycle of death continues and we have daily funerals; I do not think this is a good time to talk about a full peaceful settlement. So we need to have time to heal from the injuries and from the bad memories of bloodshed between Muslims and Jews, between Palestinians and Jews. And after that this new generation will have its own political vision about how to settle the conflict maybe through a binational state or a one-state solution. I am sure they are going to come up with different proposals. But today this is what we can offer. A hudna -- twenty years of peace with the Palestinians having their own independent and free state on the pre-1967 borders.
RA: There is a lot of talk about the death of the two-state solution and increased activism calling for a one-state solution as in South Africa. How does Hamas relate to these discussions and what are the current trends in thinking about a long-term solution?
AY: It sounds good to talk about a one-state solution but this will be considered when the two-state solution fails. However, so far we are sticking to our position about a long-term truce. South Africa is a good model for coexistence, reconciliation and atonement. Until now we are still not addressing this issue. But in the future if the world's expectation of a viable independent Palestinian state fails because of expansionist Israeli policies -- already Israel has confiscated and annexed 50 percent of the land in the West Bank -- people will come to this issue and we will address it.
RA: Who does Hamas look to as a political model from other struggles in history?
AY: Of course there is Nelson Mandela, and we do look to non-Muslim and non-Arab countries as models. For example, Michael Collins in Ireland [Editor: Collins was one of the key leaders in Ireland's independence struggle]. I do believe that Hamas also looks at Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan of Turkey as a good model as well. We are not Taliban, we are Erdogan.
No, the Nazis sought to create an empire, which is by definition not a nation, and ethnicity played a very different role for them then it did for all other ethnic nations in the world, which include pretty much all of them, except perhaps for the U.S.
It's really amazing that you presume to lecture about what the Jews should or should not know. What we learned from thousands of years of getting the shit kicked out of us, culminating in the Holocaust, which no one in the world did anything to stop, is that you have to look out for yourself. It's all well and good to say that this is an antiquated way of thinking, but you know what, I don't really care. It's easy to think the way you do. You're in the majority. You aren't a target. You've got nothing to worry about. I have something to worry about. And you can say that the world is different now. But you know what, Jews in Germany thought the world was different then too, and then they got rounded up and shipped off to be gased. So I'm very sorry if we didn't take the same lesson away from WWII, but hey, the world looks real different when you're the one in the gas chambers.
OK, and on an unrelated note, what is your problem, exactly? This is about the third time I've been on the receiving end of your caustic crap, and frankly, its starting to creep me out. I don't know what "minding my own business" has to do with it. And I know its not a general issue with tone on this board, because outlaw gets snippy with me all the time and you don't jump in then.
Yes, and Hamas has done so much to make Israel trust them. The least they could do is to scrap their charter, which is a piece of anti-semitic genocidal garbage. It's easy to speak soothingly for an international audience. Doesn't mean you're sincere.
Nobody asked the Russians to tear up the Communist Manifesto at the end of the Cold War. As for genocidal garbage, I could pull out some choice quotes from members of the Zionist leadership down the years if you're interested in that kind of thing?
don't you ever insinuate again that i would perhaps become a suicide bomber and blow up kids. that is the most revolting, disgusting, thing i have EVER had directed at me. totally out of line.
Who are you trying to kid? Israel has the second largest fleet of F16's in the world. You also have a massive, though secret, nuclear arsenal. You are fighting a poor, largely unarmed civilian population that possess, at most, some crappy homemade rockets.
what about Anna Baltzer? are you a fan of hers? i'm sure you are aware of who she is. for anyone else not familiar with her, she is a Jewish-American activist for Palestinian human rights who has experienced the desperate situation of the Palestinians first hand.
Like many Americans and many Jews, I grew up with a positive view of Israel as a peace-seeking democracy. Israel symbolized to me the one protection that Jews had against the type of persecution that had plagued families like mine throughout history. I saw the Jewish state as a tiny and victimized country that simply wanted to live in peace but couldn’t because of its aggressive, Jew-hating Arab neighbors.
In 2003, during a backpacking trip through the Middle East, I began to meet Palestinian refugees from 1948. I didn’t know who the Palestinians were, or where Palestine was, and through my new acquaintances I began to hear a narrative about the history and present of Israel/Palestine that was entirely different from the one I had learned growing up in the United States.
My first reaction was disbelief, and anger. Families told me stories of past and present military attacks, house demolitions, land confiscation, imprisonment without trial, and torture. It seemed that these actions were not carried out for the protection of Jewish people, but rather for the creation and expansion of a Jewish state at the expense of the rights, lives, and dignity of the non-Jewish people living in the region. It was hard for me to believe that Israel could act so unjustly.
Not believing what I heard, I decided to do some research to prove myself right. Immediately, I was shocked to find how much I didn’t know about the situation on the ground. Not knowing who or what to believe anymore, I decided to go to see the situation with my own eyes. Since I returned, I’ve dedicated my life to informing fellow Americans and others about what I found, and what they can do to support a just peace for all peoples in Israel/Palestine.
http://www.annainthemiddleeast.com/
when does the mandate of victimhood expire? at what point does the Nazi genocide of Europe's Jews cease to excuse the state of Israel from the demands of international law and of common humanity?
'No person fearful of being a victim can be rewarded with special rights or special powers. If we -- Americans, Israelis, everyone -- want to deserve our freedom, we must agree to live in a moral world where people are responsible for themselves. And just as we cannot be punished for the things that our parents did, so the crimes we commit can never be justified by the things our parents suffered.'