Pro-Israeli or Pro-Palestinian?

Post Reply New Topic

Yeah.

I'll just leave this here.

http://www.peterloud.co.uk/palestine

The pro-israeli people here might be interested to know that in 1982, Up to 3500 Palestinian men, women and children were slaughtered by Lebanese Phalangists because Israeli soldiers under the command of Ariel Sharon parked their humm vees deliberately to block the exits to a Palestinian camp.

To put that into perspective, thats more murders in one day than the total amount of murders in the entire Northern Ireland conflict.

Here is some bedtime reading for you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabra_and_Shatila_massacre

http://mondoweiss.net/2008/12/times-whi ... acres.html

Not to sound like too much of a sceptic, but weren't Humvees introduced in 1984? Those time-traveling soldiers frighten me.
The world is made of 'should-haves'. However, the best thing you can do at any time is make the best of the current situation.



Israel's links to that massacre are the following. It is rumoured that Israeli soldiers helped the Lebanese militia who murdered these people by providing them with certain goods and services.



The world is made of should-haves. However, if they had no idea, that's not their fault.

That is a numbers fallacy. If you are attacked by suicide bombers and rockets, you react in self defense. The exact numbers of how people are killed on each side are irrelevant. Perhaps there would not be so many Palestinian deaths if Hamas did not attack the Israeli's and use civilians as human shields.

Certainly would help.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

I agree.

You're countering a 'fallacy' with another fallacy. The state of Israel as we know it, should not be there. Prior to the British mandate of 1946, historically zionism had anti semitic undertones because it capitulated to the desire within anti semitic circles within Europe to have the jews removed from Europe. In the present day, there is no political or cultural precedence for Israel. It is surrounded by hostile states and an indigenous disposessed population who both feel affronted by its presence.

Moreover, even according to Jewish doctrine there is theological arguments against the current Israel. Significant numbers of Orthodox Jews believe that, even overlooking the fact that a jewish state undermines their diasporic culture, Israel must establish through amicable, peaceful means that the current one has failed to.

http://www.jewsagainstzionism.com/

http://www.nkusa.org/







[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9oeB3QhX2RI[/youtube]

Excuse me, how does anything you have said counter the post that you have quoted or render anything which I have said in that post a "fallacy"? I am not interested in whether or not Israel should be there or not and nor has my post even mentioned that. However the fact is that Israel is there whether it "should" be or not and yes, my point still stands that Israel has right to defend itself and that Hamas is the one in the wrong to use civilians as human shields.

Also, I suspect you are wrong about Zionism having antisemitic origins as the modern organized Zionist movement was started by Theodor Hertzl in 1897, though it's origins came, because of persecution of Jews in Europe. However, as I said this has got nothing to do the post I made above.

I'm no nationalist, but if those are my only options I have to go pro-Palestinian. The Jewish people have every right to live wherever the f**k they want, problem is, so does the Palestinian Arabs. I don't believe in borders.

I'm Jewish, and while I'm not quite a zionist, I'm not pro-palestinian.

I think that the British should have thought it through, but right now Israelis AND Palestinians live there and we have to figure it out.

Considering the riots and attacks on Jewish settlers in the area before even WWI, I think that no one was paying attention. They just threw all of the Jews into hostile territory and expected them to get along with everyone. f**k no, everyone wanted revenge for thousand-year-old squabbles on each side.

So the UN is at fault. Was at fault. I don't even know.

The standards of living in the Palestinian areas are very low and aid should be provided just as it is to Israel, at least in the form of medicine. The checkpoints should either be removed or enforced on Israelis AND Palestinians alike.

It significantly weakens the ability to wield the lack of support they're being given as a weapon for the Palestinian terror rings.

To elaborate on what I said on the first page, I think that if both groups want to continue fighting, more power to them. The real tragedy is that many people are not able to flee the region.

You can argue for years about who is in the right or who is in the wrong based on history, but there's no point. The real question is: should there be a conflict? No. Could Israel end the conflict by evicting the Palestinians? Yes but it's totally impractical. Also, some would consider it unfair, though I would argue that there are few worse places to live anyway, so they would probably not be worse off. They would not agree to it-why not? Because they think that they deserve it for some reason. I suppose that the Israelis could also pick up and leave, they've certainly got the money and tech to do so (trucks, boats, etc.) but they also won't do it. Because they think that they deserve it.

You might argue that because both of those options involve Israel, that Israel is responsible for the prolonged conflict, and I used to think that way. There's a right to fight occupation, sure, but how long should that last before a nation no longer has the right to fight an occupier? Do Native Americans have a right to fight the USA because we occupy the land that they used to own generations ago? There has to be a point at which a conquest becomes just simply because most people don't actually remember the previous situation. Efforts to save the Palestinians should focus on getting them out of Palestine.

None.

I'm not pro any country. Countries [and groups] are social cesspools.

I don't know as Zionism has antisemitic origins, but it did agree with early Nazi doctrine on the initial "solution" to the Jewish question, which was to encourage emigration, and in fact there was cooperation. Nazi Germany was the first state to set up an arrangement with Zionist groups to help Jews move to Palestine, under the Haavara Agreement, preceding any similar assistance by any other state, by well over a decade. Practically every other government was obstructionist, and remained so for a long time to come.

Cooperation was not at all restricted to mere immigration matters. In 1940, the Stern Gang approached the Nazis with an official document entitled “Fundamental Features of the Proposal of the National Military Organization in Palestine (Irgun Zvai Leumi) Concerning the Solution of the Jewish Question in Europe and the Participation of the NMO in the War on the Side of Germany.”

A selection from this document:




That being said, Zionism was not such a monolithic movement that there was any unity of will on this matter. In the same year, another terror group (Irgun) had formed an alliance with the British and was carrying out attacks on pro-Nazi (or more accurately, anti-British) elements in Iraq, with the hope of securing favour from the British. Yet another group was operating in support of the USSR.

But neither Britain nor the USSR ever attempted to assist with aliyah as the Nazis did, until years and years after the war. The British, in fact, set up a blockade around the Mandate of Palestine to prevent it.

Countries serve a valuable purpose. They keep more precise groups from imposing their fringe ideals on everyone. They keep a practical balance between theoretical extremes. If countries as they are now were abolished, you'd see a lot of trouble in every part of your life. Anti-nuclear activists and pro-nuclear activists would wage war over your power supply, and there'd be similar riots over factory farms and fishing. Fundamentalists of every religion would be fighting over who gets to convert or kill you, and social groups of looters would come for your neighbourhood if you didn't install a council to help you defend and prosper the way the first countries were formed.

Many of them empower the theoretical extremes to do those things.

And we must be clear: countries are not the only form in which authority might be exercised towards the same ends, and there is no indication they are particularly reliable in the role you've mentioned.

I do not really see any way to transiton to any alternative (which might range from local governments under loose federations all the way to a global democracy), so for now we do seem to be stuck with the national state. But I don't think that will last long. Economic blocs do seem to be somewhat premature at this point in time, but economic pressures do look to be headed towards the formation of supranational entities across the globe, eventually. And political reality typically follows the economic reality.

I am not sure I am any more pleased about this development than you are. You would get to amalgamate with the likes of Germany, Sweden, the UK, etc. We're stuck with the Americans and the Mexicans!

Granted the EU was executed poorly, pushed too fast too far, and is probably premature even on an economic level, but nonetheless, the global trend is toward the formation of these blocs, whether it be NAFTA, SAARC, UNASUR, etc. It will be a slow process but I think it is likely inevitable.

I am pro reason and pro civilization. Which is why I tend to favor the Israelis over the Palestinians. Not that I approve of every decision and policy of the Israeli government, mind you.

The Palestinians, particular the people of Hamas are bat sh*t crazy.

ruveyn