Who side are you on? ARABS or ISRAEL page 17

422 posts

Flag Post

Well why do the USA butt into the worlds affairs. Thats the reason for 911. I Agree with land conquest because you may be killing but you also just healed your nation by giving them more room and food. But the usa cant admit they but in they just act like they are world is theirs and they have no boundries

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by bythemark:

regarding the expansion of Israel…it tends to happen when Middle Eastern countries attack it. I’m not a fan of either side. Israel is very non-progressive on foreign policy, but it’s not like the surrounding countries are giving them a reason to either. And when some big event happens, it shows how both sides have some sort of wrongdoing. Like the aid ships from Turkey—everyone got pissed until they found out they broke a naval blockade and then the aid ship people started the violence. But why does Israel not have some sort of “search and approve” on aid ships?

1. Israel expansion does not happen only when Middle Eastern countries attack it.
Wars Israel started:
Suez War 1956
6-Day War 1967
First Lebanon War 1982
2nd Lebanon War 2006
Wars started against Israel were:
Arabian-Israel War 1948 and Jom Kippur War 1973.

Undoubtedly there were some provocations done before those Wars Israel started by opposing countries or terrorist Organizations based in those countries, but the fact remains that Israel started these wars as an Aggressor. And provocations are an Daily routine on both sides(Israel has no respect for the borders of its Neighbors, regularly violating them in search of Terrorists or just routine Air-patrols.

To the ships from Turkey. They did not break an Naval Blockade, at least not an legal one(they were in International Waters at the time and for Blockades to be Legal in International Waters there must be a War going on, which was not the case). Seeing on how the Ships were boarded i fail to see how one can claim that the ship people started the violence. It was Daybreak Military Raid without prior warning, with shots already being Fired before the first Soldier set foot on the ships(these shots being verified as teargas grenades, that were fired to secure the landing area).

Israel does not have search and approve on aid Ships, because it would lose much of its control over the Supply that flows into and out of Gaza. The blockade is not about Weapons, but over control. As Ungeziefer said Aidships are free to visit Israeli Ports, but the supplies most be unloaded there and brought to Gaza overland after they are checked and when and if it pleases the Israeli bureaucrats. There is no list of Banned goods but instead a short list of classes of goods that are allowed and the amount is limited, and if a good is considered as part of the allowed classes greatly depends on how good a day the various Inspectors/Bureaucrats in Charge have had so far.

 
Flag Post

Don’t forget to add, Israel is building in the West Bank again.

 
Flag Post

They’ll keep building in the West Bank until there’s no more West Bank to be had. This is the problem with the level of hatred that’s built up. It has inspired bullish reactions in one, and quite probably both, sides.

 
Flag Post

Palestine.

 
Flag Post

Meh,they’re both fighting each other for very stupid reasons,instead of just being in peace.I guess humans want to fight each other.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by jepekula:

Meh,they’re both fighting each other for very stupid reasons,instead of just being in peace.I guess humans want to fight each other.

?The Palestinians had their land taken away and now they’re being constantly relocated. I don’t think fighting for the right to not have to be constantly evicted and pushed further into the desert is “stupid”.

 
Flag Post

No one has more right to do anything.

The Jews needed a home, so we gave them one.

The Arabs didn’t want them to take that home, but we did it anyway.

Its the people that did its fault. They should have put them somewhere else. shrug But they didn’t. So now, its two sides fighting for good reasons. Mostly.

 
Flag Post

I was going to read the whole thread, but once that 18 pages of gigaposts are very tiresome, I just read the first 8 and this one. So, here is my opinion:
If I HAD to support a group, it would have to be Palestine, once that they were just fine before the Israel attack.
But, honestly, I support neither. I am anti-war in general, once that I really dont think that so many innocent lives should be sacrificed just to define which countrykeepstheland. Make a deal, goddamit.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by BJMooner:

No one has more right to do anything.

The Jews needed a home, so we gave them one.

The Arabs didn’t want them to take that home, but we did it anyway.

Its the people that did its fault. They should have put them somewhere else. shrug But they didn’t. So now, its two sides fighting for good reasons. Mostly.

1. Just because they need a home doesn’t mean you steal land from people already living there.
2. Why necessarily do they need a home? It seems like most of the world is pretty accepting nowadays.

 
Flag Post

It was for religious reasons. They’re always a problem.

Back then, if you notice, Jews had been kicked out of approximately every country ever.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Flypurplehamster:

It was for religious reasons. They’re always a problem.

Back then, if you notice, Jews had been kicked out of approximately every country ever.

Not really. Zionism is mostly Jewish nationalism with a little Judaism thrown in. It’s there, but it’s not primarily about religion.

They’d been in Palestine for at least 15 years buying up property before the UN settled on the partition, so it’s not as though we just ‘gave them’ that land. What I mean is, there probably would have been a war regardless, only they would’ve been the undisputed aggressors instead of the Arabs. What’s more troubling is that we gave them 2/3 of the land and the Palestinians 1/3, even though the latter occupied much more land than the Israelis at that time. No wonder they didn’t accept partition. Herzl’s original zionism tract is short and worth reading: (abridged version) http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Zionism/herzl2.html

There’s complicated reasons why they wanted their own land; it seems a bit anachronistic if you come from North America or Australia, but we’ve already seen how pissed the French and the British will get if you start introducing too much change to ‘the ethnic character’ of their respective countries (ie. the muslim student riots in france in 2006?, BNP in Britain).

Interesting sidenote: Palestine wasn’t the only choice. The early zionists also considered Uganda, and there was a possibility during war-time of the US offering them Alaska as a refuge. This sounds a little hard to believe, so here’s a link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slattery_Report

 
Flag Post

Why do you think the Jews are separate from everyone else as a nation? For fun? It’s not like they look too radically different. They easily could have melted into some other European sub-ethnicity.

 
Flag Post

The Cannanites were there first, i think the isrialites and the palastinians should leave and give the cannanites what is rightfully theirs.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Benu01:

The Cannanites were there first, i think the isrialites and the palastinians should leave and give the cannanites what is rightfully theirs.

Actually, the Canaanites probably took it from some Stone Age tribe or something. There isn’t really an “original race” for most places.

When’s the last time you saw a Canaanite, anyway? Are you being sarcastic?

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Flypurplehamster:

Why do you think the Jews are separate from everyone else as a nation? For fun? It’s not like they look too radically different. They easily could have melted into some other European sub-ethnicity.

They aren’t separate. As I just said, the Israeli national mindset is similar in character (but not degree) to the ethnic civil disputes in Europe between long established nation-states (France, Britain, Denmark, etc) and non-white immigrants (muslims and/or south east asian immigrants). Make of that what you like, but assimilation is definitely not the answer.

 
Flag Post

They are quite separate, it’s blatantly obvious. The Jews are radically different from Europe, in that they do not believe in Jesus’s holiness, they have far more rules on your everyday life, they circumcise, they have their own languages, customs, and culture, they are often discriminated against, etc. They’re a totally different bunch, culturally, and it’s mainly due to religion.

The Muslims often speak different languages, and obviously have a different ethnicity. Assimilation might be difficult, and no, I am not advocating it in either situation. I’m saying without religious difference, assimilation would have occurred on its own.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Flypurplehamster:

They are quite separate, it’s blatantly obvious. The Jews are radically different from Europe, in that they do not believe in Jesus’s holiness, they have far more rules on your everyday life, they circumcise, they have their own languages, customs, and culture, they are often discriminated against, etc. They’re a totally different bunch, culturally, and it’s mainly due to religion.

The Muslims often speak different languages, and obviously have a different ethnicity. Assimilation might be difficult, and no, I am not advocating it in either situation. I’m saying without religious difference, assimilation would have occurred on its own.

The Jewish nationalism which led to Israel focused on traditional and religious values. How do you expect for them to agree to assimilate? And I can already see the question coming up so here’s evidence:

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1896herzl.html

“We are a people-one people.”

Sounds pretty unified, doesn’t it. Let’s continue shall we?

“The distinctive nationality of Jews neither can, will, nor must be destroyed.”

Hmmm, sounds pretty clear-no assimilation.

 
Flag Post

West Bank, I find it wrong that land can be stolen from under a people, these days, with UN permission

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Cuthulu:
Originally posted by Flypurplehamster:

They are quite separate, it’s blatantly obvious. The Jews are radically different from Europe, in that they do not believe in Jesus’s holiness, they have far more rules on your everyday life, they circumcise, they have their own languages, customs, and culture, they are often discriminated against, etc. They’re a totally different bunch, culturally, and it’s mainly due to religion.

The Muslims often speak different languages, and obviously have a different ethnicity. Assimilation might be difficult, and no, I am not advocating it in either situation. I’m saying without religious difference, assimilation would have occurred on its own.

The Jewish nationalism which led to Israel focused on traditional and religious values. How do you expect for them to agree to assimilate? And I can already see the question coming up so here’s evidence:

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1896herzl.html

“We are a people-one people.”

Sounds pretty unified, doesn’t it. Let’s continue shall we?

“The distinctive nationality of Jews neither can, will, nor must be destroyed.”

Hmmm, sounds pretty clear-no assimilation.

Originally posted by Flypurplehamster:

Assimilation might be difficult, and no, I am not advocating it in either situation. I’m saying without religious difference, assimilation would have occurred on its own.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Flypurplehamster:
Originally posted by Cuthulu:
Originally posted by Flypurplehamster:

They are quite separate, it’s blatantly obvious. The Jews are radically different from Europe, in that they do not believe in Jesus’s holiness, they have far more rules on your everyday life, they circumcise, they have their own languages, customs, and culture, they are often discriminated against, etc. They’re a totally different bunch, culturally, and it’s mainly due to religion.

The Muslims often speak different languages, and obviously have a different ethnicity. Assimilation might be difficult, and no, I am not advocating it in either situation. I’m saying without religious difference, assimilation would have occurred on its own.

The Jewish nationalism which led to Israel focused on traditional and religious values. How do you expect for them to agree to assimilate? And I can already see the question coming up so here’s evidence:

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1896herzl.html

“We are a people-one people.”

Sounds pretty unified, doesn’t it. Let’s continue shall we?

“The distinctive nationality of Jews neither can, will, nor must be destroyed.”

Hmmm, sounds pretty clear-no assimilation.

Originally posted by Flypurplehamster:

Assimilation might be difficult, and no, I am not advocating it in either situation. I’m saying without religious difference, assimilation would have occurred on its own.

There’s still culture. But if there was no religious issues then Jews wouldn’t be persecuted in the first place. Most conflict in Europe (relating to Jewish struggles) started as a result of Christian and Jewish religious views.

 
Flag Post

A large amount of the culture (circumcision, Jesus, baptism, kosherness) comes from the religion.

Originally posted by Cuthulu:
But if there was no religious issues then Jews wouldn’t be persecuted in the first place.

That’s kind of my point. No religious differences=assimilation=no problem.