Heartland

It's pure Zionist propaganda, and you're buying into it.

You must be joking! Come on this just is silly. It is not just 'propaganda' or a 'conspiracy'. Hell, the surrounding nations are in fact very open about wanting nothing less than utter destruction and elimination of the state of Israel and ultimately Jews throughout the world. They supported the Nazis during WWII and want to finish what they started.

You failed to elaborate on you other 'points', so I'm not going to respond to them.[/quote]

sunshine wrote:

Gollum's Cock wrote: Israels biggest threat is that the majority of lands surrounding them want to wipe them out. Without comprimise.

It's pure Zionist propaganda, and you're buying into it.

I believe that Israel is a democracy.

Oh gosh! And you must strongly believe in the US democracy as well?!

And yes, Zionism IS racist, it is! It values Jews over all the "goys". It is racism, or rather nazism!

Just curious, how would you solve the problem in the Middle east? Answers should include the manner in which loss of life on both sides is minimal or nil.

the_inescapable_truth wrote:...makes a snide remark about Israel building walls.

I'm not so sure it was a snide remark, and the wall is definitely there (and for that purpose).

mh wrote:

the_inescapable_truth wrote:...makes a snide remark about Israel building walls.

I'm not so sure it was a snide remark, and the wall is definitely there (and for that purpose).

There are certainly separation walls. I am not denying that. That would be stupid. Though I have not seen them myself. But what you seem to be implying is that they are not necessary, yet at the same time admitting you know f**k all about the situation which led to their construction in the first place.

It's not like people want the walls, but they are necessary as has been already pointed out. Unless of course you think there should be no walls, because you want innocent Israelis to come under fire some more?

But I'm arguing with someone who has already admitted they are ignorant of the situation and I fear this is fruitless endeavour.

Now there are some valid, if abstract, arguments to be made in opposition, but they have undoubtedly curtailed the number of lives lost on both sides. And that to me is a good thing. If it stops people getting slaughtered I'm generally all for it.

the_inescapable_truth wrote:

mh wrote:

the_inescapable_truth wrote:...makes a snide remark about Israel building walls.

I'm not so sure it was a snide remark, and the wall is definitely there (and for that purpose).

There are certainly separation walls. I am not denying that. That would be stupid. Though I have not seen them myself. But what you seem to be implying is that they are not necessary, yet at the same time admitting you know f**k all about the situation which led to their construction in the first place.

More a case of we had a wall in Europe at one time, and we know that they don't work.

the_inescapable_truth wrote:It's not like people want the walls, but they are necessary as has been already pointed out. Unless of course you think there should be no walls, because you want innocent Israelis to come under fire some more?

I'm not gonna get dragged into that particular part of the debate; I've lived in Ireland most of my life and I saw the warzone we had here back in the 70s/80s. You don't put out a fire by throwing on more fuel. A lot of positive good can be achieved by people talking, and by people swallowing their pride and agreeing to give (or give up, even) a little.

More a case of we had a wall in Europe at one time, and we know that they don't work.

Oh dear, oh dear. What exactly was the thought process that lead to this 'point'? "Let me think where has there been another wall! Ah ha!! I know..." Nevermind that the underlying situations are completely different and the walls served completely different purposes. The wall you speak of wasn't put in place to stop indoctrinated suicide bomber children wandering into crowded marketplaces for example.

I'm not gonna get dragged into that particular part of the debate; I've lived in Ireland most of my life and I saw the warzone we had here back in the 70s/80s. You don't put out a fire by throwing on more fuel. A lot of positive good can be achieved by people talking, and by people swallowing their pride and agreeing to give (or give up, even) a little

And how many people would have to die in the process until they come to the realisation that this is the case? I fear a hell of a lot! It's not like the governments are unable to have peace talks because of a wall anyway. It's a nice thought of course, but like most nice thoughts they don't work in the real world. Not to mention it assumes people want to talk in the first place...

And for what it's worth, there are valid points to be made in opposition of the wall. It is not right that some Palestinians should be cut off from their farms, but there are measures which can be taken to help with this.

Why am I getting the impression that no one gives a flying f**k about innocent Israelis being murdered?

Gollum's Cock wrote:Just curious, how would you solve the problem in the Middle east? Answers should include the manner in which loss of life on both sides is minimal or nil.

replacing petrol by something else would be a key start point to solve many problems...

JeffDub wrote:

Gollum's Cock wrote:Just curious, how would you solve the problem in the Middle east? Answers should include the manner in which loss of life on both sides is minimal or nil.

replacing petrol by something else would be a key start point to solve many problems...

But it would do absolutely nothing to solve the problem being discussed in this thread.

sultan2075 wrote:

JeffDub wrote:

Gollum's Cock wrote:Just curious, how would you solve the problem in the Middle east? Answers should include the manner in which loss of life on both sides is minimal or nil.

replacing petrol by something else would be a key start point to solve many problems...

But it would do absolutely nothing to solve the problem being discussed in this thread.

I don't think so, this is the key actually...

JeffDub wrote:

sultan2075 wrote:

JeffDub wrote: replacing petrol by something else would be a key start point to solve many problems...

But it would do absolutely nothing to solve the problem being discussed in this thread.

I don't think so, this is the key actually...

It would maybe (big maybe) remove the US out of the picture, then again it would n't be very positive for the Jewish population.

Gollum's Cock wrote:

JeffDub wrote:

sultan2075 wrote: But it would do absolutely nothing to solve the problem being discussed in this thread.

I don't think so, this is the key actually...

It would maybe (big maybe) remove the US out of the picture, then again it would n't be very positive for the Jewish population.

it would mostly make the arabic states go bankrupt, so they would stop financing the war...

@mh I presume you mean the Peace Walls as put up in Belfast to separate the Catholic population from the Protestant population? The ones that only exacerbated the problems?

@the_inescapable_truth The International Criminal Court defines apartheid as: Being similar to other crimes against humanity "committed in the context of an institutionalised regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any other racial group or groups and committed with the intention of maintaining that regime." It lists such crimes as murder, enslavement, deprivation of physical liberty, forced relocation, sexual violence, and collective persecution. (I thought it might be useful for everyone to have a nice, clear, definition to work from).

As for the situation itself; I find the hypocrisy of the west sickening and maddening in particular, and the general situation upsetting. I feel exactly the same way about Zimbabwe.

I will be drawn no further into this discussion.

Syberberg wrote:@mh I presume you mean the Peace Walls as put up in Belfast to separate the Catholic population from the Protestant population? The ones that only exacerbated the problems?

@the_inescapable_truth The International Criminal Court defines apartheid as: Being similar to other crimes against humanity "committed in the context of an institutionalised regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any other racial group or groups and committed with the intention of maintaining that regime." It lists such crimes as murder, enslavement, deprivation of physical liberty, forced relocation, sexual violence, and collective persecution. (I thought it might be useful for everyone to have a nice, clear, definition to work from).

As for the situation itself; I find the hypocrisy of the west sickening and maddening in particular, and the general situation upsetting. I feel exactly the same way about Zimbabwe.

I will be drawn no further into this discussion.

I completely agree with the definition of apartheid, Israel does definetely fall into this categorie (to a certain degree). My main point is have they got another choice.

the_inescapable_truth wrote:Why am I getting the impression that no one gives a flying f**k about innocent Israelis being murdered?

Of course people care! It's not that simple though is it?

Would the Palestinian territories be such a fertile breeding ground for suicide bombers if they had a similar standard of living as Jewish Israelis? This is what people mean when they talk about apartheid. The Israeli government is making a rod for its people's back with this situation.

I sympathise with your point of view though; I'd far rather deal with a nominally democratic society such as Israel (despite the unwarranted influence that the ultra-orthodox wield) than with an outright theocratic society as seems to be favoured in the Muslim world.

Suleiman wrote: Both states are as bad as each other.

Don't think there have been that many stonings in Israel, lately...

markfiend wrote:

the_inescapable_truth wrote:Why am I getting the impression that no one gives a flying f**k about innocent Israelis being murdered?

It's not that simple though is it?

Would the Palestinian territories be such a fertile breeding ground for suicide bombers if they had a similar standard of living as Jewish Israelis? This is what people mean when they talk about apartheid. Israel is making a rod for its own back with this situation.

I sympathise with your point of view though; I'd far rather deal with a nominally democratic society such as Israel (despite the unwarranted influence that the ultra-orthodox wield) than with an outright theocratic society as seems to be favoured in the Muslim world.

We ought to be careful about economic reductionism and the projection of Western motives onto non-Westerners.

I'm not so sure it's a question of standard of living than a question of what Tocqueville might call the social state. (Classically) Liberal societies tend to be stable and productive societies where wealth is created and distributed, and people are willing to work hard because they know that the fruits of their labor are secure under the rule of law. The Palestinian territories, however, don't really have the rule of law (think about the post-election running gun-battles in the Palestinian parliament when one party lost power and didn't want to leave), and because they lack that, their ability to be a productive society with a high standard of living is severely hampered. Mexico might be a useful parallel: the reason Mexicans come to the US illegally to work is that things are so bad in Mexico that even being here illegally, they are better off. Why are things so bad in Mexico? Because they have a corrupt government that is not interested in the rule of law, thus the "rational and industrious" Mexicans (to use Locke's language) come to the US, because the fruits of their labor are safer here, even when they're here illegally, than they are in Mexico (as an aside, I think fear of a communist revolution in Mexico is a major factor that keeps the US from actually doing anything about the border--better to have spirited young Mexicans here illegally than to have the pressure build up in Mexico if they stayed there).

George W. Bush was imprudent to support elections in the Palestinian territories as a panacea for this very reason. Liberalism is a social precondition for a functioning democracy, not a result of democratic governmental mechanisms. Elections are not a magic cure-all, and they may actually be harmful. A people that does not have and revere freedom of the press, property rights, or the rule of law are not going to be magically transformed into democrats overnight. They have to have these things before they can have democratic government--these are the preconditions of it.

The Palestinians territories are not, I think, a "fertile breeding ground for suicide bombers" because they can't afford iPods and Blu-Ray players (again, we ought to be careful about projecting our own Western materialism onto non-Westerners), but because they're not a liberal society. That's not to say illiberalism necessarily leads to suicide bombing, but it is to say that classical liberalism is generally speaking going to be incompatible with it.


As for Israel, she is in a "damned if you do, damned if you don't situation." History has shown that when they "lighten up" on the Palestinians, Israeli civilians die. They respond, tit-for-tat. Thucydides, in his history of the Pelopponesian War, says that there are some conflicts that go on for so long that you can't determine who "started" it, and that questions of that sort no longer matter. That is precisely the case here. It doesn't matter who started it any more. What matters is how it will end. The path to peace, it seems to me, requires a liberalization of Palestinian society and some sort of security guarantee for Israel. That in turn probably requires a liberalization in the greater Arab world. There are signs that it may be coming, but there are also powerful anti-liberal forces at work in the Arab world.

Insightful stuff as always i'm quite happy to admit that my post was only a superficial analysis, you've obviously given the situation a lot more thought than I have.

Thanks--one of these days, we should have these discussions over a bottle of bourbon...


Why isn't there a staggering drunk emoticon?

I prefer Scotch

markfiend wrote:I prefer Scotch

To be honest, so do I. But on a teachers salary? Good bourbon is less pricey than good Scotch.

I am posting this from my local pub, where my wife is grading papers while I read--and drink. And it's sunny and warm. Ain't life grand?

sunshine wrote:And yes, Zionism IS racist, it is! It values Jews over all the "goys". It is racism, or rather nazism!

In all monotheistic and missionizing religions is a root for racialism.
God only rescues his chosen ones.
As Islam and christianity were spawned by the jewish faith, they both bear that germ of one group being supreme in them as well.
Thrity Years´ War, anyone?
Take two populations that dress differently since they found that wearing animal furs is better than having icicles jangling from your testies and give them one of each religions. Soon there'll be elloquent reasoning why their own religion prefers one special dresscode and procclaims the wrongness of the other's.
Religous differences are a factor in the shaping of ethnical groups.
A different stunt was taking an existing ethnical group and make a religion out of it. That one was done by the third reich.

I may not deserve a Whisky for that, may I have a beer then?

And the score so far today:

Hamas 1-Israel 290 (and counting).

Hamas are f**king fools who choose to destroy their own people. They started this one (even Egypt has criticised them), Israel over reacting? I just don't know.

Gollum's Cock wrote:And the score so far today:

Hamas 1-Israel 290 (and counting).

Hamas are f**king fools who choose to destroy their own people. They started this one (even Egypt has criticised them), Israel over reacting? I just don't know.

it's not a quetion of numbers....but of freedom.
since th Jews started to arrive in Palastine the stopped to be free
that's all

psichonaut wrote:it's not a quetion of numbers....but of freedom.
since th Jews started to arrive in Palastine the stopped to be free
that's all

A number of Palestinian Arabs have been removed from their land and relocated. That wasn't legitimate, I think most can agree. However. Events like that have happened all the time during the history of mankind and people generally have adapted. A civilized solution could be, for example, financial recompensation for lost property and human loss. I have never heard of a Sudeten-German suicide bomber exploding his rucksack in a Prague café and I think I never will. It's a matter of dignity and education. The Palestinians are kept poor, uneducated and indoctrinated, and are tools for demagogues like Hamas and formerly the PLO; while those organizations themselves are used by Arab and the Iranian regimes as a lightning rod to distract from their own oppressive politics, poverty and corruption.

i agree for most of your thought, but i'd add Jews too keep Palestinians poor, ineducated, isolated, oppressed and without any kind of human dignity.
i'd add the colonies don't miss urban water and sewers in Gaza, but Palestinians still miss those simply things.
would they start a peacefull country...start to give Palestine the same Jews have, then i think the discussion could start peacefully