IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Non-USA & General Politics
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags general discussion , Israel issues , Israel-Palestine conflict , Palestine issues , US-Israel relations

Reply
Old 8th September 2016, 12:38 PM   #1201
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 50,423
Originally Posted by Jules Galen View Post
I don't know. I think Jesus effectively sealed his fate when he attacked the Money Changers.
First we had the implication that Jews were responsible for our wars, now we have the suggestion that they're only interested in money. What's next, the blood libel?
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th September 2016, 12:46 PM   #1202
Jules Galen
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 3,726
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
First we had the implication that Jews were responsible for our wars, now we have the suggestion that they're only interested in money. What's next, the blood libel?
Well...since you ask:

Mathew 27:24-26

24 When Pilate saw that he was accomplishing nothing, but that instead a riot was breaking out, he took water and washed his hands before the crowd. “I am innocent of this man’s blood,” he said. “You shall bear the responsibility.” 25 All the people answered, “His blood be on us and on our children!” 26 So Pilate released Barabbas to them. But he had Jesus flogged and handed Him over to be crucified.…

That's a really sick Fairy Tale, huh?
Jules Galen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th September 2016, 04:53 PM   #1203
Mycroft
High Priest of Ed
 
Mycroft's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 19,822
Originally Posted by Jules Galen View Post
There ya' go...trying to prove that there were no Palestinians in Palestine until the Zionists arrived and made it a land of "Milk and Honey" that attracted immigrant Arabs.

Doesn't this baloney get old?
Warning: may cause butthurt.

http://www.meforum.org/522/the-smoki...into-palestine
Mycroft is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th September 2016, 08:30 PM   #1204
Aridas
Crazy Little Green Dragon
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: East Coast, US
Posts: 8,494
Originally Posted by Jules Galen View Post
Hey...I just don't want to see any more jetliners crashed into American skyscrapers because of America's continued support of Israel. And yeah, Bin Laden said that one of the reasons 9/11 went down was because of America's support of Israel.
Hmm.

Quote:
In Osama Bin Laden's November 2002 "Letter to America",[5][6] he explicitly stated that al-Qaeda's motives for their attacks include: Western support for attacking Muslims in Somalia, supporting Russian atrocities against Muslims in Chechnya, supporting the Indian oppression against Muslims in Kashmir, the Jewish aggression against Muslims in Lebanon, the presence of US troops in Saudi Arabia,[6][7][8] US support of Israel,[9][10] and sanctions against Iraq.[11]
Without disagreeing with it being one of the stated reasons, it seems rather wrong to single it out as being of notable importance or that without it, 9/11 wouldn't have happened...

Originally Posted by Jules Galen View Post
For this reason (and others), I protest America's support of Israeli aggression - for it is proven dangerous for Americans to support it - and it's gotten us mired in a 15-year war.
Like you're definitely doing here.

Originally Posted by Jules Galen View Post
Most of all...it's just wrong.
You are entitled to your own opinions, after all.
__________________
So sayeth the crazy little dragon.
Aridas is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th September 2016, 08:47 PM   #1205
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 50,423
Originally Posted by Jules Galen View Post
Well...since you ask:
You keep proving me right about you.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th September 2016, 12:18 AM   #1206
David Mo
Philosopher
 
David Mo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Somewhere on the Greenwich meridian
Posts: 5,036
I don't know why you follow the wheels of the Christian anti-Semitism that smells rancid. The recent Popes don't know what to do to hide it. The gospels are a mythical literature and are not historically reliable. They inform us about the beliefs of its writers not about facts. Paul is the first to blame the Jews for kill his Lord (1 Thess 2:14-16). Luke is more precise: Pilate gave Jesus to the Jews that killed (crucify) him (Luk 23:14-25 ) This contradicts other passages of Luke about the Crucifixion where the Romans carry it out, but this is how the gospel logic functions. John (19: 16) repeat the same and adds the obsessive insistence of the Jews to crucify Jesus even with Pilate's oposition.
All this is sheer nonsese because at this epoch the Romans were the unique power that could crucify in Palestine. There are other historical absurdities in the narrative of the Sanhedrin trial, etc. It is not clear if the evangelists, that wrote in the Disapora, didn't know the reality or they did not care about the truth.
In any case, the anti-Semitism has a long career in the Christianity. Even the Nazis were inspired in it and they didn't vacillate in using the symbols of the Passion against the Jews. (Responsability of the Pope and the churchs).

I think to discuss this absurdities among rational people is not useful .

Last edited by David Mo; 9th September 2016 at 12:24 AM.
David Mo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th September 2016, 03:11 AM   #1207
David Mo
Philosopher
 
David Mo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Somewhere on the Greenwich meridian
Posts: 5,036
Originally Posted by TubbaBlubba View Post
I'd make a case that Trotsky was closer to the quote. Trotsky took class warfare to be a literal war, and supported collectivization by mobilization of military forces. Bukharin on the other hand supported the continuation of NEP, a kind of hodgepodge quasi-market socialist policy. Stalin leveraged his position as the supposed "moderate" to temporarily ally Bukharin, defeat Trotsky, seize control of the Secret Police and implement his policies by coercion and force, leading to his position as absolute dictator.
Lenin and Trotsky are some examples where the revolutionary violence jumps from the anti-oppression to oppressive violence. This usually happens because of the theories of the selective leadership and the contempt of the mechanisms of popular control of the political or the economic power. It can happen even in a "democratic" authoritative system. Chomsky has writen about the fear to the democracy in these systems. The dictature of the bureaucracy in "communist" systems is a very trite topic.
In the exile Trotsky tried to correct this with his theory of the "workers democracy". Too late.

Some communist parties, specially in Europe, have preached the democratic transition to socialism in different ways. They approached to the traditional Social-Democracies when these shifted to the Liberal ideology. This explains why the concept of a communist with the knife in the teeth is obsolete. It is a phantom shaked by the right-wing parties more than a reality.
David Mo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th September 2016, 03:17 AM   #1208
Jules Galen
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 3,726
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
You keep proving me right about you.
That was a joke...and you know it.

But, I tell you what isn't a joke: Mohels that suck the Blood from the penis' of babies. First time I ever heard of that, I thought, "Why are the Jews concerned with the Blood Libel when they got Mohels?" Can't the Jews see that this is waaay worse than a silly "Blood Libel" myth?

Likewise, the Jewish attacks against Gandhi are worse for the Jews reputation than the myth of Christ Killing because Gandhi is a real, historical figure who preached and practiced peace .

And as far as Jews being responsible for Wars...that's another myth. Nevertheless, Al Qaeda's attack on 9/11 was partially inspired by the actions of Israel - according to the master mind, Osama Bin Laden.

So...all three of those silly myths about the Jews now have some foothold in reality due to recent events. What? You don't think this is going to have ramnifications further down the road?

Neverthelss, I'll give Israel a solution to their problem:

1. Make nice with Gandhi
2. Make the Mohels stop their blood sucking
3. Stop stealing Palestinian land.
4. Quit playing the Victim. A nation with one of the world's largest militaries and 100 Nuclear Weapons is NOT anyone's victim.
5. Quit sucking America's teet for money/weapons and fight your own wars.

See...that's easy enough, huh?

Last edited by Jules Galen; 9th September 2016 at 03:31 AM.
Jules Galen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th September 2016, 03:48 AM   #1209
Jules Galen
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 3,726
Wow...Israel stabs friend in back:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016...ands-war-reve/

If Israel is willing to do this to a friend, then what hope for Palestinian negotiations?

Oh yeah...and here's a paper from an Israeli think Tank who recommends that ISIS not be destroyed because they are "useful":

http://besacenter.org/perspectives-p...tegic-mistake/

For a more complete discussion of how Israel betrays the United States (bites the hand that feeds it) I recommend this Foreign Policy article:

http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/...rica/view-all/

With friends like these....

Last edited by Jules Galen; 9th September 2016 at 04:05 AM.
Jules Galen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th September 2016, 05:05 AM   #1210
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 50,423
Originally Posted by Jules Galen View Post
That was a joke...and you know it.
And? The fact that you think it's funny still proves me right about you.

Quote:
So...all three of those silly myths about the Jews now have some foothold in reality due to recent events.
So just after telling me it's just a joke, you turn around and tell me that no, it's not really a joke, you actually kind of meant it all.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th September 2016, 05:30 AM   #1211
Mycroft
High Priest of Ed
 
Mycroft's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 19,822
Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
Truly? Perhaps cricket?

Oh my god! You are a genuine expert in Gandhi! You know the word satyagraha! Don't tell me you have read it in Wikipedia. I am dumbfounded.
Be as sarcastic as you like, but it doesn’t change that you cherry-picked Gandhi for his anti-Zionist statements while ignoring what he stands for. Gandhi’s views of non-violence, satyagraha, and it’s application to the Israeli/Arab conflict are not comparable to his views on a tennis match, so please don’t pretend to be obtuse by saying that it is.

Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
Have you read Gandhi’s article I recommended? It was very explicit about the subject. You needn’t to be an expert on Gandhi to understand it.
Which one? You posted a link to a whole page of them.

Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
Ben Gurion in August 7, 1937 ; debate about the Peel Commission: during the Zionist Assembly:[indent][i] ". . . In many parts of the country new settlement will not be possible without transferring the [Palestinian] Arab fellahin. .
Right. They were debating the Peel Commission report which recommended partition. To make partition work, to create separate Arab and Jewish states, transfer of both populations and land would have been necessary. He wasn’t revealing his diabolical plan, they were discussing how to make the Peel Commission recommendations work.

Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
Etc., etc. See here for more: http://www.palestineremembered.com/A...694.html#David Ben-Gurion
I recommended this quotations-page many comments ago.
From the website with the adorable little Palestinian flags on the tabs. Nice.

Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
My communist colleagues don’t defend a revolution-massacre. They think that in some advanced countries a revolution could came by not military struggle. They said that this is an idea that you can find in some of the late Marx’s writings. You cannot say the same of Ben Gurion and the others who were arming to the teeth in order to expel the Palestinians.
They were arming because they needed to be armed. The subsequent attack by invading Arab armies demonstrates that.

Your communist friends get credit for good intentions, but if anything bad happens in the Zionist project, well, it must have been part of the secret plan all along.

Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
Even in the case of those communists that defend the revolutionary struggle by more hard methods you should consider some differences in the sources and the goals of the violence, not only the total amount of victims.
Yes. We should.

Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
There are aggressive or expansive goals. This is the case of the Israeli State.
There are defensive goals. This is the case of the French Resistance.
There is the violence that aims to overcome the oppression. This is the violence against a dictatorship (Somoza, for example).
Some violence you like. Got it.

Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
In general, the revolutionary thinkers (regardless of their ideology; Rosa Luxemburg or Thomas Jefferson) defend the latter. But this is not our present subject. Our topic is centred in the first two cases.
That’s because you choose to see it that way.
• Under no circumstances must we touch land
Mycroft is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th September 2016, 06:09 AM   #1212
Mycroft
High Priest of Ed
 
Mycroft's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 19,822
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
And? The fact that you think it's funny still proves me right about you.
QFT.

The whole "can't you take a racist joke" routine is crass.
Mycroft is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th September 2016, 07:14 AM   #1213
David Mo
Philosopher
 
David Mo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Somewhere on the Greenwich meridian
Posts: 5,036
My quotation and advice was from:
“The Jews”, By Mahatma Gandhi; Published in the Harijan, 26-11-1938; http://www.gandhiserve.org/informati...alestine.html;
More in particular, if you needs it: http://www.gandhiserve.org/informati...ember 26, 1938
Originally Posted by Mycroft View Post
Right. They were debating the Peel Commission report which recommended partition. To make partition work, to create separate Arab and Jewish states, transfer of both populations and land would have been necessary (…).

From the website with the adorable little Palestinian flags on the tabs. Nice.

Some violence you like. Got it.
Compulsory transfer population = ethnic cleansing.
This is my first point. The State of Israel was founded on ethnic cleansing at big scale (more than 700.000 people). This is a crime against humanity typified by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (articles 13, 17 and 30) and by the partition plan in particular. No State is admissible if is based on a crime against humanity.

You cannot even endure the sight of the Palestine flag. Oh, my god! This is very significant of your politic and moral limits. You hate the Palestinians. It is logic that you think they can be expelled and killed as annoying cockroaches.
I read and enter without any problem in papers and webs under the Israeli flag or the Palestinian flag. This is our big difference. Note that the latter quotations I have put here come from a reputed Zionist historian, Benny Morris, and I usually refer to Jewish sources. You are unable to consult a Palestinian source. Well, well. All is clear.

I don't like any violence. I find all violence is an evil and a failure. But I think some violences are justifiable and others are not.

Last edited by David Mo; 9th September 2016 at 08:10 AM.
David Mo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th September 2016, 07:45 AM   #1214
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 50,423
Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
No State is admissible if is based on a crime against humanity.
Says who?
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th September 2016, 08:08 AM   #1215
David Mo
Philosopher
 
David Mo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Somewhere on the Greenwich meridian
Posts: 5,036
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Says who?
You. And the other people that justify the ethnic cleansing (crime against the humanity) on a supposed right of occupation.
David Mo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th September 2016, 08:11 AM   #1216
Beerina
Sarcastic Conqueror of Notions
 
Beerina's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 30,947
Any state ruled by the guy who is best at literally killing his political enemies is a state created by crimes against humanity in my opinion. Which is to say anything but a democracy of one sort or another.
__________________
"Great innovations should not be forced [by way of] slender majorities." - Thomas Jefferson

The government should nationalize it! Socialized, single-payer video game development and sales now! More, cheaper, better games, right? Right?
Beerina is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th September 2016, 08:22 AM   #1217
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 50,423
Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
No State is admissible if is based on a crime against humanity.
Says who?
You. And the other people that justify the ethnic cleansing (crime against the humanity) on a supposed right of occupation.
You're not making any sense. Why would someone who justifies ethnic cleansing turn around and say that a state based on ethnic cleansing is not "admissible"? These are opposing views.

Leaving aside the fact that your accusation against me is a straw man, you're contradicting yourself. You very clearly did not mean me when you made your claim that "No State is admissible if is based on a crime against humanity." This was obviously something you believed in. So who (other than you) thinks that "No State is admissible if is based on a crime against humanity"? Is this an actual rule, or just what you wish were the case? And "admissible" to what? Membership in the UN? Polite company? The local country club?
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th September 2016, 09:15 AM   #1218
Jules Galen
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 3,726
Israel keeps authorizing more and more housing in the West Bank. Sooner or later, what land will be left for the Palestinians? And what will Israel do with the Pals then? Disappear them?
Jules Galen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th September 2016, 10:21 AM   #1219
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 50,423
Originally Posted by Jules Galen View Post
Israel keeps authorizing more and more housing in the West Bank. Sooner or later, what land will be left for the Palestinians? And what will Israel do with the Pals then? Disappear them?
Then perhaps the Palestinians should hurry up and make peace.

But they don't. So clearly they aren't actually worried about being "disappeared".
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th September 2016, 10:25 AM   #1220
applecorped
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 20,145
This is a lot like cat wrangling
applecorped is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th September 2016, 11:39 AM   #1221
Navigator
Philosopher
 
Navigator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 6,365
This just in....

Video Link [2:01]

Quote:
I'm sure many of you have heard the claim that Jewish communities in Judea Samaria, the West Bank, are an obstacle to peace.
I've always been perplexed by this notion.
Because no one would seriously claim that the nearly two million Arabs living inside Israel – that they're an obstacle to peace. That's because they aren't. On the contrary.
Israel's diversity shows its openness and readiness for peace. Yet the Palestinian leadership actually demands a Palestinian state with one pre-condition: No Jews.
There's a phrase for that: It's called ethnic cleansing.
And this demand is outrageous.
It's even more outrageous that the world doesn't find this outrageous. Some otherwise enlightened countries even promote this outrage.
Ask yourself this: Would you accept ethnic cleansing in your state? A territory without Jews, without Hispanics, without blacks?
Since when is bigotry a foundation for peace?
At this moment, Jewish schoolchildren in Judea Samaria are playing in sandboxes with their friends.
Does their presence make peace impossible?
I don’t think so.
I think what makes peace impossible is intolerance of others. Societies that respect all people are the ones that pursue peace. Societies that demand ethnic cleansing don't pursue peace.
I envision a Middle East where young Arabs and young Jews learn together, work together, live together side by side in peace.
Our region needs more tolerance, not less.
So the next time you hear someone say Jews can't live somewhere, let alone in their ancestral homeland, take a moment to think of the implications.
Ethnic cleansing for peace is absurd.
It's about time somebody said it.
I just did.
~ Benjamin Netanyahu
__________________
Wild mingling with the howling gale, loud bursts of ghastly laughter rise high o’er the minstrels head they sail and die amid the northern skies ~ Scott
There was I was where I ought - Examining my conscious thought ~ Navigator

Atheism is not skepticism

Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors. ~ ISF disclaimer
Navigator is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th September 2016, 11:43 AM   #1222
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In a post-fact world
Posts: 96,875
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Then perhaps the Palestinians should hurry up and make peace.
What do you mean by that?
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th September 2016, 11:58 AM   #1223
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 50,423
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
What do you mean by that?
That if the loss of land to settlers is really a priority for Palestinians, as Jules suggests, then they should want to make peace immediately, since the longer they wait, the more land they lose. But they aren't acting like time is working against them. They aren't acting like they're afraid of the fate Jules suggests.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th September 2016, 12:21 PM   #1224
Mycroft
High Priest of Ed
 
Mycroft's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 19,822
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
What do you mean by that?
Also to challenge the assertion that these settlements are an obstacle to peace,as though Jewish people living in a building somehow makes it impossible for the land that building sits on to become sovereign territory of nation of Palestine, should it ever be created. Other options would include moving the residents, land swaps, etc.
Mycroft is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th September 2016, 12:42 PM   #1225
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 50,423
Originally Posted by Mycroft View Post
Also to challenge the assertion that these settlements are an obstacle to peace,as though Jewish people living in a building somehow makes it impossible for the land that building sits on to become sovereign territory of nation of Palestine, should it ever be created. Other options would include moving the residents, land swaps, etc.
Indeed. Israel has already proven that it can remove settlers with the Gaza withdrawl.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th September 2016, 05:31 PM   #1226
Mycroft
High Priest of Ed
 
Mycroft's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 19,822
Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
My quotation and advice was from:
“The Jews”, By Mahatma Gandhi; Published in the Harijan, 26-11-1938;
Okay, I’ve read it many times now. In addition to noting that the people who could really use help with using non-violence to accomplish their goals are the Palestinians, what should my takeaway be?

1) You can’t possibly be racist because you believe some of the same things Gandhi believed, and he is above reproach.

2) Because Gandhi was critical of Zionism back in 1938, Israel today should just go away.

3) Something else…?

Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
Compulsory transfer population = ethnic cleansing.
As a stand-alone statement that’s inarguable, but the Peel Commission report recommended transfers of both peoples as well as property exchange. It’s been a while since I’ve read through it, but I don’t recall it being involuntary. I’m pretty sure the idea was to convince everyone involved it was in their best interests. It’s kind of a moot point since it was never enacted.

Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
This is my first point. The State of Israel was founded on ethnic cleansing at big scale (more than 700.000 people).
Founded on?! No it wasn’t.

Israel was founded on the belief that Jewish people needed a homeland to protect them from Europeans; who no matter how nice they seemed, were always willing to kill Jews in large numbers at any excuse.

Once Israel was founded, it had to fight a war of survival. During this war, there was ethnic cleansing on both sides, but way more from the Israeli side because, well, they won. Had the Arabs won, it is certain the ethnic cleansing would have been way more on the other side.

Why is this important? Because there is a 60+ year history before 1948 where no ethnic cleansing happened and lots of different things were going on that could have drastically altered the outcome. Those Jewish immigrants fleeing Russian pogroms back in the 1880’s and during subsequent decades could not possibly have anticipated these events and who are not collectively responsible for them. Focusing on this one event as the defining event is at best myopic.


Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
This is a crime against humanity typified by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (articles 13, 17 and 30) and by the partition plan in particular. No State is admissible if is based on a crime against humanity.
As has already been pointed out to you, that is made-up drivel. Israel is already “admitted”, whatever that means, you have no source of this made-up rule. If you did, you wouldn't have any rational excuse for applying it only to Israel and not to all the other nations that had violent beginnings.

Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
You cannot even endure the sight of the Palestine flag. Oh, my god! This is very significant of your politic and moral limits. You hate the Palestinians. It is logic that you think they can be expelled and killed as annoying cockroaches.
Cockroaches? Now you’re just being silly. Of course I have no problem with the Palestinian flag and have been to that particular site many times before. I point out the Palestinian flag because it indicates the point of view of the website. The site that dubs itself as “the Home of Ethnically Cleansed & Occupied Palestinians” is not going to portray Ben-Gurion in a positive light.

For example, Ben-Gurion also said, ”We do not wish, we do not need to expel the Arabs and take their place. All our aspirations are built upon the assumption — proven throughout all our activity in the Land — that there is enough room in the country for ourselves and the Arabs.”

But that quote won’t be found there because it doesn’t support their narrative.

Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
I read and enter without any problem in papers and webs under the Israeli flag or the Palestinian flag. This is our big difference. Note that the latter quotations I have put here come from a reputed Zionist historian, Benny Morris, and I usually refer to Jewish sources. You are unable to consult a Palestinian source. Well, well. All is clear.
Jeebus, again with the “Jewish sources”. How come the guy who absolutely positively isn’t the slightest bit racist (because he agrees with Gandhi on some things) is so obsessed with ethnicity?

Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
I don't like any violence. I find all violence is an evil and a failure. But I think some violences are justifiable and others are not.
Again, some violence you like.

Tell me, is violence ever justified when you can reach your goals at the negotiation table instead?

And finally:

Since you seem to have dropped this “proposal” that was rejected in 1929, should I take that as a tacit concession?

Also, did you mean the Ben-Gurion quotes to be your examples of when the Holocaust was used to justify killing and stealing? Or have you just dropped that as well? Can I take this as a tacit admission you can’t support that either?
Mycroft is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th September 2016, 06:15 PM   #1227
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Antimemetics Division
Posts: 56,018
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Indeed. Israel has already proven that it can remove settlers with the Gaza withdrawl.
If I understand David Mo's logic, this means that Israel ethnically cleansed Gaza--of Jews.
__________________
There is no Antimemetics Division.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th September 2016, 07:04 PM   #1228
Darth Rotor
Salted Sith Cynic
 
Darth Rotor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 38,527
Uri Avnery and the LRB

I tripped over this article from a random LRB emailing, and it got me scratching my head. The author seems to believe that internal divisions in Israel are both an obstacle to the Palestinian hopes for a two state solution (for such Palestinians who so hope) and an obstacle to a healthy Israeli future.. The title of this blog article is: Israel’s Impending Civil War
The author is: Uri Avnery 6 September 2016. He says he once served in the Knesset.

Quote:
Civil war between whom? The usual answer is between ‘right’ and ‘left’. Right and left in Israel do not mean the same as in the rest of the world. In Israel, the division between left and right in Israel almost solely concerns peace and the occupation. But I suspect that Pardo means a much deeper rift, without saying so explicitly: the rift between Ashkenazim (‘European’) and Mizrahim (‘Oriental’ or ‘Arab’) Jews. The Sephardic (‘Spanish’) community, to which Pardo belongs, is seen as part of the Orientals. The overwhelming majority of the Orientals are rightist, nationalist and at least mildly religious, while the majority of the Ashkenazim are leftist, more peace-oriented and secular. Since the Ashkenazim also tend to be socially and economically better off than the Orientals, the rift is profound.
Is this a way out there position, or something commonly discussed in Israel?

How this internal issue plays out, if it's for real, seems to me to have an impact on the Israeli-Palestine ongoing issue.

LRB = London Review of Books
__________________
Helicopters don't so much fly as beat the air into submission.
"Jesus wept, but did He laugh?"--F.H. Buckley____"There is one thing that was too great for God to show us when He walked upon our earth ... His mirth." --Chesterton__"If the barbarian in us is excised, so is our humanity."--D'rok__ "I only use my gun whenever kindness fails."-- Robert Earl Keen__"Sturgeon spares none.". -- The Marquis

Last edited by Darth Rotor; 9th September 2016 at 07:07 PM.
Darth Rotor is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th September 2016, 12:07 AM   #1229
David Mo
Philosopher
 
David Mo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Somewhere on the Greenwich meridian
Posts: 5,036
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Is this an actual rule, or just what you wish were the case? And "admissible" to what? Membership in the UN? Polite company? The local country club?
Do you think that a State based on ethnic cleansig, genocide and pillagings can be admissible? Do you need any local country club to decide this?
It seems you hate the communists. What country club says they are not good?
David Mo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th September 2016, 12:54 AM   #1230
David Mo
Philosopher
 
David Mo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Somewhere on the Greenwich meridian
Posts: 5,036
Originally Posted by Mycroft View Post
As a stand-alone statement that’s inarguable, but the Peel Commission report recommended transfers of both peoples as well as property exchange. It’s been a while since I’ve read through it, but I don’t recall it being involuntary. I’m pretty sure the idea was to convince everyone involved it was in their best interests. It’s kind of a moot point since it was never enacted.
Israel was founded on the belief that Jewish people needed a homeland to protect them from Europeans; who no matter how nice they seemed, were always willing to kill Jews in large numbers at any excuse.
Once Israel was founded, it had to fight a war of survival. During this war, there was ethnic cleansing on both sides, but way more from the Israeli side because, well, they won. Had the Arabs won, it is certain the ethnic cleansing would have been way more on the other side.
Why is this important? Because there is a 60+ year history before 1948 where no ethnic cleansing happened and lots of different things were going on that could have drastically altered the outcome. Those Jewish immigrants fleeing Russian pogroms back in the 1880’s and during subsequent decades could not possibly have anticipated these events and who are not collectively responsible for them. Focusing on this one event as the defining event is at best myopic.

Cockroaches? Now you’re just being silly. Of course I have no problem with the Palestinian flag and have been to that particular site many times before. I point out the Palestinian flag because it indicates the point of view of the website. The site that dubs itself as “the Home of Ethnically Cleansed & Occupied Palestinians” is not going to portray Ben-Gurion in a positive light.

For example, Ben-Gurion also said, ”We do not wish, we do not need to expel the Arabs and take their place. All our aspirations are built upon the assumption — proven throughout all our activity in the Land — that there is enough room in the country for ourselves and the Arabs.”

Jeebus, again with the “Jewish sources”. How come the guy who absolutely positively isn’t the slightest bit racist (because he agrees with Gandhi on some things) is so obsessed with ethnicity?


Also, did you mean the Ben-Gurion quotes to be your examples of when the Holocaust was used to justify killing and stealing? Or have you just dropped that as well? Can I take this as a tacit admission you can’t support that either?
You boast about your big knowledge of Zionism and then prove that you have no idea of it.
Yes, a small amount of Jews always lived in Palestine without excessive problems. (Lesser than Armenians, for example). The problems begin in the twentieth century with the massive arrival of settlers and with the expansion of the Zionist program of a Home for the Jews. This program included the expulsion of the Palestinians from the beginning. The Zionist violence didn't begin with the proclamation of the State of Israel, as you said. It did come from long before. Firstly as a threat; after as the effective expulsion of the Palestinian peasants from the land the Zionist have buy; finally in the formation of paramilitary militias that "returned" the attacks of the Palestinians. This militias were very active in the riots of 1929 and 1938 and show they are well prepared to the final solution: the ethnic cleansing.
This is the true history of the Zionist violence, not the childish story that you have told us.

And now you say that you have read "many times" the web that you first refused to read. You are really funny, my friend!
Well. If you have finally read it you see that Ben Gurion had two languages: one for the external world and other for the Zionists. Sheer cynism.

I am amazed that you don't understand still that I am contrary to the partition and more to the Peel commission and other intents to steal the land of Palestine. But I remember you that the Zionist leadership refused in the Peel commission the paritary solution offered by Palestinians. I add that the partition plan included the presence of 600.000 Palestinians into the borders of the future State of Israel and the inviolability of their properties. The Israelis don't respect even this.
David Mo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th September 2016, 12:58 AM   #1231
David Mo
Philosopher
 
David Mo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Somewhere on the Greenwich meridian
Posts: 5,036
Originally Posted by Mycroft View Post

Also, did you mean the Ben-Gurion quotes to be your examples of when the Holocaust was used to justify killing and stealing?
You are boring. See my comments 1125 and 1175. Thank you.

Last edited by David Mo; 10th September 2016 at 12:59 AM.
David Mo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th September 2016, 01:30 AM   #1232
Jules Galen
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 3,726
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Indeed. Israel has already proven that it can remove settlers with the Gaza withdrawl.
Baloney, Israel just did this for the Public Relations. Otherwise, they never stopped stealing land in the West Bank and squatting on it.
Jules Galen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th September 2016, 02:52 AM   #1233
David Mo
Philosopher
 
David Mo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Somewhere on the Greenwich meridian
Posts: 5,036
Originally Posted by Darth Rotor View Post
I tripped over this article from a random LRB emailing, and it got me scratching my head. The author seems to believe that internal divisions in Israel are both an obstacle to the Palestinian hopes for a two state solution (for such Palestinians who so hope) and an obstacle to a healthy Israeli future.. The title of this blog article is: Israel’s Impending Civil War
The author is: Uri Avnery 6 September 2016. He says he once served in the Knesset.


Is this a way out there position, or something commonly discussed in Israel?

How this internal issue plays out, if it's for real, seems to me to have an impact on the Israeli-Palestine ongoing issue.

LRB = London Review of Books
Uri Avnery or Avneri: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uri_Avnery
He is one of my favourite Zionists, but I doubt the internal problems between Jewish origens had nothing to do with the conflict with the Palestinians.

"If we, the Israelis, want to consolidate our nation, we have to free ourselves from the myths that belong to another form of existence and re-define our national history. The story about the exodus from Egypt is good as a myth and an allegory - it celebrates the value of freedom - but we must recognize the difference between myth and history, between religion and nation, between a Diaspora and a state, in order to find our place in the region in which we live and develop a normal relationship with the neighboring peoples". ("The Lion and the Gazelle", 19/04/08)
Ths is my point!

Last edited by David Mo; 10th September 2016 at 04:10 AM.
David Mo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th September 2016, 03:33 AM   #1234
David Mo
Philosopher
 
David Mo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Somewhere on the Greenwich meridian
Posts: 5,036
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
If I understand David Mo's logic, this means that Israel ethnically cleansed Gaza--of Jews.
The settlers of Gaza were retired by their own metropolis. You seem not able to differentiate native and settler inhabitants. Big mistake.
David Mo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th September 2016, 04:31 AM   #1235
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 50,423
Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
Do you think that a State based on ethnic cleansig, genocide and pillagings can be admissible?
Admissible to what? You still haven't explained what you mean.

Quote:
It seems you hate the communists.
Indeed. And yet, they get to be members of the UN, and even sit on the Security Council.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th September 2016, 04:33 AM   #1236
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 50,423
Originally Posted by Jules Galen View Post
Baloney, Israel just did this for the Public Relations. Otherwise, they never stopped stealing land in the West Bank and squatting on it.
It doesn't matter why they did it, they did it. And if they did it once for PR, why would you think they couldn't do it again for PR? You have no actual counter-argument, just outrage and hatred.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th September 2016, 06:43 AM   #1237
Mycroft
High Priest of Ed
 
Mycroft's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 19,822
Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
The settlers of Gaza were retired by their own metropolis. You seem not able to differentiate native and settler inhabitants. Big mistake.
Many of those families had lived there for generations, so tell me again about the differences between natives and settlers?
Mycroft is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th September 2016, 06:47 AM   #1238
David Mo
Philosopher
 
David Mo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Somewhere on the Greenwich meridian
Posts: 5,036
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Admissible to what? You still haven't explained what you mean.
I asked you:
"Do you think that a State based on ethnic cleansig, genocide and pillagings can be admissible?"
If your answer is "yes" we have not anything to discuss. I am not used to speak with moral trolls.

Last edited by David Mo; 10th September 2016 at 07:03 AM.
David Mo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th September 2016, 06:48 AM   #1239
David Mo
Philosopher
 
David Mo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Somewhere on the Greenwich meridian
Posts: 5,036
Originally Posted by Mycroft View Post
Many of those families had lived there for generations, so tell me again about the differences between natives and settlers?
The same that native Arabs and settlers in Algeria or Tunisia.

Please: don't invent the things, dear "expert": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popula...ip_settlements
All the settelments in Gaza were subsequent to 1970.

Last edited by David Mo; 10th September 2016 at 06:56 AM.
David Mo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th September 2016, 07:18 AM   #1240
Aridas
Crazy Little Green Dragon
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: East Coast, US
Posts: 8,494
Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
You boast about your big knowledge of Zionism and then prove that you have no idea of it.
Yes, a small amount of Jews always lived in Palestine without excessive problems. (Lesser than Armenians, for example). The problems begin in the twentieth century with the massive arrival of settlers and with the expansion of the Zionist program of a Home for the Jews. This program included the expulsion of the Palestinians from the beginning. The Zionist violence didn't begin with the proclamation of the State of Israel, as you said. It did come from long before. Firstly as a threat; after as the effective expulsion of the Palestinian peasants from the land the Zionist have buy;
A real question is... if owners have other plans for the land that they own, what possible justification can you cite to support your contention that they should have let the previous renters or freeloaders stay and use the land indefinitely anyways, frequently directly in conflict with the owner's plans? Because the renters considered the land that they didn't own in the first place to be "theirs" and thus are fully justified in any and all forms of resistance to such a dreadful horror as respecting property rights is when it happens to be a bit unpleasant?

Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
finally in the formation of paramilitary militias that "returned" the attacks of the Palestinians. This militias were very active in the riots of 1929 and 1938 and show they are well prepared to the final solution: the ethnic cleansing.
Wait. You're saying that a group of people that was being showered in rhetoric like the stuff like "not an inch of land for the Jews" stuff for more than a decade and had already been through attempted rebellions where they were put under very real threat had formed paramilitary militias who weren't afraid to act in favor of the local Jews' interests? Is this supposed to be insightful? Sure, they were well prepared. That doesn't mean that large-scale ethnic cleansing was specifically the plan, much less the plan from the start, or would have been actualized had the circumstances been different, like if the Jews had bitten off a bit less or if the Arabs were officially willing to co-exist when they terms were notably more favorable for them.

Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
This is the true history of the Zionist violence, not the childish story that you have told us.
"True" in that if you cherry-pick and add spin, you can make complex things sound the way that you want them to, regardless of how accurate such is. The actual ethnic cleansing that happened was a terrible thing and certainly does speak poorly of the Jews that participated in it and those who made it a reasonable, potentially even desirable, solution when the problem didn't need to exist in the first place. It doesn't give free rein to invoke unique standards for Israel, though, just because you think that those unique standards fit your narrative.
__________________
So sayeth the crazy little dragon.

Last edited by Aridas; 10th September 2016 at 07:32 AM.
Aridas is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Non-USA & General Politics

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:51 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.