The Muslims are coming!

[scandal 951]

Some nights on VJ, I mess around with spooky and the sheep and Australia.

Tonight, I guess it's mideast politics.

I swing both ways.

I appreciate your fundamental acceptance of a two-state solution, and hence recognition of Israel's fundamental right to exist. With that out of the way, I'm happy to discuss the specifics with you.

if my memory serves me correctly, the two nation state was the proposed solution to everything, until zionists violated this pact and went ahead and declared the state of israel in 1948.

Your memory is a bit fuzzy. You are referring to the 1947 Partition plan which indeed proposed a two state solution. It passed in the UN in Nov 1947 by a vote of 33-13, with the Arab nations unanimously voting against it. Immediately after the vote serious sectarian violence broke out between Arab and Jewish militias. In May 1948 the British, unable to control the violence, pulled out. The Jewish state declared independence on May 14th on the BASIS of the 1947 UN Partition plan, not "in violation" of the "pact" (it was not a "pact") as you wrote. The Arab nations surrounding the new state of Israel immediately declared war.

by the way, jewish terrorism did exist in the pre-1948 period as well. and it still exists today, google gush emunim as an example.

Gush Emunim is a radical fringe movement on the Israeli political spectrum. They are particularly affiliated with an aggressive pro-settlement stance in the West Bank. I personally don't condone them, and most Israelis consider them a fringe movement. I recognize that there are people who say and do things in Israel that I disapprove of, and have even taken violent action. I condemn them for doing so, unequivocally. Just as I condemn domestic US terrorists (Timothy McVeigh, abortion clinic bombers, etc.). It is wrong to use violence and take the law into your own hands. Period.

and yeah sure i am cool with recognizing a two state solution, but the kicker here is how is that gonna happen?

It can happen if both sides want it to happen. Israel seriously pursued negotiations leading to the Oslo accords. If an agreement had been reached at Camp David, polls at the time indicated the Israeli public would likely have ratified it in a referendum promised by Prime Minister Barak at the time. It was controversial, but there was a majority in favor of reaching a settlement. Today that majority has largely disappeared and turned to the right (the right in Israel is generally associated with a hawkish stance vis a vis negotiated settlement, the left is associated with a more accommodating stance). It takes two to make a deal however. When Camp David fell apart, the second intifida began, and things have continued going downhill ever since, sadly. When Hamas won the election in Gaza in 2006 it made it ever more clear that there is simply no authority able to negotiate a settlement on the Palestinian side at this time.

especially when israel continues to keep building settlements on disputed land and in jerusalem?

I am against the building of settlements. Many Israelis are. I see it as counterproductive to Israel's long term goals and needs. One thing that can be stated: there is an open and vigorous discussion in Israel - in the media, in the Knesset (parliament) and in coffee shops - about these issues. What kind of open and vigorous discussion goes on in Hamas-run Gaza regarding the pros and cons of its ongoing katyusha attacks on Sderot and the Israeli south? Here's one just today.

by the way, did you know that ariel sharon publicly said in the 1990s what every israeli politician wants:

to push all the palestinians into "eastern palestine" aka jordan and make thata palestinian state instead, leaving the disputed land for israelis? just wondering if this is a serious thing that israel wants to do still. jordan's population is already 75% palestinian so it makes some sense.

Whoah. Not "every Israeli politician wants" what Ariel Sharon wanted. There is a wide spectrum of views in Israeli political life. Israeli politicians include people like Yossi Beillin, architect of the Oslo plans. It also includes the Arab members of the Knesset (e.g. the 3 members of the Ra'am party - Ibrahim Sarsur, Taleb el-Sana and Masud Ghnaim, and members of the Hadash party) These people most certainly do not want to "push" Palestinians anywhere.

In short - yes, there are extremist views on the right in Israeli politics. You don't need to go back to Sharon in the 90s, you can find them easily enough today in the likes of Avigdor Liberman. There are also moderate centrist views, and there are left-leaning views. Israel is a vibrant democracy. People say things. Some are shocking and extremist, and make newspaper headlines. I'm not saying you ignore them. I'm saying that they don't reflect everyone, and you should treat them the way you would extremist views in the US or other countries (e.g. people here who make extreme statements regarding immigration, abortion, or other domestic issues).

and have you heard of this greater israel idea? Greater Israel Map

it's so sad how this "anti-semite" term is abused as well. arabs are semites too! so if someone hates on an arab, can i call them an anti-semite too?

Merriam Webster definition:

Main Entry: an·ti–Sem·i·tism

Pronunciation: \ˌan-tē-ˈse-mə-ˌti-zəm, ˌan-ˌtī-\

Function: noun

Date: 1882

: hostility toward or discrimination against Jews as a religious, ethnic, or racial group

Rightly or wrongly, through common usage the word has become associated with hatred of Jews. I don't make the rules. The dictionary does.

have you read this book? pretty alarming? Paul Findlay: They Dare to Speak Out

certainly, the palestinian side is not innocent either. many palestinians had sold the lands that jews now claim as part of israel. violence is not an excuse, but that's the humanitarian argument. truth be told, this area has been beset with violence for centuries, it is what most people know.

as far as suicide bombers go, when over 60-70% of the population lives on less than $2 a day, has absolutely no hope for the future, is restricted in almost zoo-like conditions, and cannot live a normal functioning life due to unnecessary and sporatic checkpoints which are patrolled by obviously racist and excessively demeaning soldiers, what do you expect?

I DON'T expect ANYONE, EVER, UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES to condone or try to explain suicide bombings. Strapping bombs to your body, boarding a bus or entering a cafe, with the intent to take innocent lives, is a criminal act of murder. No provocation can possibly justify it.

the psychological state of some people will obviously be fcvked up, and for these people, strapping on a bomb and blowing yourself up is their way of giving something to their people, dying for their cause, and guaranteeing themselves a place in heaven (although this is stupid, because suicide is a huge no-no in islam, if you die defending your land in armed combat then yeah you are a martyr, but not the bomb thing)

It sounds like you're arguing with yourself. If it's a "no-no in Islam," and is "stupid" - your words - then there is no justification for it, right? So let's just leave it at that.

anywayssssssssssssssss...........no easy solution to this problem, indeed.

Agreed.

a lot of people don't know also that palestine was not the first choice for the jewish homeland. the zionist party patrolled the world for other locations, like argentina and uganda....

No one "patrolled the world". There was a proposal at the Zionist Council which briefly considered Uganda as a temporary refuge for Jews fleeing pogroms in Russia and Poland, and as a precursor to the ultimate re-creation of the Jewish state in Israel. It was never considered as an alternative to Israel, and the proposal was dismissed in short order. I've never heard of Argentina in this context. Got a cite? Or just tossed that in there?

palestinians have just as much right as jews do to that land. i understand that Yahweh promised the Jews their Holy Land and all and that they are the "chosen people", but that doesn't excuse the fact that there are people who have been living on these lands for centuries and it's just not cool to say "hey, you're not one of us, get the heck out".

Palestinians do have rights to self determination in the land. There are two peoples who both have legitimate historical claims to the same small disputed piece of territory. That is fact. There are two ways of dealing with that fact: be intransigent to the other side and denounce their rights, or be conciliatory and negotiate a compromise solution that allows both sides to achieve those rights and historical claims.

I personally believe strongly in the latter. I condemn the intransigents on both sides. I particularly condemn in the harshest possible terms those who intentionally attack civilians and commit terrorist actions.

correct me if i am wrong.

I've tried to do just that.

[HYENA 4]

I'm extremely prejudice against my own people.

[scandal 951]

Jump to conclusions mats sell well it seems.

Have I missed something here? Did you provide an explanation for this statement, other than the obvious "take it at face value"?

I know you're not generally a massive pr1ck. A little befuddled perhaps. But not one to just claim that the national aspirations of a people 2,000 years in the making is the "worst thing that could happen". We should go back to living stateless, yes?

I'm all for recognizing the valid national aspirations of the Palestinians. and working to achieve them. But not at the expense of the valid national aspirations (and achievements) of my own peeps.

Is an explanation required Mr Scandal seeing as you've already written me off an anti-Israel antisemite...

I'd have been perfectly happy to discuss this - but on the basis of your earlier post, you can go ** yourself

I would be happy to discuss with you further, Pike.

I've not written you off - read my original post carefully:

.... the establishment of Israel in '48 were arguably the worst things to happen in that part of the world in the 20th century.

Did you actually say that?

Care to make a retraction before I simply write you off as an anti-Israel antisemite?

It's entirely possible that there's been a misunderstanding. I may have misunderstood you, you may have intended to write something other than how it came across to me, certainly innocent explanations are possible. That's why I asked you for a clarification.

To be honest, I was really surprised to see you make that comment because it's not in keeping with the stance I've generally seen you take on issues and seemed out of character.

[HYENA 4]

[SuperDuper! 230]

Wonder what religion TImothy McVee was when he bombed our building downtown

Everyone knows that Race and Hate was his religion. Now what?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Accusing me of being an "anti israel antisemite" is "asking for clarification".

Yeah right

[HYENA 4]

the inbred religion lacking spirituality

[scandal 951]

Accusing me of being an "anti israel antisemite" is "asking for clarification".

Yeah right

Did you actually say that?

Care to make a retraction before I simply write you off as an anti-Israel antisemite?

"before". Meaning "rather than, sooner than" -- See definition #2 as a conjunction, below:

be·fore (b-fôr, -fr)

adv.

1. Earlier in time: They called me the day before.

2. In front; ahead.

prep.

1. Previous to in time; earlier than.

2. In front of.

3. In store for; awaiting: The young man's whole life lies before him.

4. Into or in the presence of: She asked that the visitor be brought before her.

5. Under the consideration or jurisdiction of: The case is now before the court.

6. In a position superior to: The prince is before his brother in the line of succession.

conj.

1. In advance of the time when: See me before you leave.

2. Rather than; sooner than: I will die before I will betray my country.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Accusing me of being an "anti israel antisemite" is "asking for clarification".

Yeah right

Did you actually say that?

Care to make a retraction before I simply write you off as an anti-Israel antisemite?

"before". Meaning "rather than, sooner than" -- See definition #2 as a conjunction, below:

be·fore (b-fôr, -fr)

adv.

1. Earlier in time: They called me the day before.

2. In front; ahead.

prep.

1. Previous to in time; earlier than.

2. In front of.

3. In store for; awaiting: The young man's whole life lies before him.

4. Into or in the presence of: She asked that the visitor be brought before her.

5. Under the consideration or jurisdiction of: The case is now before the court.

6. In a position superior to: The prince is before his brother in the line of succession.

conj.

1. In advance of the time when: See me before you leave.

2. Rather than; sooner than: I will die before I will betray my country.

That's just priceless. Who are you trying to kid?

Patronizing much?

[SuperDuper! 230]

I shudder at the thought of being in a relationship where my partner pulls out a dictionary definition and hits me over the head with it.

Really? You are serious, I can tell.

Yesterday my coworker said she ended a relationship with a new bf. She found herself correcting his English during a happy hour.

This was her moment of epiphany, and she knew it would never work out.

THis is the biggest red flag of love gone: When one partner corrects you in English. Unless you are going to meet the King or Queen or apply for a professorship, it doesn't matter.

Correcting one's English: THe ultimate nag and sign the party is over.

[scandal 951]

That's just priceless. Who are you trying to kid?

Patronizing much?

Ok, I make one more attempt at this. Then it's back to playing with spooky and BY. The night ain't getting any younger!

You've claimed that you are interested in a serious discussion of the issue. I accept that at face value. I'm interested in same.

I've tried to extend the olive branch now several times, that perhaps I've misunderstood your initial comment regarding the founding of Israel in 1948.

I'd be happy to hear a longer clarification from you.

I've tried to make it clear that I'm NOT considering you anti-Israel, I want to hear your clarification. My statement was intended conditionally --- hence the usage of the word 'before'. That apparently isn't enough for you, your feelings are miffed.

Ok, one more attempt. Since you feel I've insulted you and called you an antisemite, I hereby publicly apologize -- I had no intention to slur you, and retract the words used.

This is a topic that I feel strongly about -- emotions can get the better of any of us.

I have no opinion at this time of your views regarding Jews or Israel, and await to hear further from you.

[meowmeowmeow 1]

Your memory is a bit fuzzy. You are referring to the 1947 Partition plan which indeed proposed a two state solution. It passed in the UN in Nov 1947 by a vote of 33-13, with the Arab nations unanimously voting against it. Immediately after the vote serious sectarian violence broke out between Arab and Jewish militias. In May 1948 the British, unable to control the violence, pulled out. The Jewish state declared independence on May 14th on the BASIS of the 1947 UN Partition plan, not "in violation" of the "pact" (it was not a "pact") as you wrote. The Arab nations surrounding the new state of Israel immediately declared war.

yes. thanks...alright it wasn't a pact, but this was something that was agreed upon.

Gush Emunim is a radical fringe movement on the Israeli political spectrum. They are particularly affiliated with an aggressive pro-settlement stance in the West Bank. I personally don't condone them, and most Israelis consider them a fringe movement. I recognize that there are people who say and do things in Israel that I disapprove of, and have even taken violent action. I condemn them for doing so, unequivocally. Just as I condemn domestic US terrorists (Timothy McVeigh, abortion clinic bombers, etc.). It is wrong to use violence and take the law into your own hands. Period.

i used them as an example, but there are others out there. here's a point: why are most of jewish the settlers on palestinian land of a very religious nature, i.e. haredim or ultra-orthodox? most israelis as i understand are not very religious, or practice it whenever it is convenient for

and yeah sure i am cool with recognizing a two state solution, but the kicker here is how is that gonna happen?

It can happen if both sides want it to happen. Israel seriously pursued negotiations leading to the Oslo accords. If an agreement had been reached at Camp David, polls at the time indicated the Israeli public would likely have ratified it in a referendum promised by Prime Minister Barak at the time. It was controversial, but there was a majority in favor of reaching a settlement. Today that majority has largely disappeared and turned to the right (the right in Israel is generally associated with a hawkish stance vis a vis negotiated settlement, the left is associated with a more accommodating stance). It takes two to make a deal however. When Camp David fell apart, the second intifida began, and things have continued going downhill ever since, sadly. When Hamas won the election in Gaza in 2006 it made it ever more clear that there is simply no authority able to negotiate a settlement on the Palestinian side at this time.

that's the thing. whenever things are fine, something magically happens to upset the general direction towards peace, and then the israelis take advantage of this to violate agreements they made with palestinians and promises they made to europeans and americans and whomever they get aid from and go ahead and build more settlements and do more stupid sh!t. palestinians do the same, someone gets hurt in some riot or whatever, they freak out and the other side comes and retaliates and this goes on and on until someone gets tired and chills out for a bit. then the whole cycle of ####### starts all over. my question here is why would israel still be stubborn and still build settlements on disputed land if they know they're going to get ####### over it?

I am against the building of settlements. Many Israelis are. I see it as counterproductive to Israel's long term goals and needs. One thing that can be stated: there is an open and vigorous discussion in Israel - in the media, in the Knesset (parliament) and in coffee shops - about these issues. What kind of open and vigorous discussion goes on in Hamas-run Gaza regarding the pros and cons of its ongoing katyusha attacks on Sderot and the Israeli south? Here's one just today.

are you jewish? or israeli? or both?

Whoah. Not "every Israeli politician wants" what Ariel Sharon wanted. There is a wide spectrum of views in Israeli political life. Israeli politicians include people like Yossi Beillin, architect of the Oslo plans. It also includes the Arab members of the Knesset (e.g. the 3 members of the Ra'am party - Ibrahim Sarsur, Taleb el-Sana and Masud Ghnaim, and members of the Hadash party) These people most certainly do not want to "push" Palestinians anywhere.

come on, we both know that no one gives a damn about what those token arab politicians want or need. one of those have come out publicly and said that already. and while yes there are less hawkish israeli politicians, the general consensus is that most people feel that israel is jewish land and jewish land only and i think most people would be thrilled with the idea i wrote about above.

In short - yes, there are extremist views on the right in Israeli politics. You don't need to go back to Sharon in the 90s, you can find them easily enough today in the likes of Avigdor Liberman. There are also moderate centrist views, and there are left-leaning views. Israel is a vibrant democracy. People say things. Some are shocking and extremist, and make newspaper headlines. I'm not saying you ignore them. I'm saying that they don't reflect everyone, and you should treat them the way you would extremist views in the US or other countries (e.g. people here who make extreme statements regarding immigration, abortion, or other domestic issues).

israel a democracy? come on dude...they treat their own ethiopian jewish population like #######, the arab israeli population are treated like second class citizens, and there's growing discontent with the russian population, many of whom are not even jews, but claimed jewish ancestry from a distant relative or two. that is how the russian mafia grew to alarming standards in israel, btw. oh another thing, if you ever get a chance, read up on how israel's banking laws. you'll be intrigued. i'm not ignorant enough to assume the entire population of israel thinks exactly one way. but the general majority do want things to end, but favorably for themselves and not for the palestinians. that is a given, sure. but not fair.

Merriam Webster definition:

Main Entry: an·ti–Sem·i·tism

Function: noun

Date: 1882

: hostility toward or discrimination against Jews as a religious, ethnic, or racial group

please...don't give me that definition. semites are people who originate from that one particular region of the middle east. and that includes the ARAB peoples. the jews have taken it upon themselves to associate this term precisely with themselves, and i just find that funny. i don't care either way. i'm just pointing out the obvious.

here's a link from me too: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semitic

I DON'T expect ANYONE, EVER, UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES to condone or try to explain suicide bombings. Strapping bombs to your body, boarding a bus or entering a cafe, with the intent to take innocent lives, is a criminal act of murder. No provocation can possibly justify it.

if you think i am justifying suicide bombings, then i apologize. but i most certainly am not! i am merely saying that it is understandable considering the disgusting conditions in which they live in, conditions that are imposed on them by the israelis.

It sounds like you're arguing with yourself. If it's a "no-no in Islam," and is "stupid" - your words - then there is no justification for it, right? So let's just leave it at that.

ok....? btw, there are christians palestinians too, and a lot of them.

No one "patrolled the world". There was a proposal at the Zionist Council which briefly considered Uganda as a temporary refuge for Jews fleeing pogroms in Russia and Poland, and as a precursor to the ultimate re-creation of the Jewish state in Israel. It was never considered as an alternative to Israel, and the proposal was dismissed in short order. I've never heard of Argentina in this context. Got a cite? Or just tossed that in there?

of course they did. but whatever. maybe patrol is not a neutral enough word? scoured, searched, seeked, explored, perhaps? i didn't toss that in there these are things i learned about in my ME studies.

[meowmeowmeow 1]

Palestinians do have rights to self determination in the land. There are two peoples who both have legitimate historical claims to the same small disputed piece of territory. That is fact. There are two ways of dealing with that fact: be intransigent to the other side and denounce their rights, or be conciliatory and negotiate a compromise solution that allows both sides to achieve those rights and historical claims.

I personally believe strongly in the latter. I condemn the intransigents on both sides. I particularly condemn in the harshest possible terms those who intentionally attack civilians and commit terrorist actions.

well since they've been there for 60+ years, there's no way to say hey you gotta go, right? in that regards, i believe in every nation's right to freedom, which includes the basques, the cornish, catalania, scotland, wales, abkhazia, ossetia, chechnya, ossetia, nagorni-karabakh, siberia, transnitseria (probably butchered that), kosova, etc. etc.

I've tried to do just that.

i just have a different POV than you, and different info, doesn't necessarily mean you and i are right/wrong.

cheers.

Edited October 10, 2009 by enraptured

[meowmeowmeow 1]

That's just priceless. Who are you trying to kid?

Patronizing much?

Ok, I make one more attempt at this. Then it's back to playing with spooky and BY. The night ain't getting any younger!

You've claimed that you are interested in a serious discussion of the issue. I accept that at face value. I'm interested in same.

I've tried to extend the olive branch now several times, that perhaps I've misunderstood your initial comment regarding the founding of Israel in 1948.

I'd be happy to hear a longer clarification from you.

I've tried to make it clear that I'm NOT considering you anti-Israel, I want to hear your clarification. My statement was intended conditionally --- hence the usage of the word 'before'. That apparently isn't enough for you, your feelings are miffed.

Ok, one more attempt. Since you feel I've insulted you and called you an antisemite, I hereby publicly apologize -- I had no intention to slur you, and retract the words used.

This is a topic that I feel strongly about -- emotions can get the better of any of us.

I have no opinion at this time of your views regarding Jews or Israel, and await to hear further from you.

would you agree to the idea that had the state of israel not been established, that there would be less conflicts in the region, and we wouldn't need to part with now nearly 5 billion dollars of aid a year for israel (80% of which goes towards beefing up their military and the rest into corrupt politicians' pockets?)

the USA also gives jordan and egypt billions, but their governments are a joke and they let the americans come in and do whatever they want so it evens things out anyways.

[HYENA 4]