Jump to content

Israel


jdobbin

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 552
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Guest chilipeppers

A good start would be the cave-in of a lot of media to "cartoon jihad" last year. Or the reluctance of the police to identify attackers on a Montreal synagogue as Muslim.

The cartoons are appalling, but as I said on that board.... teaching to hate is bad whether done openly as they do or privately as you do.

I do think though that we should move to that board to carry this discussion further, because in my opinion, Palestinians teaching their kids to hate Israel and the US still doesn't explain how Muslim extremism is an EXISTENTIAL threat to western way of life and its destruction as you repeatedly imply.

Perhaps the stark reality that there are several terrorist groups who include Canada as well as the US on their "hit list". When an enemy declared it is about to wreak vengence on you, it is wise to pay attention. I have no wish to wake up dead thanks to some terrorist who set off a bomb where I happened to be.

You can include me in that reality I sincerely hope it doesn't take a lot more deaths on western soil to walk people up. Even if it happened, they'd probably blame it on Israel or Bush.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest chilipeppers
When you are out of lucid, supported argument all you can do is mount ad hominem attacks on those who do have valid arguments. Frankly, your posted opinion of me is a worthless as the rest of the drivel you post.

Another valid argument from West Viking :lol: You've been a member for almost a year and have manged to mumble 67 posts. At least you know your place.

He does have a valid argument, in fact lately I would say he's one of the few who does have valid point sans ad hominems.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This simplistic notion that Israel is illegal is bull shit. Repeating it over and over won't make it true.

That's nice, but my post had nothing to do with arguing the case of Israel. I was touching on the issue of the right of Palestinians to self-determination. I was arguing that bringing up the fact that a Palestinian state never existed (as M.Dancer was doing) is not grounds to rejct statehood because none of the countries that emerged from the Ottoman Empire were states beforehand either. Bosnia, Serbia etc didn't exist either, but that's the beauty of history, things evolve and change. Same thing with Quebec, the fact that it was always a colony and never a nation is not grounds to say that it can never be a sovereing state at any given point in the futre. It's the will of the inhabitants (Quebecer or Palestinian) to decide that. A little more clear now?

Furthermore, even though the Palestinian right to statehood may be debatable when it comes to the legal complexities of the matter, there is absolutely no legal grounds for occupying the West Bank. Give the land back to Jordan and let them decide whether it wants to keep it or grant self-determination to the Palestinians.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm with WestViking here. A threat is a threat is a threat! What more do you want, several 9/11 and subway bombings before we acknowledge there is a threat?

Heck, if I say I'd kill you, you'd have the cops on me for threatening you! Why would this be any different other than it's on a very much larger scale?

Well, I'd rather the fighting be done there in those god-forsaken countries than here! That innocent civilians are hurt and killed is just too bad but the stark reality. Those civilians should blame the extremists in their midst....and should boot them out and destroy them!

I'd rather the innocent civilians here remain safe! That's just human nature. It's either them or us!

I didn't say there isn't a threat, I questioned the validity of an existential threat to our society.

As for fighting them "over there" instead of here, I'm curious to see how the two are related. Have all terrorists decided to flock to Iraq and leave the west alone, or have we seen that on the contrary they are now using the fighting "over there" as a justification to recruit and plan more attacks against us?

Al Qaeda used to be a religious organisation with impossible ambitions (the existential threat I was mentioning). They are now a political movement with young Muslims who would have never thought about blowing themselves up for a Muslim caliphe, but are willing to do it in the name of the futile wars waged against them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...Too much sauce again?

....That is a scurrilous personal slur. I have never been an addict of any kind. I am sorry if I referred to you as being drunk, in that post or this one, but when you go so far over the edge into incoherence, I wonder.

I repeat your defamation and then you apologize for it, all in the same post, and you say I'm incoherent?

I challenge you.

Back to the substance of all of these posts, I cannot understand your view that heads the Jewish inhabitants of the land of Israel lose, tails the fighters, jihadis and warriors win. What do fighters, jihadis and warriors contribute to the world's welfare?

This is another thing that gripes me. Both you and Rue do it. Just because I state researched historical fact that counters your arguments, you label me as a supporter of jihadists, or what have you. Most of the time I am posting to set right the constant blizzard of mythinformation put up by Rue and other members of the pro-Israel gang. I am most definitely sympathetic to the Palestinian people because I think they have indeed been cheated by history, and most particularly by the Zionists, by Israel's right wing and by the Americans. I have gone on record here, albeit some time back, saying that I think terrorism is a terrible mistake, that Arafat was not a good leader for the Palestinians and that they would have been much better with a Ghandi.

And yes, the moderation here is terrible. There should have been an end to this anti-semite crap a long time ago and yet it goes on and on. How long did it take to stop the constant racist remarks against Arabs and Moslems? Too bloody long.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK. Is China engaged in "illegal" activites by packing Tibet with people of Chinese extraction?

I cannot understand the view of so many that heads the Jewish inhabitants of the land of Israel lose, tails the fighters, jihadis and warriors win. What do fighters, jihadis and warriors contribute to the world's welfare? Why is Israel being held to a standard that other nations cannot, and will not ever, hold themselves to?

The "Geneva Conventions" were apparently an attempt by politicians to prevent the series of wars that preceded it, WW I and WW II. While well-intentioned, no nation will treat such international law as a suicide pact.

Yes China is wrong to do that and there are many who protest it. But it is not going to inflame an entire region and possibly lead to a spreading regional or possibly global conflict. In any case, if somebody started putting up posts defending China's actions in Tibet, you can expect resistance from me. Nobody does because it is generally accepted as wrong.

Again, with the jihadists? Do you actually know any Palestinian people? Many of them are just people like you and I, trying to get along, do right for their families. This is like describing every Jew in the world as though he or she were a member of Shin Beit or the IDF. Yes many of them are militant. Who wouldn't be given what they've been through? I was watching coverage of the "Walk With Israel" march that was held here last week. A lot of those people looked pretty militant too.

Look at the number of countries who are signatory to the Geneva Conventions. These were drawn up to prevent wars of aggression aimed at acquiring land. In other words, to make war only legal as an act of defence. Israel keeps talking about its right to defend itself. That is enshrined in the Geneva Conventions, even though Israel refuses to acknowledge them. This is not say that Israel is the only one to flout the Geneva Conventions. The US violated them completely when it invaded Iraq and when it used agent orange on Vietnam. Somehow, there seems to be an attitude among some here that we in the west the good guys on the side of right and wearing the big white hat. Lyndon Johnson once said, "He may be a sunovabitch, but he's our sunovabitch!" This may have suited Johnson, but I personally am no fan of sunovabitches.

The Geneva Conventions are a very good thing and woe to the world if they are ever abandonned.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you've hit the nail on the head JBG, obviously Palestinian or terrorist supporters want Israel to fail, they want that 'suicide pact'. Many agitate for a one state solution which we know would be the absolute end of Israel and democracy.

More of the famous imputing. Nobody here has said they want Israel to fall. You are like Chicken Little.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you've hit the nail on the head JBG, obviously Palestinian or terrorist supporters want Israel to fail, they want that 'suicide pact'. Many agitate for a one state solution which we know would be the absolute end of Israel and democracy.

More of the famous imputing. Nobody here has said they want Israel to fall. You are like Chicken Little.

Don't you wonder what the heck the 'suicide pact' is?

Don't you wonder who here was 'agitiating' for a one state solution?

Higgly, don't you wonder where, these types of silly statements ever find there origins?

Where do they come from?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't say there isn't a threat, I questioned the validity of an existential threat to our society.

What exactly do you mean by "existential?"

As for fighting them "over there" instead of here, I'm curious to see how the two are related. Have all terrorists decided to flock to Iraq and leave the west alone, or have we seen that on the contrary they are now using the fighting "over there" as a justification to recruit and plan more attacks against us?

Well, obviously with the fighting going on there, they need to give those areas their full attenton. I'd say that's better than having their concentration fully engaged over here!

To say nothing of giving other countires who secretly harbor the desire to coddle, encourage, fund and abet terrorism considerable pause.

Yep, they recruit all right but so far I haven't heard of any terrorist attacks against the USA after 9/11.

Al Qaeda used to be a religious organisation with impossible ambitions (the existential threat I was mentioning). They are now a political movement with young Muslims who would have never thought about blowing themselves up for a Muslim caliphe, but are willing to do it in the name of the futile wars waged against them.

Bull! It is still about their faith and religion! Al Qaeda may be a politcal movement now, but it is still using religion as a means to get these young recruits! Even without the wars now, you think they wouldn't come up with anything to justify terrorist acts? There were terrorist acts before 9/11!

Again, what are you talking about an "existential threat?" How can it be existential and a threat?

Existentialism at least implies a certain level of thought. Can you explain what you mean?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you've hit the nail on the head JBG, obviously Palestinian or terrorist supporters want Israel to fail, they want that 'suicide pact'. Many agitate for a one state solution which we know would be the absolute end of Israel and democracy.

More of the famous imputing. Nobody here has said they want Israel to fall. You are like Chicken Little.

Not in so many words, but its implied, just as the left appears to want the U.S. to fail. There is no other explanation for not wanting or expecting Israel to defend itself. Many on the left seem to regard Israel as the cutting edge of evil while supporting Palestinion or other Arab aggression and attacks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes China is wrong to do that and there are many who protest it. But it is not going to inflame an entire region and possibly lead to a spreading regional or possibly global conflict. In any case, if somebody started putting up posts defending China's actions in Tibet, you can expect resistance from me. Nobody does because it is generally accepted as wrong.
Maybe you do, and I note with gratitude the number of threads you've started and posts you've made concerning the victimization of people in Tibet, the Christian areas of Southern Sudan, Egyptian Copts, etc. as well as your herculean contributions of money and effort for them.

You may be there, but where is the New York Times and Toronto Star? Are they writing multiple articles per day to make the governments of China, Sudan and Egypt look bad?

The Geneva Conventions are a very good thing and woe to the world if they are ever abandonned.
And Saddam's Iraq followed the Geneva Convention when he invaded Iran after a bad night's dream, and Iran followed the Geneva Convention when they (and Iraq) fought their war using 12 year olds. And where does the Geneva Convention restrain Hamas' use of suicide bombers against Israeli buses?

The Geneva Convention is indeed a suicide pact if countries and peoples cannot be proactive, but have to wait till slaughtered like sheep to fight back.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe you do, and I note with gratitude the number of threads you've started and posts you've made concerning the victimization of people in Tibet, the Christian areas of Southern Sudan, Egyptian Copts, etc. as well as your herculean contributions of money and effort for them.

You may be there, but where is the New York Times and Toronto Star? Are they writing multiple articles per day to make the governments of China, Sudan and Egypt look bad?

Well you missed my point. Nobody here is advocating on the side of the Chinese or the murderers in Sudan. If there were people doing that, I would argue against them. There is general consensus in our society and in the western press that these things are wrong. What we are doing here is debating the issues, not slapping each other on the back and saying how much we agree.

And Saddam's Iraq followed the Geneva Convention when he invaded Iran after a bad night's dream, and Iran followed the Geneva Convention when they (and Iraq) fought their war using 12 year olds. And where does the Geneva Convention restrain Hamas' use of suicide bombers against Israeli buses?

The Geneva Convention is indeed a suicide pact if countries and peoples cannot be proactive, but have to wait till slaughtered like sheep to fight back.

Are you saying I have defended Saddam's attack on Iran? Show me where I did that. I do agree, though, that Saddam's attack on Iran did violate the Genva Conventions. Are you saying I advocate for suicide bombing? Show me where I did that. I want to see the Israelis stop stealing land that does not belong to them and give back what they have already stolen.

This whole idea of being proactive is a slippery slope. George Bush has shown us that. A Palestinian might say that the IDF is no different than Hamas. How easily you forget what sort of things the Hagganah and Irgun did in the name of freedom. Guys like Itzhak Shamir were no better than murders and Israel voted him Prime Minister. There was a telling moment at the Madrid conference when a member of the Palestinian team held up an old British wanted poster of Itzhak Shamir. You are right that terrorism is wrong but there are Palestinians who just see this as the pot calling the kettle black. And before you start saying I am defending suicide bombers, I want to make sure that you understand the point I am making: as long as there is killing, there will be people who want to kill back and who will find some way to justify it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

More of the famous imputing. Nobody here has said they want Israel to fall. You are like Chicken Little.

Not in so many words, but its implied, just as the left appears to want the U.S. to fail. There is no other explanation for not wanting or expecting Israel to defend itself. Many on the left seem to regard Israel as the cutting edge of evil while supporting Palestinion or other Arab aggression and attacks.

Holy assumptions batman, scriblett is on the run!

It's implied??

It is implied nowhere, by anyone.

Who is the "left" "

anyone that doesn't mindlessly, without a independant rational thought, support the US and Israel.

If the US and Israel fail, they will fail because of their own overzealousness, or overextension, but they will fail through there own actions and policies, not because of any 'wishful thinking'.

Is this more imputing?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't you wonder what the heck the 'suicide pact' is?

Don't you wonder who here was 'agitiating' for a one state solution?

Higgly, don't you wonder where, these types of silly statements ever find there origins?

Where do they come from?

-------------------

“This is total war. We are fighting a variety of enemies. There are lots of them out there. All this talk about first we are going to do Afghanistan, then we will do Iraq... this is entirely the wrong way to go about it. If we just let our vision of the world go forth, and we embrace it entirely and we don’t try to piece together clever diplomacy, but just wage a total war... our children will sing great songs about us years from now.”

Richard Perle

Not sure I get your point, but I love that Perle quote. If he were a member of Hamas there would be real trouble over something like that :blink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyways, getting back to Rue and the claims that Palestine includes large parts of Syria and Jordan, and Rue's statements concerning the League of Nations...

In 2002, Margaret MacMillan published a detailed account of the Versailles conference entitled "Paris 1919: Six Months that Changed the World". At the front of this acclaimed book is a map of the Middle East, including Palestine, which she, like reputable historians everywhere, depicts as being the region between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean, and extending between Lebanon and the Sinai.

Macmillan goes into detail about the discussions and negotiations concerning Palestine....

1) The major powers at the conference who made all the decisions were the British, represented by Lloyd George, the French respresented by Clemenceau, and the Americans represented by Wilson. The Americans were not interested in the Middle East and all of the discussions consisted mainly of horse trading involving the French and British.

2) The region known as Palestine was widely accepted by all as the map in MacMillan's book depicts and has been for centuries

3) Feisal wanted Palestine to be included in Syria because he wanted the pan Arab state that had been promised him by T.E. Lawrence (Lawrence of Arabia) as compensation for Arab assistance in defeating the Turks and by proxy, the Germans their allies. He saw this as a way to get support from the French for Arab claims to Palestine.

4) The British wanted Palestine to be included in Jordan because they saw this as a way to bolster their mandate

5) Chaim Weitzmann and the Zionists wanted the strip of Jordan on the other side of the Jordan River to be included in Palestine because he wanted all of the water in the Jordan River. He also wanted all the water in the Lintani as well, and tried to get South Lebanon included in Palestine, with no success. Not that the Zionists gave up on the idea - Ben Gurion plotted for years to engineer a coup in Lebanon and use the unrest as an excuse to come in and occupy and annex south Lebanon so he could have the water. It is likely that Sharon had the same thing in mind when he invaded and tried to occupy south Lebanon "Up to the Litani" in the 1980s.

6) To all of this, the French said "NON!". They did not want a mixing of their claim on Syria to be mixed up with the British claim in Palestine, and did not give a fig for the British promises tot he Arabs. Because the French were willing to cede any claims to the oil-rich Mosel region of Mesopotania (now Iraq) to the British, the British gave up their support for the merging of Palestine and agreed with the French.

The result was that the Versailles conference ended up incorporating the Balfour declaration (which by the way included the statement that the Jews were to have a homeland in Palestine so long as it did not adversely affect the Arabs already living there) into the general peace settlement, which was later (1922) ratified by the League of Nations.

Although the incorporation of Palestine with Syria and/or Jordan was discussed, it was never agreed to.

As far as the British acting illegally, Rue is confusing international law with inter-state treaties and agreements. International law involves things like the Geneva Conventions and Nuclear Non-Proliferation Agreement which are ratified and signed by a very large number of countries. Treaties are only as good as the enforcement individual parties put into them, there was never any treaty which merged Palestine with Jordan and/or Syria, and even if there were, nobody ever tried to enforce it.

And finally, Rue, there is this: the dissemination of racist statements is a crime in Canada. If you think I am making racist statements, then contact the police and file a complaint. Otherwise, "Shaddup and be tolerant".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is this more imputing?
Explain the term "imputing". Is that a Canadian language term?

Figleaf defined it in the thread "What I hate aboutt his site." Or did you just want to take a slap at Canadians? Maybe you should just stick to US forums, eh, JBG?
I was not taking a slap at Canadians. I was merely giving deference to the fact that as a foreign country, Canada speaks Canadian.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was not taking a slap at Canadians. I was merely giving deference to the fact that as a foreign country, Canada speaks Canadian.

I guess I was being too subtle. I was imputing that you were taking a slap at Canadians. Helps if you use it in a sentence, don't you think? ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

jbg, even though my earlier post wasn't addressed to you, I'd love to hear your comments on it. It was number 179 and it was to Rue... but it was a continuation of the discussion you are I were having beforehand.

I'm not challenging you for a response or anything, I really am curious to see what your take is on the issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

jbg, even though my earlier post wasn't addressed to you, I'd love to hear your comments on it. It was number 179 and it was to Rue... but it was a continuation of the discussion you are I were having beforehand.

I'm not challenging you for a response or anything, I really am curious to see what your take is on the issue.

Done. See below:
[That's nice, but my post had nothing to do with arguing the case of Israel. I was touching on the issue of the right of Palestinians to self-determination.
How are Palestinians different from other Arabs? There are lots of Arab states, many local to the area. Why must their self-determination occur in areas now controlled by Israel?
Furthermore, even though the Palestinian right to statehood may be debatable when it comes to the legal complexities of the matter, there is absolutely no legal grounds for occupying the West Bank. Give the land back to Jordan and let them decide whether it wants to keep it or grant self-determination to the Palestinians.
Jordan foreclosed that option, I believe, in 1994. It might not have been a bad idea.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jordan foreclosed that option, I believe, in 1994. It might not have been a bad idea.

I'm not an international lawyer, but tell me, what happens to a peace treaty when the obligations are not fulfilled?

If I recall, resolutions 242 and 338 were to be honoured according to that treaty and Arafat acknowledged Israel's right to exist and Rabin acknowledged the Palstinian right to self-determination.... before he was killed by religious extremists who believed he's giving away the Jews' God-given land.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jordan foreclosed that option, I believe, in 1994. It might not have been a bad idea.

I'm not an international lawyer, but tell me, what happens to a peace treaty when the obligations are not fulfilled?

Jordan, for reasons of avoiding violence, designated the then-existing Palestine Liberation Organization as the sole spokesman for the West Bank people, abdicating their role.

If I recall, resolutions 242 and 338 were to be honoured according to that treaty and Arafat acknowledged Israel's right to exist and Rabin acknowledged the Palstinian right to self-determination.... before he was killed by religious extremists who believed he's giving away the Jews' God-given land.

He did that in English only, never publicly and unequivocally in Arabic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,713
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    nyralucas
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Jeary earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Venandi went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • Gaétan earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • Dictatords earned a badge
      First Post
    • babetteteets earned a badge
      One Year In
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...