128 replies to this topic

[Flibbertigibbet]

expandmymind, on 19 February 2012 - 07:51 PM, said:

You can bet that if there was evidence, it would have been released at one of the man's legal hearings by now. In a free society, incarcerating someone without evidence is effectively tyranny.

And I'm sorry, but the Israeli government has done very little to gain the trust of others. Only if we go by documented history, mind you.

Since this is presumably some sort of PR disaster for the Israelis, one would assume they wouldn't have done it without good reason. You shouldn't let anti-Israeli prejudice get the better of you.

[and then]

If this man dies it will have been his choice.  And I think that if he truly was wrongly imprisoned it will have been an honorable choice.  However I don't find it so hard to grasp that he might just hate Israelis enough to die just to spite them.  A suicide bomber without the bomb so to speak.  I don't know the real facts of the case.  But it definitely doesn't help Israel in the Hasbara department.  I do agree that a true Gandhi like movement,with peaceful demonstration by the thousands would bring tremendous pressure to bear on any Israeli government.  But that will never happen IMO because it would require more than one great figure of peace to reset the hatred that has been taught to them as children for generations.

[Yamato]

Flibbertigibbet, on 19 February 2012 - 05:17 PM, said:

Who lived in that country first?

Who lived in the US first?  If we were genuinely interested in the indigenous people of a region having claim, we wouldn't support Israel in the first place.  So no, you're not interested in that, at all.  Governments always think they have a good reason; if that's what excuses government, whether there's a PR disaster involved or not, then that attitude will effectively deliver us to tyranny's bedchamber.

There's thousands of Palestinians being held and tortured in Israeli dungeons for nefarious charges made against them and this case should be a reflection to a much larger and systemic problem than invoking an emotional response that only feels compassion for one guy.  There are children in Israeli prisons.  Where's their light of justice been all these years?  Hidden by the dark and dirty regime in Israel that would make the world a much better place if it disappeared from the face of the earth yesterday.  I don't even have to blink first before washing this bullseye off the forehead of America.  How convenient it must be to drop the ball and then insist that we keep paying for your bedeviled mess.  A citizen of the occupier of 25% of the earth's landmass going to ask whose country it was first?  That's rich!

[ExpandMyMind]

Seeing Yamato has opened up that line of debate:

"Who lived that country first?"

“If I was an Arab leader, I would never make terms with Israel. That is natural: We have taken their country. … They only see one thing: we have come here and stolen their country.”

David Ben-Gurion [1886-1973]... first prime minister of israel...

It seems pretty clear who Israel's first prime minister thought lived there first. Hmm, indigenous population or immigrating (for all intents and purposes, invading) Europeans?

[Flibbertigibbet]

Yamato, on 19 February 2012 - 09:07 PM, said:

Who lived in the US first?  If we were genuinely interested in the indigenous people of a region having claim, we wouldn't support Israel in the first place.  So no, you're not interested in that, at all.  Governments always think they have a good reason; if that's what excuses government, whether there's a PR disaster involved or not, then that attitude will effectively deliver us to tyranny's bedchamber.

There's thousands of Palestinians being held and tortured in Israeli dungeons for nefarious charges made against them and this case should be a reflection to a much larger and systemic problem than invoking an emotional response that only feels compassion for one guy.  There are children in Israeli prisons.  Where's their light of justice been all these years?  Hidden by the dark and dirty regime in Israel that would make the world a much better place if it disappeared from the face of the earth yesterday.  I don't even have to blink first before washing this bullseye off the forehead of America.  How convenient it must be to drop the ball and then insist that we keep paying for your bedeviled mess.  A citizen of the occupier of 25% of the earth's landmass going to ask whose country it was first?  That's rich!

Wrong. I'm not American.

[Flibbertigibbet]

expandmymind, on 19 February 2012 - 09:36 PM, said:

Seeing Yamato has opened up that line of debate:

"Who lived that country first?"

“If I was an Arab leader, I would never make terms with Israel. That is natural: We have taken their country. … They only see one thing: we have come here and stolen their country.”

David Ben-Gurion [1886-1973]... first prime minister of israel...

It seems pretty clear who Israel's first prime minister thought lived there first. Hmm, indigenous population or immigrating (for all intents and purposes, invading) Europeans?

He was clearly stating what an Arab would think, rather than his own opinion. As the first prime minister of Israel, he knew very well it was the Jewish ancestral homeland.

[ExpandMyMind]

"That is natural: WE HAVE TAKEN THEIR COUNTRY"

Nuff said to be honest.

Edited by expandmymind, 19 February 2012 - 10:09 PM.

[Flibbertigibbet]

expandmymind, on 19 February 2012 - 10:09 PM, said:

"That is natural: WE HAVE TAKEN THEIR COUNTRY"

Nuff said to be honest.

He was expressing what an Arab would think, which is exactly what he said he was doing. Why can't you see this? Your anti-Israeli prejudice is clouding your judgement.

[ExpandMyMind]

In the second part of the quote he is, no doubt, but in the part I quoted again there can be no doubt that he is giving his own opinion. Besides, there are ample quotes from him as well as others that reiterate what he is saying. Pick up a book by Benny Morris or Norman Finkelstein or any of the New Historians from Israel and you'll see. Jesus, I actually can't even believe I'm having to debate this long debunked nonsense et again. The documented history is clear. Saying that I have a claim to Ireland or that a Phillipino has a claim to spAin or that an AustraliN has a claim to Britain is on the same level of absurdity as claiming that a group of European Jews, 2000 years removed from the land no less, had more of a claim to the land than the indigenous population. Israeli academia recognised this decades ago, yet you cone to Internet forums and encounter pseudo debaters that think they know more than Araeli historians.

Ludicrous. Seriously, I would love to know how you attained such absurd reasoning.

Edited by expandmymind, 19 February 2012 - 10:30 PM.

[Flibbertigibbet]

expandmymind, on 19 February 2012 - 10:29 PM, said:

In the second part of the quote he is, no doubt, but in the part I quoted again there can be no doubt that he is giving his own opinion. Besides, there are ample quotes from him as well as others that reiterate what he is saying. Pick up a book by Benny Morris or Norman Finkelstein or any of the New Historians from Israel and you'll see. Jesus, I actually can't even believe I'm having to debate this long debunked nonsense et again. The documented history is clear. Saying that I have a claim to Ireland or that a Phillipino has a claim to spAin or that an AustraliN has a claim to Britain is on the same level of absurdity as claiming that a group of European Jews, 2000 years removed from the land no less, had more of a claim to the land than the indigenous population. Israeli academia recognised this decades ago, yet you cone to Internet forums and encounter pseudo debaters that think they know more than Araeli historians.

Ludicrous. Seriously, I would love to know how you attained such absurd reasoning.

But you said yourself that once a conquest has happened and is in the past, such as the Arab conquest of the Middle East, it should be allowed to stand. Why don't you apply the same rule to the Israeli conquest of Palestine?

[and then]

Flibbertigibbet, on 19 February 2012 - 10:32 PM, said:

But you said yourself that once a conquest has happened and is in the past, such as the Arab conquest of the Middle East, it should be allowed to stand. Why don't you apply the same rule to the Israeli conquest of Palestine?

Hi Flibberti and welcome to UM.

Just a note:  There are a few here and EX is one, who's opinion of the culpability of the US and Israel in nearly every evil deed troubling the world today, cannot be swayed.  While it's laudable to be so consistent it doesn't make for very informative discussions.  He's not a bad guy - just excitable.  Anyway - good luck and welcome to UM

[Flibbertigibbet]

and then, on 19 February 2012 - 11:49 PM, said:

Hi Flibberti and welcome to UM.

Just a note:  There are a few here and EX is one, who's opinion of the culpability of the US and Israel in nearly every evil deed troubling the world today, cannot be swayed.  While it's laudable to be so consistent it doesn't make for very informative discussions.  He's not a bad guy - just excitable.  Anyway - good luck and welcome to UM

Thanks.

[ExpandMyMind]

Flibbertigibbet, on 19 February 2012 - 10:32 PM, said:

But you said yourself that once a conquest has happened and is in the past, such as the Arab conquest of the Middle East, it should be allowed to stand. Why don't you apply the same rule to the Israeli conquest of Palestine?

First, I did not say that. I think that you need to reread what I type.

Second, apart from it being morally bankrupt? It is in direct violation of international law (this is regarding the occupied terriories), as it is inadmissible to acquire land through the course of a war - a law brought into effect after the seco d world war occured due to such an event being the match that ignited that horrendous flame.

Now, regarding internationally recognised present day Israel (pre 67 Borders)? I agree with their creation standing now for 2 reasons. The first is that it is now 3rd generation roughly since their creation, which means that most were born there. I believe in this international human right law called the right to self determination, and with them being born there they have every right to decide for themselves (majority now rules) if they want to be part of Israel or Palestine. Funny that the same opportunity is not afforded to the Palestinians who have been denied their rights to self determination since said creation.

The second is simply that the Jews there, if forced to leave, would have nowhere to go, and it would be one of the worst human rights atrocities known to man - the worst that I can think of since WW2, most likely. If they were ethnically cleansed or genocided then it would be far more morally bankrupt, due to the scale, than Israel's treatment of the Palestinians.

But this does not apply to this Israelis who occupy the Palestinian territories, because they DO have a place to go - Israel. They have no valid reason or legitimate excuse for ethnically cleansing, over the decades, and denying the Palestinians their rights to self determination. It's disgusting, especially consisting Israel's own experiences.

Edited by expandmymind, 20 February 2012 - 12:15 AM.

[Flibbertigibbet]

expandmymind, on 20 February 2012 - 12:11 AM, said:

First, I did not say that. I think that you need to reread what I type.

Second, apart from it being morally bankrupt? It is in direct violation of international law (this is regarding the occupied terriories), as it is inadmissible to acquire land through the course of a war - a law brought into effect after the seco d world war occured due to such an event being the match that ignited that horrendous flame.

Now, regarding internationally recognised present day Israel (pre 67 Borders)? I agree with their creation standing now for 2 reasons. The first is that it is now 3rd generation roughly since their creation, which means that most were born there. I believe in this international human right law called the right to self determination, and with them being born there they have every right to decide for themselves (majority now rules) if they want to be part of Israel or Palestine. Funny that the same opportunity is not afforded to the Palestinians who have been denied their rights to self determination since said creation.

The second is simply that the Jews there, if forced to leave, would have nowhere to go, and it would be one of the worst human rights atrocities known to man - the worst that I can think of since WW2, most likely. If they were ethnically cleansed or forced to leave it would be more morally bankrupt, due to the scale, than Israel's treatment of the Palestinians.

But this does not apply to this Israelis who occupy the Palestinian territories, because they DO have a place to go - Israel. They have no valid reason or legitimate excuse for ethnically cleansing, over the decades, and denying the Palestinians their rights to self determination. It's disgusting, especially consisting Israel's own experiences.

Israel would not have felt the need to acquire militarily defendable borders had it not been attacked by the Arabs virtually upon its creation and been under a state of seige ever since. Israels occupation of all land west of the Jordan is a strategic necessity.

Edited by Flibbertigibbet, 20 February 2012 - 12:14 AM.

[ExpandMyMind]

That is a myth. With Israelis technological advantage over the rest, it has nothing to truly fear. It may not have always been true, but it is tru today. And besides, land swaps have have long been recognised as a way of negotiating peace.

The terminology of 'under siege' is grossly misused there. Especially when one considers the actual siege of Gaza. The only time Israel were in real trouble was in '72 and with that being said, the west would not have let them fall. Let's be honest about it - they are the most important client state the west (U.S.) has ever had, which is why they can do whatever they want practically.

And let's be honest one more time, can anyone really blame the Arabs for attacking? Would any one of us, if being truly honest, allow the same to happen to our brethren? People always portray the Arabs as being unreasonable, yet if they had the arab role then, really, they wouldn't have much choice but to do the same.

But it's done now, Israel is here to stay, and most Arabs recognise and accept this, even with Israel's behaviour since (read the Brookings Institute polls I provided a link to in the Christian thread if you want to understand some Arab opinion).

Edited by expandmymind, 20 February 2012 - 12:30 AM.