Israel's economy leaving Palestinians far behind

I have a problem remebering things

 

There is no occupation and no oppression. Unless you are talking about the lands Arabs slaughtered under the sword of islam to conquer countries...yes, they are occupying those lands. Israel was Israel long before islam was invented. Arabs occupied their land, the Jews took it back.

Living in a conflict is not a criteria for understanding it. The media, especially al-Reuters (but then look at who they hire) do far more than you think when it comes to painting over the truth about a group of people that intentionally breed suicide bombers.

Israel is a perfect example of why islam is not peaceful and tolerant.

 

Thankyou.

I see that there are a few people here, or most of the people here agree that Israel is fighting for peace and defending itself from its enemies.

That's good.
For those who don't think that way, let me just tell you that you have know idea what you're talking about. (And I'm sorry for the harsh expression.)

The BBC and other news stations, feed its viewers with so many lies, that it's absolutely unbelievable. We here watch a news story develop, and at the same time the BBC starts telling about the same story.

The Israeli news sounds like this- at 15:00, what seems to be a suicide bomber has killed 15 people, and 46 injured. We do not know yet who is behind the attacks. More details will follow at the 7 oclock news.

BBC (and other stations also)- A suicide bomber blew himself up in Tel Aviv, they are reports of 6 dead and 15 injured.
IN RETURN TO THE SUICIDE BOMBING, THE ISRAELI ARMY BOMBED A TERRORIST TRAINING SCHOOL IN GAZA, AND 19 PEOPLE WERE INJURED BY THAT ATTACK!

I am sorry if this is annoying to some of you who are living in England, but I must tell you its exactly like that. (Sorry for choosing the BBC though..)

Well that's all I have to say for now.

Talk soon,
Efi

 

There is obesity and depression only.

 

Efi, you are correct. There IS media biased. It all stems from one thing. Some people just don't like Jews. That's what its about.

Hell, you think the BBC is bad. We have Jews in our own country who hate Jews just as much as Arabs, Muslims, and Democrats.

 

I believe in Israel's write to exist, safely and securely, free from a concerted "drive to the sea" to annihilate the Jewish people and eliminate the state. I also believe the Palestinian people need their own land, and the right and means to determine their own course.

That said, I'd be loathe to draw a historical argument as a justification for Jewish possession of the land now defined by the State of Israel. After all, in the United States, we stand on ground once occupied by the indigenous tribes now conveniently tucked into the periphery of our minds. By the argument above, we need to leave America and return it to the rightful owners. Short of that, we are speaking unsupportably double standards; we are hypocrites.

I think more to the point is that all people have occupied all lands, rightly or wrongly. It is what it is. Now, what do we do with the situation to seek the greatest good?

 

What other country needs a "right to exist?" I find such "statements" puzzling, as those words are only repeated (as propaganda was intended) within a context surrounding Israel. The palestinian people do have their own land, have been offered their own state and have the ability to determine their own course. And that course is death and destruction.

That was my point. You see, it's a given to presume that Israel is on "occupied" land. Think about that for a moment. Why is it said in such terms? Because it's a propaganda campaign started long ago. Do Arabs speak in terms of the lands they have occupied from others? Do Americans speak in terms of land they occupied from my ancestors? No. Do Arabs need a "right to exist?" Do Americans need a "right to exist?"

No, "we" are not speaking in double standards at all, except when referring to Israel. That was the entire point of the confrontational sentence "Unless you are talking about the lands Arabs slaughtered under the sword of islam to conquer countries...yes, they are occupying those lands."

I agree. And I believe the greatest good has long been sought by Israel. They've bent over backwards for the palestinian people, but they are not interested. How does one seek the greatest good from a group of people whose religion refers to them as the sons of pigs and apes and consistently calls for their destruction? Has Israel sought the greater good, or the palestinians?

 

There is no doubt: Arafat blew it. He was handed an olive branch by Barak and blew it. Well, he blew it, as he was predisposed to do, or, I believe more truthfully, he was so constrained by his domestic coalition that that was all that was open to him.

"Right to exist" is a myth created by every modern nation state to justify its own existence. We, all of us that call ourselves citizens of some national state, reach back to some mythical, almost primordial past to validate that citizenship when the very concept of "citizen" is, at most, a couple of hundred years old compared to the millenia of human history. We declare that the right to possess the land we currently possess was handed down, as if by divine order. Whether "One Nation Under God" or some other imputed, divine right, it's all myth.

I base what I wrote on:

If I misunderstood what you wrote, please let me know. There was no "Israel long before islam was invented." There was this land, where lots of people lived. At some point, more arabs lived there than jews; at some point, more jews lived there than arabs. To say that the justification for Israel's possession of the land where it now exists is based in some sense of previous ownership is, as much as I can see, a direct parallel with what I wrote: indians owned the land I stand on now, and by your argument, I owe it back to them. Or rather, if Leonard Peltier and the American Indian Movement had extended their 1973 occupation of Wounded Knee to a national revolution, it would have been a justified overthrow, by your line of reasoning, simply because "we occupied their land, and they took it back."

How far back do we go? Isn't it a better argument to say that this is what we have, and now, let's move on to an equitable solution?

There are kids killing themselves as political acts. We can continue to ascribe this to "wild eyed muslims, by definition, fanatics" and continue to reap what we reap. Or we can try to unravel the roots of where this comes from, so that every Israeli feels secure in his home, and every Palestinian kid believes he has a future.

 

"Right to exist," to the best of my knowledge, is only used in the context of a discussion of Israel. I have yet to see any other discussion, anywhere, that talks about another country by specifically using the phrase "Right to exist." It is a myth, however, it is a myth that revolves around Israel.

And it was called Israel.
http://www.bible-history.com/geography/ancient-israel/israel-first-century.html

I'm not sure I would whitewash it so pleasantly, but...ok.

I'm not opposed to you giving me the land you stand on now. I am part Native American Indian (Commanche). However, I do not believe you would do such. Step outside of the parallel for a moment, though. What you see is justification, I see is clear and simple fact. My intent was not to justify, but to express historical fact. Israel was Israel long before islam was invented. Arabs occupied their land, the Jews took it back. This is not a justification, it is simple history.

It depends. For example, if we are to conclude that Israel is occupying land that was previously occupied from them, then we could also conclude based upon the same notion, that Saudi Arabia, Syria, Lybia and every country in the middle east is occupying lands of others as well. And by all means, that those right here in the US (including my own relatives) are occupying the lands of my ancestors (also my own relatives).

This was my point though. This discussion never arrises when talking about Israel, until someone points out that Israel was occupied by Arabs. Then suddenly someone looks for moral equivalence by invoking Native American Indians. Which is fine with me, since I am part Commanche. Anyone that has a guilty conscience is welcome to deed any land over to me that would make them feel better. I will also accept Corvettes, Porches, Hummers and other nice vehicles, and of course, cash.

Without raising the issue that Arabs occupied Israel, no one starts a post or a discussion about the lands that Saudi Arabia occupies, or the lands Turkey occupies or how the middle east as we know it today was conquered by the sword of islam. No, only Israel is mentioned in this light, which is the long winded version of the point I was making.

 

"Right to Exist":

"One Nation Under God."
"When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them..."

(United States)

"The National Assembly recognizes and proclaims, in the presence and under the auspices of the Supreme Being, the following rights of man and of the citizen...The principle of all sovereignty resides essentially in the nation..."


(France)

Reaching to some national myth of homogeneity, to ascribe some sense of "nationhood."

"The Constitution is based on the indissoluble unity of the Spanish Nation, the common and indivisible homeland of all Spaniards; it recognizes and guarantees the right to self-government of the nationalities and regions of which it is composed and the solidarity among them all....Castilian is the official Spanish language of the State. All Spaniards have the duty to know it and the right to use it..."

(Spain)

There is a million examples. Every single nation state in existence today has used god, language, ethnicity, whatever, to justify its founding and continued "self-determination." I would say this is a historical anomaly, so there is no automatic "right" to any piece of global real estate.

If you are using the Bible as a historical source, then I'm afraid we can't really discuss the macro-history of the area.

Absent some historical imperative, and I think you and I are in agreement here, who owns what comes down to who kicked whose ass to get it. I think where you and I diverge is in the best way to resolve our way out of where we are now.

So, if I have heard you right: if Leonard Peltier had wished to do it, and succeeded in overthrowing the U.S. Government - it would be an acceptable act of history, as he simply won? (I am not, by the way, saying what the right answer is - I'm just trying to draw a clear line as to what your argument implies).

 

Once again, "Right to exist," to the best of my knowledge, is only used in the context of a discussion of Israel. I have yet to see any other discussion, anywhere, that talks about another country by specifically using the phrase "Right to exist." It is a myth, however, it is a myth that revolves around Israel.

I appreciate the examples you attempted to cover, however, they do not cover what I said.

I suspect we (you and I) may disagree further. I do not consider "us" in something to resolve "our" way out of where "we" are now. The issue is Israel being surrounded by an intolerant people who notoriously hate Jews and refer to them as the sons of pigs and apes.

That's certainly not an example I would use. Clever, but no, not even close. Despite the fact that I have Indian heritage, I am first and foremost, an American. I do not harbor thoughts of Indians overthrowing our government or way of life. What happened, happened. Anyone that has a guilty conscience on behalf of the whole about Indians are welcome to make donations to me. Usually though, that tends to silence those who attempt to portray grievances on behalf of my ancestors.

 

You've not answered anything. But now it will degenerate into yes...no...argument, once again. I'll leave it to others to take a look.


Best,


Paul

 

Quite the contrary. While I have answered what few questions you've actually asked, I'm simply commenting on commentary. No harm, no foul, right? Feel free to proceed

 

Oh, come on - really? "Self-determination" - the "right to exist as a people, under one national, geographically defined roof" - is now the guiding principle of both Western nation-states and post-imperial nationalist movements, and has been since, at least, the French Revolution and was propelled into the realm of permanency since Wilson's 14 points. Every single nation-state established or re-drawn after WWI was created on the basis of "a peoples' "right to exist" as "a people." Here's a couple of links:

Self-Determination
Wilson's 14 Points.

You said: "Arabs occupied their (Jewish) land. The Jews took it back."

I said: "we occupied indian land." I asked you, "if AIM took it back," would that be a justifiable basis for the action?

You didn't answer.

 

Once again, "Right to exist," to the best of my knowledge, is only used in the context of a discussion of Israel. I have yet to see any other discussion, anywhere, that talks about another country by specifically using the phrase "Right to exist." It is a myth, however, it is a myth that revolves around Israel.

I honestly don't know how many times I can say it. Who questions Germany's "Right to exist?" How is Saudi Arabia's "right to exist" going? Why are these strange questions? I have yet to see any other discussion, anywhere, that talks about another country by specifically using the phrase "Right to exist."

Quite the contrary. I did answer:

That was one of two questions you've actually asked. The rest has been an exchange of commentary. Perhaps the commentary is more than you can handle? What's the beef?

 

Hahahah. OK. You win.

 

Bummer, I was enjoying the pleasant exchange of ideas and opinions. Oh well, maybe another thread, another day.

Take care.

 

We all agree that every nation or people have the inherit "Right to exist". It's pretty obvious what constitutes Israel as a nation.

Let's look at the other side. What does constitutes the Palestinians as nation or people prior to 1967, when Israel occupied the Gaza strip and west bank?

The Palestinians as a group, never existed prior to that date, they were "created" by the Arab league purely as a political tool to fight Israel.

 

Good convo guys.

 

Gtech, I wouldn't call:

-a pleasant exchange of ideas, as much as an insult, and all-too-frequent strategy of baiting. I feel my points have been made, but remained unanswered (simple repetition, or averring your patriotism are not, in my book answers), and you disagree, so I don't believe it's going to go anywhere from here. I just don't find much use in going this way.

Neither did "Israel," before British Foreign Secretary Balfour made the opening bid in support for the founding of a homeland for Jews worldwide:

Don't get me wrong - I honor the State of Israel and believe in its right to exist. It has from its inception been beset with those who would wish to end it, and it has every right to defend itself from such destruction. But I see no "inherent right" to such soil anymore than the soil I stand on now. What won the "right" there, and here, was blood, all else used in validating it notwithstanding. And I think to say otherwise is hypocrisy.

Every state that exists is due to a struggle among people. No state is born with a divine right in its pocket. I believe if we are to find peace, we need to first recognize this fact, then seek to find the stratagems that will provide equitable enfranchisement for all peoples.