Israel's economy leaving Palestinians far behind

It wasn't anymore insulting than the abrupt halt to a nice discussion by portraying yourself as a victim that I had not answered all of two questions. I believe it's clear to see where the 'baiting" started and might I add, quite a clever tactic.

Making a point is not asking a question. We were both making points in the discussion. If you demand answers, perhaps you should rephrase your commentary/points as questions.

If you still harbor feelings of guilt on behalf of Native American Indians and want to give up yours, or other's land, may I suggest a donation:

https://www.naha-inc.org/NAHA_Contribution.htm
http://www.narf.org/
http://www.charityadvantage.com/indianburialassistanceproject/HowYouCanHelp.asp
http://www.native-languages.org/help.htm

Thanks for your consideration and concern for my ancestors.

 

I'll try again. I don't claim "victim," though it is an easy use of polemic to go there. I just don't know how to continue if you refuse to provide answers to what I think are obvious parallels and questions I am drawing. Refuting it with logic and fact would be an answer - but not what you have provided so far. If I grow weary of such tactics, such weariness is informed by:

http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showpost.php?p=787741&postcount=40

Now - I'll answer a question you raise, though I believe you have ignored mine (by repeating a non-answer, or going to some vague sense of patriotism in non-response).

And my short answer is: throughout most of "Germany's" history, as opposed to the history of the particularist principalities that formed middle Europe, most of Europe (questioned Germany's right to exist). Prior to the first German Empire, the German states were the playground of the state system in Europe, providing a flexible shifting of power between East, West and North that did not always mean cataclysm, but negotiated conflicts (the 30 Years' War, though a horrible event, is no exception). Once unified under one Reich, uh-oh. Fears of a unified Germany continued after WWII to the very collapse of the Berlin Wall. So, briefly, Europe (questioned) Germany's right to exist. Much as many question Israel's right to exist, or a Palestinian state's.

Now, I ask again:

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?

-Unless you've got something specifically against Arabs, Jews, Indians, or White Settlers, I can't at the moment think of a clearer parallel. Please tell me how these two issues - the first, your direct quote - are not parallels of one another, and, if so, how can you argue the first but not support the second? Saying "you're an American first" has nothing to do with answering what I believe to be the illogic of your position.

 

And, once again, let me agree with you on one point and toss my nod of thanks to all vets.

May you come home to your families, well and for good, soon.

 

It would have been helpful if you actually posed questions. Once again, commentary and points are not questions.

It's disappointing that you would pretend to use the grievances of my ancestors in an attempt to make a point by suggesting you and others should give up land, but when put to the task of making even a donation, snub your nose at Native American Indians. I can't say I'm not surprised though. It's not very often you see those that stand behind their words.

I'm not impressed with your vocabulary in the least bit and even less impressed with your answer. Though it was a rhetorical question, because as you've proven above, it cannot be answered. 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."

It seems you are intentionally ignoring what I'm saying. There is no discussion I've *ever* seen, anywhere, that talks about any other country's "right to exist." No matter how you fluff the words up in your example, the example fails because it doesn't prove otherwise.

And for the third time, I answer your question, once again:

You seem threatened by my patriotism. It's unfortunate you find such offensive. I did answer your question, which was silly in the first place. BTW, for the fourth time now, that answer is "NO." Does it really bother you that some care for their country? Perhaps you find it offensive that some are proud to be American? How sad...

I've explained this one as well:

I'm left wondering...is your browser functioning correctly, or are you intentionally being obtuse here? Let me know, because I can post it a fifth time or how many ever it takes. Some people are slower than others and I try to be sensitive to such.

 

You apparently can't draw the parallel between the exact words, "Right to Exist," in that order, in the English language, and the plethora (sorry, another offensive pedantic usage) of material on the obscure concept known as "Self-Determination" as it has existed since the birth of the modern state system. You may well be right. Outside of this forum, those three words, in that order, in the English Language, may not exist; or they may. And I wasn't aware the issue of German unification, the question of the German nation-state's existence, was a mere academic exercise. Guess I'll have to go rewrite the history of the last 150 years, as clearly somebody has placed way too much importance on this very question.


And, as I am part Indian as well - part Indian, not Native American - and believe in empowering people by more than money, I'll keep my beliefs and acts on how best to support my brothers and sisters to myself, thanks. We committed genocide and owe more than money to a few not-for-profits.

Definition, in essence: slow, stupid, lacking perceptive or intellectual ability.
So, not only have you once again resorted to aspersions (oops - sorry, another unimpressive word), but you are ascribing to me a rare gift: the ability to be intentionally stupid.

No, Gtech, you stay above board, watch out for doctrinaire positions and argue on the merits. Always have, always will.

Feel free to post the last word - have a blast, as this is a waste of time.

 

Incorrect. I can certainly see the parallel you are so desperately seeking to expose. It just not important to what I've said. There is no other country that I'm aware of, where it it is often referred to with some preconceived notion of a "right to exist." And throughout I've failed to see you address this. I've seen you note that countries do wish to exist and believe they have a right to exist. Great! But that doesn't counter my point. If you were to truly counter the point, instead of trying to obscure it, you would note some modern day reference to a country other than Israel where someone questions it's right to exist. This was the point of my questions when I asked about "Germany's right to exist" or "Saudi Arabia's right to exist." Not some estimated guess that someone, somewhere, in the last 150 years wondered if said country *should* exist, but that no other country is referenced in this manner.

And to that end, we are no further along in the discussion, because apparently there is no material available for you to counter with. Which is why I noted it was a rhetorical question. No matter how you dress the responses in eloquent wording, it still falls short of it's mission. It simply does not counter what I assert.

It has nothing to do with the order of the words. I'm willing to accept *any* example (hint, prove me wrong, because you have not so far) that *any* other country is mentioned in frequent discussions that question it's "right to exist." "right to freedom," "right to land," "right to xxx" That has been and continues to be my assertion. Not German history or your best guess that someone somewhere along the course of history might have questioned whether another country should exist. Perhaps both of our expectations are incorrect here, but I wanted to show where I was coming from.

Except when you are prepared to give other's land away with your broad sweeping use of "we" and "our" in assessing self-blame. That's mighty kind of you to give credit on behalf of everyone. Forgive me if I don't buy into such a shameful excuse for why one is prepared to give other's land away, but not prepared to make even a donation. Suddenly that overwhelming concern for Indians doesn't seem so genuine.

ah, but a second option existed. That your browser was not functioning properly. Clearly that isn't the case though

Agreed, glad we could finally agree

Oh, and thank you for your service. Seriously. It's Memorial day and I know you served. We don't have to agree, but I respect your service to our country.

Cheers

 

Well, OK, one more...for the road.

Now, I'm obtuse, you know, so go easy on me, but first, I am confused by:

So, is your problem with the word "right" v. "should?"

Absent an answer here, I'll soldier on. (no pun intended).

So, as best as I can tell with my limited capacity, and despite the fact you brought up Germany (and I answered the question), this is what's eating at you? This is it - some "modern day" reference? I was confused, as you brought in just gobs of centuries as a declaration of historical "ownership," and mentioned the Bible's version of history, as well as pencilled in Islamic history, Arabic history, Jewish History....so thought our time frame was a bit longer than modernity. Obtuse me.

So, modernity. Examples in modernity of someone questioning a given country's right to exist...have I again twisted your assertion, or obscured your question (as, forgive me, I'm kinda slow, doncha know)? If not, and you don't like the rise of modern, unified Germany (which includes the entire last half of the 20th Century), I presume the last 20 years will do as an example of a modern country where there exists

The world is constantly seething with nationalist movements, but then, we in the west set the tone - we declared that every people have the "right to exist" as a people. This concept - that "a people" have the right to "a land" - is now the defining organizational principle of every polity on earth, as well as the hunger gnawing at history's poorer cousins, the disenfranchised and marginalized movements of people now seeking what is "rightfully theirs," national self-determination. In this regard, I'd suggest a read of the link to Wilson's doctrine I posted above if my obtuse mind proves too victim-like, or, god forbid, abstruse with fluffy vocabulary.

Just a few, then:

How's about The Balkan Conflict, over Slovenian and Croatian declarations of independence and moves to establish autonomous, self-determined nation states, uh, "countries," from the once "model-socialist state," Yugoslavia - itself, formed by the waves of "self-determination" following WWI and Wilsonian zeal. Yugoslavia from without, and serbs from within, "questioned" the establishment of an autonomous state, much less several. You know, rape, murder, genocide, the usual suspects.

East Timor? There's a party. East Timor says "we want to be, well, East Timor" and Indonesia "questions" whether such a thing is a good idea. This questioning has included continued action - after referendum and recognition by even former colonial masters, the fighting continues.

Western Sahara . Man, those pesky North Africans. The politically mobilized "popular front" or "Frente Polisario" have sought since 1974 to establish an independent nation under the auspices of a U.N. referendum, similar to that won by East Timor. Morocco, as successor-in-interest to Spain, "questions" these people's "right to exist" as an independent country.

This can of worms of a country's "right to exist" was launched by the west, beginning 200-some years ago, punched forward by Wilson and the aftermath of WWI, used by the Soviet Union to justify "wars of national liberation" and now everybody wants in on it. If these "imagined communities" are just that, imagined communities, then, I return to my original post. Who, exactly, was "given" land by history?

 

Still nothing, eh? What a waste...

 

Side note: UAEs economy surpassed Israels last year.

 

At this point, Gtech, I just feel sorry for you.

All the best,

Paul

 

Your sympathy is flattering. I'm not convinced it is deserved though

Let's use Google News to make the point I've consistently made:

http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&ie=UTF-8&q="right+to+exist"&btnG=Search+News
Phrase: "right to exist"
Number of hits: 3,560


http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&ie=UTF-8&q="right+to+exist"++israel&btnG=Search+News
Phrase: "right to exist" +israel
Number of hits: 3,460


http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&ie=UTF-8&q="right+to+exist"+-israel&btnG=Search+News
Phrase: "right to exist" -israel
Number of hits: 96


Of those 96 hits that involve the phrase "right to exist" that do not include "Israel," what is the context of the top ten?

1) For Dan Hinkel, our freedom was costlier than words can explain. He lost his right to exist.

2) However, in the world of Chomsky and Roy, upholders of intolerance of their own kind, the conservative viewpoint would hardly ever enjoy the same right to exist

3) They know enough not to question their employers’ right to exist.”

4) "Sexual perversions", he said, did not have a right to exist.

5) with the X-Men who defend the cure's right to exist presented as the heroes.

6) Evardone said that while he believed the CPP, as a political group, must be given the right to exist under a democratic society

7) "Sexual. perversions", he said, did not have a right to exist.

8) How to measure the right to exist peacefully and actually hold them accountable?
(This one is close, as it refers to a group of people within a country)

9) And therefore, it doesn’t have any moral right to exist as a party, since it is a party that does not care about the people.

10) "Sexual perversions", he said, did not have a right to exist.


Given the top ten (page one results) of articles that discuss a "right to exist" that does not include Israel as the target (when 3,460 DO exist in regard to Israel), the top item mentioned that does not have the right to exist is "sexual perversions."

3,460 results out of 3,560 possible results revolve around Israel's "right to exist," which clearly makes the point I've been trying to make.

 

Way to nail that point! You really have me convinced. Yep, when lacking senisble responses, just throw out an insult.

That was like way too cool bro! You da man!

 

Mia, go back to your sandbox - the adults are talking.

Trading in insults is not something I do often, and I don't enjoy it. Nor do I enjoy it when others do - telling me I need to get a blowjob, calling me stupid or the various and sundry other epithets carelessly thrown out are part and parcel of the discourse I too often see. The very people who tend to resort to this will hypocritically castigate another member, question their sanity, or worse, on this forum, over "infractions of civil discourse." The bottom line is that baiting, insult, or implied threats to their family members, such as posting a picture of their mom and pop's place, then crying over infractions of "civil discourse" are not what I would call "fighting fair."

I honor Gtech as a vet, as I am; but I meant it sincerely, what I posted - we simply disagree. He called me, in essence, an idiot, among other things; when I spoke in other contexts of how grateful I am to have received the education I have, he has disparaged that education; others too useless to go over now. I sincerely feel sorry for him (insulting as I know how that would be received, though I mean it sincerely), as I don't believe he is capable of loosening his grip on his pre-determined viewpoint to countenance there is even the possibility of credible arguments, supported by authoritative facts, contrary to his position. I am sure he would say the same for me. I tend to not land squarely as a "leftist" or "rightist," though the labels are easily thrown out, as I believe the world a bit more complex than that; and in the context of most discussions on this particular board, that makes me a commie - though I am of like mind in many things Will, Gtech and others here hold dear.

I respect Will, I believe Gtech is an intelligent person, and, as I said, an honorable vet. You, on the other hand, Mia, are just a hanger-on. Now, go back and play with your toys.

 

I find mias post a lot more informative than yours. I already know the way you talk, how you make points and so.

In the post under, you wrote lot of things about insults and such. I saw no real points. Am I surpriced? No.

 

I like to go back in History to the time when Israel went from a people to a country and took the land the first time. It seems to be that God gave them the land, so if someone wants to take it they will have an interesting fight.

 

I'm sure that's true.

 

The claim that "god" gave "the land" which is Israel (including parts of what is Jordan and Lebanon today) to the Israelites fortunately can't stand in court. A claim that it belongs to the Israelites before anyone else laying claim to the land today, is. Other people/nations who could have claimed this land are all extinct (Arabs are not the descendants of these people). That is, if there was any law in the matter.

The fact is, there are no laws regarding land ownership/annexation between nations, only recognition. If two (or more) nations involved in border dispute agree on a settlement, that’s what it is. You can't force a nation to move it's border by law, since there is none.

Now, imagine an artifact that belonged to all sort of people, it was lost for a long while and than found again. To whom it belongs? The first owner who still lives or the last owner who holds it today? Guess what, It's the same one!!! Any other claims simply do not stand.

 

Proving my point once again. You're not a very nice person. That, btw, is not an insult, just an observation. It's hard to respect the opinion of a person that habors so much ill will towards others.

It's sounds to me like you need a hug, not a bj.

 

You missed my point, but oh well.....

Look at history and the many wars that Israel has been in. Look at 48 when they were last attacked, then you may get what I am saying...
For such a little, (tiny, small, miniscule) country, they sure seem to hold their own against some pretty large countries.

 

You made a fight with Gtech and you losed, you didn't respond it but instead wrote a short article about respect and insults which was not on topic. Why not create a thread about it in the general section. I'm not doubting that you are a guy that thinks himself are clever. Why not prove it, it's your task to prove Gtech is wrong because you questioned him from the beginning. If you start something, you must finnish it. It's about prooving points, not about to say that you are sorry for him or so. Keep the your own personal sensetive stuff out of the political discussion when you have arguments to provide to the opponents. If you can't do that, your such a looser.