|
Qana (pg. 9)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| emc^2 |
| quote: | Originally posted by George Smiley
Erm because they are non-sovereign Palestinian territories occupied by Israel? |
George, you seem like a smart lad, pretty good with quoting sources, etc. Please - I'd love you to recite me some sources for Palestinian history, culture, origins, etc - without of course sidestepping the calling of "Israel" a "Palaestina" - in which case it is just another name given by Romans to ISRAEL.
Also, please give me some key differences between Ottoman Turks (who mainly comprise the Palestinian population) and ahem... Native Palestinians (presuming non-jews).
I'm dying to hear it, as it is bound to be a facinating discussion. I'd start a new thread for it but I'm afraid it will be converged into isra/pal thread. If you feel it would be more appropriate to move this discussion there - let me know, I'll re-post.
Also, in order to prevent this debate from spanning encyclopedic volumes, let's set a limit on admissible arguments, sources, etc.
In other words, what can be used to measure whether you or I convinced each other. I'm hoping that we're not just going to be flapping our fingers and re-hashing countless arguments pro/con. I hope to have a clearly outlined set of facts and argue it on such basis.
So - what would you consider admissible as evidence and proof?
Edit:
Just so that I know what I'm getting myself into, please let me know your thoughts on the following statement, as provided by wiki (just as a litmuss test):
| quote: | As a result of the First Jewish-Roman War (66–73), Titus sacked Jerusalem and destroyed the Second Temple, leaving only the Western Wall. In 135, following the fall of a Jewish revolt led by Bar Kokhba in 132–135, the Roman emperor Hadrian expelled most Jews from Judea, leaving large Jewish populations in Samaria and the Galilee. He also changed the name of the Roman province of Judea (Israel) to Syria Palaestina named after the Philistines as an insult to the now conquered Jews. In what was considered a form of psychological warfare, the Romans also tried to change the name of Jerusalem to Aelia Capitolina, but that had less staying power. Over time the name Syria Palaestina was shortened to Palaestina, which by then had become an administrative political unit within the Roman Empire.
|
|
|
|
| George Smiley |
| quote: | Originally posted by emc^2
George, you seem like a smart lad, pretty good with quoting sources, etc. Please - I'd love you to recite me some sources for Palestinian history, culture, origins, etc - without of course sidestepping the calling of "Israel" a "Palaestina" - in which case it is just another name given by Romans to ISRAEL.
Also, please give me some key differences between Ottoman Turks (who mainly comprise the Palestinian population) and ahem... Native Palestinians (presuming non-jews).
I'm dying to hear it, as it is bound to be a facinating discussion. I'd start a new thread for it but I'm afraid it will be converged into isra/pal thread. If you feel it would be more appropriate to move this discussion there - let me know, I'll re-post.
Also, in order to prevent this debate from spanning encyclopedic volumes, let's set a limit on admissible arguments, sources, etc.
In other words, what can be used to measure whether you or I convinced each other. I'm hoping that we're not just going to be flapping our fingers and re-hashing countless arguments pro/con. I hope to have a clearly outlined set of facts and argue it on such basis.
So - what would you consider admissible as evidence and proof? |
I'm not quite sure what you're asking me to say? Proof of what? |
|
|
| emc^2 |
| quote: | Originally posted by George Smiley
I'm not quite sure what you're asking me to say? Proof of what? |
well, you seem to be convinced that there's "occupied territories". I intend to estabish that territories that you would refer to as "occupied" did in fact belong to Israel historically. Established through archeological finds, number of literary sources throughout the time, in other words - CONCRETE EVIDENCE showing that what is currently being claimed as "Palestinian territories" are in fact parts of what you would negatively call as Erez Israel or Judea, signaling a negative connotation to this historical name, ideology aside.
also, see my edit in the post preceding yours. |
|
|
| George Smiley |
Right, it's Finkelstein time!!!
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/...sID=0&listSrc=Y
Either way I fail to see how there being a country called Israel as described by the Bible* 1000s of years ago has anything to do with the rights of the people that live in Gaza and the West Bank today?
* Have you actually read some of the stupid that got put into that book?! What on Earth makes you think we should take that as any kind of authority in the contemporary world to decide what land belongs to whom?! |
|
|
| emc^2 |
| quote: | Originally posted by George Smiley
Right, it's Finkelstein time!!!
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/...sID=0&listSrc=Y
Either way I fail to see how there being a country called Israel as described by the Bible* 1000s of years ago has anything to do with the rights of the people that live in Gaza and the West Bank today?
* Have you actually read some of the stupid that got put into that book?! What on Earth makes you think we should take that as any kind of authority in the contemporary world to decide what land belongs to whom?! |
Seeing that I'm agnostic, I really don't place much stock in many of theological writings. I'm a Jew by birth and tradition but I don't go around citing Bible/Torah/Talmud/Q'aran/etc., unless that's the only source that my discussion partner is willing to acknowledge.
I'll read your article and get back to you. |
|
|
| George Smiley |
| quote: | Originally posted by emc^2
Seeing that I'm agnostic, I really don't place much stock in many of theological writings. I'm a Jew by birth and tradition but I don't go around citing Bible/Torah/Talmud/Q'aran/etc., unless that's the only source that my discussion partner is willing to acknowledge.
I'll read your article and get back to you. |
So if you're not religious, why would it be important to you for Israel to annex the West Bank and Gaza?! And also would that involve expelling all the Palestinians?! |
|
|
| emc^2 |
| quote: | Originally posted by George Smiley
So if you're not religious, why would it be important to you for Israel to annex the West Bank and Gaza?! And also would that involve expelling all the Palestinians?! |
George, either you misread my comments or you're trying to put words in my mouth. As a matter of fact, if you care to look over my original statement few posts above - I did say that I think that there's no reason why two sides cannot live side by side in peace... except that both sides are not bound by reason or mutual respect for each other, its quite the opposite.
Interesting article, I'm not versed enough on theological materials to fully appreciate its impact but most of it was pretty self-explanatory. I can neither agree nor disagree with Finkelstein's views, as I am not an archeologist, theologist, nor do I place much stock in one person's ambitious opinion.
However, this statement strikes a chord with me: "The debate over our right to the land is ridiculous. As though there is some international committee in Geneva that considers the history of peoples. Two peoples come and one says, `I have been here since the 10th century BCE,' and the other says, `No, he's lying, he has only been here since the ninth century BCE.' What will they do - evict him? "
Which brings me to original point: you yourself mentioned that israeli settlers would be in danger, if they were to remain on territories that would be handed over to Palestinians. I think that if Palestinians came over to Israeli territory, they would not be in as much of danger as the other way around.
And that's the difference. However, someone's ideology and religion would accept nothing less than total destruction of Israel.
I also would venture to ask that if I use this article as further jumping point, I'd have to admit that perhaps Israel itself is a mythical land that never existed and should not exist.... period?
Because it seems to me that you're trying to drive on that point. Correct me if I'm wrong. |
|
|
| George Smiley |
| quote: | Originally posted by emc^2
Which brings me to original point: you yourself mentioned that israeli settlers would be in danger, if they were to remain on territories that would be handed over to Palestinians. I think that if Palestinians came over to Israeli territory, they would not be in as much of danger as the other way around. |
But Palestinians aren't gonna come over to Israel are they?! So what's the relevance in even suggesting so?!
| quote: | | I also would venture to ask that if I use this article as further jumping point, I'd have to admit that perhaps Israel itself is a mythical land that never existed and should not exist.... period? |
I'm actually glad you said that because it allows me to expand on my point giving you an example closer to home. You say that according to that article, Israel is a mythical land that never existed and should not exist. Well that is wrong. Even if Israel never existed as described by the Bible the fact is, it exists today and has existed for nearly 60 years. Therefore, whatever happened in the past, and the mistakes that were made in it's creation, it still exists therefore it should continue to exist. There is no criteria that says a country must have a history spanning x amount of years for it to become an independant state. That is exactly what I'm talking about with Palestine. It has never been a sovereign state in it's current form but neither had every single country in Africa (apart from Egypt) until the colonial powers left. That created dozens of new states with no history whatsoever but nobody disputes their legitimacy based on history do they?
Just the same I do not dispute Israel's right to exist based on history (I don't dispute it's right to exist at all!!!) and neither do I dispute Palestine's right to exist in the future based on history (or lack of) |
|
|
| emc^2 |
| quote: | Originally posted by George Smiley
But Palestinians aren't gonna come over to Israel are they?! So what's the relevance in even suggesting so?!
I'm actually glad you said that because it allows me to expand on my point giving you an example closer to home. You say that according to that article, Israel is a mythical land that never existed and should not exist. Well that is wrong. Even if Israel never existed as described by the Bible the fact is, it exists today and has existed for nearly 60 years. Therefore, whatever happened in the past, and the mistakes that were made in it's creation, it still exists therefore it should continue to exist. There is no criteria that says a country must have a history spanning x amount of years for it to become an independant state. That is exactly what I'm talking about with Palestine. It has never been a sovereign state in it's current form but neither had every single country in Africa (apart from Egypt) until the colonial powers left. That created dozens of new states with no history whatsoever but nobody disputes their legitimacy based on history do they?
Just the same I do not dispute Israel's right to exist based on history (I don't dispute it's right to exist at all!!!) and neither do I dispute Palestine's right to exist in the future based on history (or lack of) |
See, so we do agree on several essential points. I don't dispute Palestinian right to exist either. Even on trivial territories. However, given the sad example following withdrawal from Gaza, the bottom line was this - regardless of how much Israel gives up, Palestinians (in large part) won't accept anything less than total withdrawal from all territories currently called "israel".
Palestinians were offered numerously to live among Israelis, enjoy the same freedoms and take in governmental process, as any other Israelite - yet, the response has been the same - "we won't join you, you don't have a right to exist, you must die".
For some reason it reminds me of the scene from the movie "Independence Day", where they show Alien talking to the president and president says "There's got to be a way we can co-exist in peace." Alien says: "Peace? No peace" Prez: "Well, what do you want us to do?" Alien: "Die! Die! Die!"
Religion of Islam does not acknowledge co-existance with anyone but of Islam. If you haven't done so, read some of the quotes posted at the wiki link above. Hence the difference.
Israel falls back to '67 borders, Hamas/Hizzbolah will demand fall back to '47 borders, and then demand to seize to exist PERIOD.
There is no sense or negotiation with a group of people who only desire your extintion, don't you understand? Holding on to territories does not present a land grab - it presents some marginal buffer for safety.
There's a reason why many generations fortified cities and built walls - to keep enemies at bay. Israelis building walls just tries to minimize the risks, considering the nature and history of their neighbor relations.
Makes sense? |
|
|
| George Smiley |
| quote: | Originally posted by emc^2
See, so we do agree on several essential points. I don't dispute Palestinian right to exist either. Even on trivial territories. However, given the sad example following withdrawal from Gaza, the bottom line was this - regardless of how much Israel gives up, Palestinians (in large part) won't accept anything less than total withdrawal from all territories currently called "israel". |
Withdrawal from Gaza and the evacuation of the settlers was a good start, but it was widely viewed by the Palestinians (and others) as a means for Israel to tighten it's grip on the West Bank. But why exactly did you expect pulling out of only Gaza and not the West Bank to solve anything? The economic situation was still critical, Israel continued to undertake military operations in the occupied territories and above anything else, these terrorists are fighting for the liberation of the West Bank as much as they are Gaza, and the West Bank was still occupied...
| quote: | | Religion of Islam does not acknowledge co-existance with anyone but of Islam. If you haven't done so, read some of the quotes posted at the wiki link above. Hence the difference. |
So no difference between Islam and Judaism or Christianity or any other religion then? Remind me again what Israel's immigration policy is? Can I emigrate to Israel?
| quote: | | Israel falls back to '67 borders, Hamas/Hizzbolah will demand fall back to '47 borders, and then demand to seize to exist PERIOD. |
So your solution is of continuous violence? Now I'm not the most patriotic of people, but I would not want my countrymen to face continuous violence from here until eternity. Have you ever thought about supporting policies that might quell support for Hamas/Hizballah? Do you think the majority of Palestinians or Lebanese want to live in a theocracy? Or do you think they just wanna get on with their lives? Why not give them a viable, economically sound state and see how much Hamas/Hizballah get then? Or you could bomb the out of them, bulldoze their houses down, ensure no economic growth takes place, build settlements/roads that they cannot use, steal their water supply, cos you know, I might be wrong and these actions might actually reduce support for Hamas/Hizballah...what do you think?!
| quote: | | There is no sense or negotiation with a group of people who only desire your extintion, don't you understand? Holding on to territories does not present a land grab - it presents some marginal buffer for safety. |
Hamas does not = every single Palestinian. Hamas' support comes from their social policies (their schools, hospitals, etc, provided to the Palestinians for free) and the fact that Fatah officials were corrupt and incompetent. If Fatah get their act together and sort their house out, and provide the same services that Hamas does they should not have a problem regaining power cos they were always the favourites of the Palestinians. And of course, Fatah are secular socialists. And of course, they agreed in 1988 to the two state solution and recognised Israel's right to exist. So can you please stop this nonesense about "a group of people who only desire [Israel's] extin[c]tion"? |
|
|
| ronk |
| quote: | Originally posted by George Smiley
So can you please stop this nonesense about "a group of people who only desire [Israel's] extin[c]tion"? |
I just want to post these poll results:
48.1% of the palestinians oppose a peace settlement with Israel.
76.2 of them think they don't have a peace partner in Israel.
50.6% of them think Hamas should maintain its position on the elimination of Israel.
however, 76.7% of them support a cease fire with Israel.
source: http://www.neareastconsulting.com/ |
|
|
|
|
