|
Palestinian-Israeli Conflict Thread (pg. 16)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| venomX |
| quote: | Originally posted by Fir3start3r
Those ARE facts sunshine. :)
The Jews were just as long as the PAs and lets not even get into the Jews being PUSH OUT OF THE REST OF ARABIA shall we?? :rolleyes:
What consessions were they given when they were forced to leave their homes??
|
So are you saying that since some people did it to the jews centuries ago now they have the right to do it to other people? Let's be a bit serious, what happened to the jews happened a long time ago and is not an excuse for them to do it to other people now. It's sad that they were given they're own state because they were treated badly, but that is also done now. What we cant allow is for them to keep expanding the territory they have because they are taking from other people. This is happening now, and we can do something about it now. What happened to the jews centuries ago can not be fixed and i dont believe it entitles them to ANYTHING. How would you feel if the natives here in Canada were given the support Israel is given and they started slowly annexing parts of Canada to their reserves? I bet you wouldnt agree with that. This is the same case. The land the natives lost is lost, and it was in the past. They were given some reimbursements but they're not entitled right now to start annexing territory or claiming it as their own. The moment past, and people have to live in the present. What Israel is doing is wrong by any standard and people tolerate it because the US is backing them up and because of the perception that because they've been wronged in the past they are somehow entitled to do whatever they want. |
|
|
| shaolin_Z |
| Fir3star3r also completely ignored the fact that it was the Romans and Byzantines were the one who persecuted and exiled the Jews, and last time I checked they're not Arab. |
|
|
| PETRAN |
| quote: | Originally posted by Subey
I agree, and you can quote me on that, but because I'm a value added poster, I'll do it for you.Progress is the goal... |
Ok i still don't understand. Maybe if you were a bit more explicit...What kind of progress are you talking about? One which could allow Israel to continue attacks because "doing war is normal, hence Israel is doing something normal and we have to take into account?" Is this the type of biased "progress" you state? If yes it is completely fallacious. And has nothing to do with war on drugs, if your analogy is between "satisfying yourself taking drugs is normal" (with the same fallacious logic which could go like: a lot of people were taking and are taking drugs and hence drug-consumption is normal)and "making war is normal". There is nothing normal in both cases, due to the fact that they threat self-preservation. |
|
|
| Subey |
| quote: | Originally posted by PETRAN
Ok i still don't understand. Maybe if you were a bit more explicit...What kind of progress are you talking about? One which could allow Israel to continue attacks because "doing war is normal, hence Israel is doing something normal and we have to take into account?" Is this the type of biased "progress" you state? If yes it is completely fallacious. And has nothing to do with war on drugs, if your analogy is between "satisfying yourself taking drugs is normal" (with the same fallacious logic which could go like: a lot of people were taking and are taking drugs and hence drug-consumption is normal)and "making war is normal". There is nothing normal in both cases, due to the fact that they threat self-preservation. |
Our problem is that you have associated certain connotations with the word normal that I have not. And we have a different opinion on what it means to be human.
First, if I evaluate some behaviour as being simultaneously bad and normal that doesn't imply that I am condoning it or interested in propagating it.
If you limit your definition of normal only to things which do not "threat self-preservation" then I think you are sticking your head in the sand. While the general trend of civilization is towards cooperation and order, there is a constant supply of chaos and conflict. And that is an intrinsic part of what it means to be human. We naturally align ourselves in an orientation that results in this.
Look at High School. People naturally align themselves in different social groups, and then use those groups not to get in a circle and sing "Kumbaya, my lord" but to snipe at each other. Russia vs the US was a similar alignment on a global scale.
I find it tedious, annoying and embarrassing, and I sincerely wish it would stop already.
In other words it is time for a new normal... |
|
|
| PETRAN |
| quote: | Originally posted by Subey
Our problem is that you have associated certain connotations with the word normal that I have not. And we have a different opinion on what it means to be human. |
First of all, as i stated before you can't associate war with normality. If you do that you will commit the "naturalistic fallacy". Why? Because you have to make an extra assumption of what "normality" is. I made one that states "normality is everything that doesn't threaten self-perservation-or human life in general". Its just my opinion and i could be wrong. Nevertheless it would be highly fallacious to try and define an abstract concept such as "normality", and hence it would be fallacious as well to make the extra assumption that normality is associated with war, and that war results from natural biological,psychological,social and political human factors.
Its different to say something factual like "War is evident in mankind, because it possibly results from a complex interplay of quasi-invariant biological, psychological, social and political factors" from a hypothetical premise that makes the extra assumption of normality and attributes it to some facts such as "War is NORMAL, and this is because it results form a complex interplay of quasi-invariant assumptions bla bla bla". In this case, normality is not founded, and since it is not founded, it can not be connected to the factual hypothetical invariant causations (biological-psychological-social-political). It will be a classic "is-ought" fallacious naturalistic assumption.
Here, i found a very similar example of yours that falls within the naturalistic fallacy:
"There have always been wars. Hence there is no reason for you to object that our bombing of Serbia was morally wrong."
Source:
http://www.cuyamaca.edu/bruce.thomp...aturalistic.asp
| quote: | | If you limit your definition of normal only to things which do not "threat self-preservation" then I think you are sticking your head in the sand. While the general trend of civilization is towards cooperation and order, there is a constant supply of chaos and conflict. And that is an intrinsic part of what it means to be human. We naturally align ourselves in an orientation that results in this. |
This is a very constrained view of human nature, one that states again that "things are always like these and hence you have to cope with them".It conjures gloomy images of the mankind as a passive slave to its own instincts and to society. Because things are always like that doesn't mean that i have to accept them the way they are.
Because "chaos" and "disorder" were always found in "equal measures" with "law" and "order" doesn't mean that i have to blindly accept them nor does it mean that they are "normal" by any means ( remember again these fallacies-argumentum ad numerum and antiquitatem). It means that they are facts, they exist and since some of them are NOT good, i have to do something about them. This is how society was organised in the first place. Humans were never genetically programmed to live in vast organised hierarchical societies, to wear colourful clothes and obey rules other then their hard-wired genetically (pre)determined ones.
Due to the fact though that evolution gave the human-kind higher cognitive functions such as self-awareness,complex thinking, a theory of mind (the ability to take another ones view-point "as if" they were yours) and abstract symbolic representations such as arithmecy and language-expressed in both written and spoken forms (something which can allow a great deal of efficient and precice communication, even between distant points in space and time), it gave humans the opportunity to directly grasp and manipulate their pre-determined behavioural programs, and guide them in new pathways, ones which could not necessarelly agree with the previously evolutionary pre-determined ones (as sweet-consumption and obesity rates gloriously demonstrate in modern times).
In the same way that humans got fat by breaking the rules of a biologically pre-determined allowance rate of sweet-consumption, the same way thay can break their previously genetically and socially defined aggressive and territorial tendencies, and adopt a new way of leaving, one which could be better for everyone. From this point of view, phrases such as "things happen so you have to align yourself somewhere in between" lose their meaning. There is no reason to align somewhere because YOU, yourself create this somewhere. And if this somewhere describes a peaceful place, then it will be better to constrain the "naughty" war-striving boys (by no means of punishment. Just keeping them good and nice) and promote peace. This is why we make this discussion right-now. Because we have some very specific naughty boys who do naughty things which cannot be certified as natural neither as normal. On the contrary they place thousands of lives in danger for no apparent reason (or for their "naughty" reasons). At least, the least we can do with our given cognitions and social places is to point them out and dream of a better place. |
|
|
| Fir3start3r |
| quote: | Originally posted by shaolin_Z
Fir3star3r also completely ignored the fact that it was the Romans and Byzantines were the one who persecuted and exiled the Jews, and last time I checked they're not Arab. |
No I didn't.
I may have not typed it but that doesn't mean I 'forgot' it.
I guess my omnipotence meter is broken; I'll try and read everyone's mind next time...
If we want to play the history game, then lets not forget that most of the Middle East area was Christian before the invading hordes came in and butchered, enslaved or persecuted everything.
Dominance was brought by the sword and nothing less.
Who wouldn't want to leave?? |
|
|
| M.Johan |
| quote: | Originally posted by Fir3start3r
Those ARE facts sunshine. :)
The Jews were just as long as the PAs and lets not even get into the Jews being PUSH OUT OF THE REST OF ARABIA shall we?? :rolleyes:
What consessions were they given when they were forced to leave their homes??
|
Are U SUre ?
| quote: | Lawrence of Arabia was really a Zionist, historian claims
By Donald Macintyre in Jerusalem
Published: 24 February 2007
It appears to be revisionism on a grand scale. Popular imagination, fed on Peter O'Toole's portrayal in David Lean's film classic Lawrence of Arabia, will have a hard time absorbing the startling assertion by the historian Sir Martin Gilbert that its hero was in fact a "serious Zionist" who believed in a "Jewish state from the Mediterranean shore to the River Jordan".
Sir Martin, who plans to back up his myth-challenging claim in his next book, declared here this week that TE Lawrence, long regarded as the unrivalled prototype of the British Arabist, "had a sort of contempt for the Arabs, actually. He felt that only with a Jewish state would the Arabs make anything of themselves."
The British Jewish historian who has written histories of Israel and the Holocaust, as well as his monumental biography of Winston Churchill, made front-page news here when he told The Jerusalem Post during the city's international book fair: "The most interesting thing from an Israeli perspective is about Lawrence of Arabia. The great Arabist, right? The man who supported the Arabs and pushed for Arab nationhood in the 1920s. He is always pictured wearing Arab robes. What is so astonishing _ which you'll see in my next book, Churchill and the Jews _ is that he was a serious Zionist."
Sir Martin revealed last night that a series of minutes written by Lawrence, which he uncovered in the National Archive, demonstrated his sympathy with the Zionist cause. Working for Churchill in 1921, for example, he clearly identified "the area of Palestine from the Mediterranean to Jordan" as the "Jewish National Home".
While the discoveries overturn many popular assumptions about Lawrence in Britain and much of the Arab world, they will come as less of a surprise to prominent historians here.
Norman Rose of the Hebrew University, and a leading expert on the history of Zionism in Britain, leaves little room for doubt about Lawrence's admiration for Chaim Weizmann in his biography of the Belarus-born Zionist who became a British citizen in 1910, was the leading lobbyist for the 1917 Balfour declaration pledging a Jewish homeland, and the first President of Israel.
The biography quotes Lawrence as telling the Archbishop of Jerusalem, a sceptic about Weizmann, that the Zionist leader "is a great man whose boots neither you nor I are fit to black". When Weizmann finally settled in Palestine in 1934, and told his friend Lewis Namier that he regretted not having done so a decade earlier, Namier could not resist replying that Lawrence had remarked to him of Weizmann that "one does not build the National Home by living in a villa in Addison Road". This was hardly, to put it mildly, the sentiment of an anti-Zionist.
Lawrence, who had played a leading part in co-ordinating the Arab revolt against the Turks to serve British interests, mediated and translated at the post war Jewish-Arab accord between the future King Feisal of Iraq and Weizmann, which allowed for "large-scale immigration" of Jews to Palestine and implementation of the Balfour declaration in return for the Arab state promised _ and then reneged on _ by the British.
Professor Rose said yesterday: "I am no expert on Lawrence, but this was when many people did not see a contradiction between a Jewish National Home and Arab independence."
In 1921, when Churchill was Colonial Secretary, Lawrence worked closely with him as an adviser from the Department's Middle East Department, travelling with him to the Cairo conference when Feisal was assigned the kingship of Iraq and his brother Abdullah the Emirate of Transjordan.
It was from this period that several of the documents uncovered by Sir Martin originate. Lawrence, for example, wrote that part of Abdullah's job would be to "check anti-Zionism" and prevent infiltration from what is now Jordan into the "Jewish National Home".
It seems logical to imagine that working so closely with the minister, he shared at the time Churchill's warmth to the idea of a Jewish homeland, and probably an eventual Jewish state. "Churchill was pro-Zionist," says Professor Rose. "No question." |
The Independent News
????,But NOW Who thinks that's a Hostility AND a Hysteria to make A GREAT DEFLATION against arabs through his activties,FOR-WTF then Now the same mind of Antisocialism :nervous: |
|
|
| venomX |
| quote: | Originally posted by Fir3start3r
If we want to play the history game, then lets not forget that most of the Middle East area was Christian before the invading hordes came in and butchered, enslaved or persecuted everything.
Dominance was brought by the sword and nothing less.
Who wouldn't want to leave?? |
Does it matter? They left or were forced to leave. Times has changed. They are not the same people, they do not have the same culture. Things have changed. There was no real reason to create an Israeli state, but whats done is done. What shouldn't be allowed now is for Israel to keep expanding and understand that in current times the people that inhabited that place were the Palestinians and they were displaced to create modern Israel, obviously there is going to be some resentment. Israel should be the one bending over backwards to obtain peace on terms that benefit the Palestinians not the other way around because Israel is the one currently displacing people. Whatever happened to the former (centuries and centuries ago) people of Israel is not relevant to the current situation. |
|
|
| Subey |
| quote: | Originally posted by PETRAN
|
You can have the last word... but I am The Chrysostomos :D |
|
|
| Haunted |
| quote: | Originally posted by venomX
Does it matter? They left or were forced to leave. Times has changed. They are not the same people, they do not have the same culture. Things have changed. There was no real reason to create an Israeli state, but whats done is done. What shouldn't be allowed now is for Israel to keep expanding and understand that in current times the people that inhabited that place were the Palestinians and they were displaced to create modern Israel, obviously there is going to be some resentment. Israel should be the one bending over backwards to obtain peace on terms that benefit the Palestinians not the other way around because Israel is the one currently displacing people. Whatever happened to the former (centuries and centuries ago) people of Israel is not relevant to the current situation. |
you're missing the issue. palestinians just don't know how to share. jews were buying land there way before israel was created, and it didnt happen as suddenly as you think.
heres another interesting fact:
| quote: | | On 29 November 1947, the United Nations General Assembly, with a two-thirds majority international vote, passed the United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine (United Nations General Assembly Resolution 181), a plan to resolve the Arab-Jewish conflict by partitioning the territory into separate Jewish and Arab states, with the Greater Jerusalem area (encompassing Bethlehem) coming under international control. Jewish leaders (including the Jewish Agency), accepted the plan, while Palestinian Arab leaders rejected it and refused to negotiate. Neighboring Arab and Muslim states also rejected the partition plan. The Arab community reacted violently after the Arab Higher Committee declared a strike and burned many buildings and shops. As armed skirmishes between Arab and Jewish paramilitary forces in Palestine continued, the British mandate ended on May 15, 1948, the establishment of the State of Israel having been proclaimed the day before (see Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel). (wikipedia) |
you people are arguing for the sake of a bunch of babies who did it to themselves. |
|
|
| PETRAN |
| quote: | Originally posted by Subey
You can have the last word... but I am The Chrysostomos |
HaHa ok then!:p |
|
|
| Magnetonium |
| quote: | Originally posted by Haunted
you're missing the issue. palestinians just don't know how to share. jews were buying land there way before israel was created, and it didnt happen as suddenly as you think.
heres another interesting fact:
you people are arguing for the sake of a bunch of babies who did it to themselves. |
Well, thats like any war. When the bigger army and a more massive population faces a threat or a call of action from a minority, then of course most likely the big guy will try to solve the issue to his advantage. Arabs thought they would easily roll over the newly declared state, which went against their own agenda in the region. However, when they suffered setbacks, Israelis themselves realized the potential to capitalize on the situation and so they siezed the territories during wars and when peace talks came refused to bulge. So obviously it seems like BOTH sides want gains here. And at this pace, this issue WILL NEVER be solved. Until Israel ceeds lands it seized during the wars since 1947, Israel itself will have to suffer fighting neverending wars for its continuous survival. It has more politically to gain by COMPLETELY withdrawing to its 1947 borders, because that would not militarily weaken Israel, and at the same time would not only make Israel look good on the world stage, but would pressure Arab states to pursue peace and stability since it would be obvious to them that not only Israel cannot be defeated using standard means, but peace will be more beneficial for everyone in the region - after all, the Arab states not directly involved in the conflict are the ones who are much better off politically and economically. In this case, if Arabs do pursue more wars, it will be an Israeli victory because they have made enormous concessions. |
|
|
|
|
