Forum Home Forum Home > Topics not related to music > General discussions
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - What is happening in Jerusalem?
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

What is happening in Jerusalem?
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 678910 16>
Author
Message
  Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options
rogerthat View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer


Joined: September 03 2006
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 9869 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote rogerthat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 19 2021 at 09:43
Originally posted by SteveG SteveG wrote:

For a thumbnail sketch, just Google The King David Hotel bombing on wiki. It's pretty detailed and goes into the historical events as well present commemorations of that bombing by the Israelis.

Yeah, I am aware of the bombing itself but didn't know that it's still commemorated. That's disgusting.
Back to Top
suitkees View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: July 19 2020
Location: France
Status: Offline
Points: 9050 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote suitkees Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 19 2021 at 10:40
Originally posted by ssmarcus ssmarcus wrote:

Originally posted by suitkees suitkees wrote:

Your way of misreading/misinterpreting my posts is staggering...
Second, I am not against Jewish self-determination, 

You can claim to support Jewish self-determination but it is completely incompatible with your argument until this point. 

For example, you wrote, "The One State solution: the most reasonable and just, but indeed nowadays the least realist (because of the "demographic danger")." Clearly, your preference for a one-state solution for both Jews and Arabs and your dismissal of the demographic component are a direct repudiation of self-determination which, by definition, entails the creation of a nation state with a clear majority of people belonging to the nation exercising its rights. You can't have your cake and eat it too. 

This is less of a case of me "misreading/misinterpreting" and you not following the logic of your own arguments all the way through :-)

We're talking on different wavelenghts...

It is not me who dismisses the demographic component, it is the reason why Israeli leaders don't want this solution. That is why I say that it is not a realistic solution.
Furthermore, you seem to imply that self-determination can only be realized with a Jewish majority, which implies thus the apartheid policy Israel has already adopted. It is not just about geographical boundaries, it is also about a solid constitution to ensure the rights of Jews, but also the equal rights of other communities...

Quote
Originally posted by suitkees suitkees wrote:

First of all, your "status quo solution" implies that you are in favour of continuing suffocation and oppression of the Palestinians.

And you accuse me of misreading your posts lol. 

In my argument for the maintenance of the status quo, I demonstrate how Palestinian interests (as far as safety, economic prosperity, political stability are concered) and are indeed served by maintenance of the status quo. 

Obviously you dont have to agree with that. But it is on you to demonstrate how the status quo perpetuates suffering in these regards in excess of the status quo. As far as I can tell, you have not done that so my argument still stands.

I don't know if you mean what "status quo" means. And you demonstrate nothing, you're mainly laying bare your premises (that Palestinians should be happy with being suffocated by Israel an witness a continuous settlement policy). It doesn't surprise me why you have remained silent, so far, about the information that started this thread.

The razamataz is a pain in the bum
Back to Top
ssmarcus View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: September 05 2019
Location: Israel
Status: Offline
Points: 261 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (1) Thanks(1)   Quote ssmarcus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 19 2021 at 13:53
Originally posted by SteveG SteveG wrote:

The British were also getting a bit tired of their postal workers getting blown up by bombs planted in mailboxes by the Zionists. Then there's the King David hotel...

  1. The King David hotel was, among other things, a military and security headquarters of the British Occupation forces. It housed military and security infrastructure and personnel. I don't consider attacks on uniformed military personnel to be terrorism.
  2. The Irgun delivered a warning about the bombing 30 minutes before. British authorities chose to ignore it and, according to some eye witnesses, even prevented people from exiting. 
  3. Contrast both 1 & 2 with Palestinian terror attacks at the time and throughout the conflict which routinely  sought out specifically civilian causalities from the outset with no consideration of military importance of the target. Buses, restaurants, airplanes, schools, even the goddam Olympics were are the intended targets of their operations. 
  4. Even IF you consider the King David bombing to be terrorism on account of the collateral damage or because you think attacking military targets can still be a form of terror, the British were colonial power who were depriving both Jews and, if I'm being honest, Arabs the right to self-determination. If you or anyone else on this thread have expressed at least some support for the Arab cause here despite what they're tactics, than you are admitting, at least implicitly, in the very legitimacy of such attacks in the first place! 
Back to Top
ssmarcus View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: September 05 2019
Location: Israel
Status: Offline
Points: 261 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (1) Thanks(1)   Quote ssmarcus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 19 2021 at 14:05
Originally posted by rogerthat rogerthat wrote:

Originally posted by ssmarcus ssmarcus wrote:

Originally posted by rogerthat rogerthat wrote:

The mess was created by the Western  powers; the inception of it wasn't particularly the fault of either Israelis or Palestinians.  

If the mess you are referring to is the Israeli-Palestinian Arab conflict generally, then I disagree. 

No, as I explained in my posts, I am referring to the events that triggered the mass exodus of Jews from Europe to Israel.  An uneasy peace could have existed between the Zionists and the Arabs while the others stayed on in Europe where they were already comfortable and prosperous.  But the Anti Semitic attacks forced Jews to take shelter in a land they could call entirely their own.  And that land had to come into being by way of carving it out from within then Palestine.  They didn't walk into barren, uninhabited land but took what was once regarded as theirs by another people.  How the British Empire could not have foreseen the conflict I do not know and I rather suspect they did and saw it in their interest to stoke said conflict (as they did with partition between India and Pakistan). 

"An uneasy peace could have existed between the Zionists and the Arabs while the others stayed on in Europe where they were already comfortable and prosperous." - This is such demonstrably false statement you should be embarrassed for saying it out loud without googling it first. The OVERWHELMING MAJORITY of European Jews lived in Eastern Europe as peasants. Their movement and line of work were heavily restricted thereby ensuring the majority remained impoverished. Just look up the "Pale of Settlement" for some context. 

And as far as that "uneasy peace" with the Arabs is concerned, go google Arab revolts in Mandatory Palestine to get a sense of how willing the Arabs were to live side by side with Jews. 

"And that land had to come into being by way of carving it out from within then Palestine. " - Dude, there was never ever a country called Palestine. At no point was the territory ever governed by sovereign state of "native" arabs. I am not saying that the deny the fact that an Arab Palestinian identity has emerged and that it may be deserving, on some level, of self determination. But that is NOT what existed at any point prior to the British Mandate. Contrast this with two Jewish commonwealths in antiquity and a near continuous presence since the fall of the second commonwealth. 
Back to Top
ssmarcus View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: September 05 2019
Location: Israel
Status: Offline
Points: 261 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (1) Thanks(1)   Quote ssmarcus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 19 2021 at 14:10
Originally posted by suitkees suitkees wrote:


Furthermore, you seem to imply that self-determination can only be realized with a Jewish majority

I'm not implying that, I've been saying it explicitly. By definition, a nation exercises its right to self-determination by creating a nation-state in which that people is the majority. 

You might have perfectly good reasons for thinking that that's a bad idea (e.g. it will lead to apartheid). But all that means is that you dont believe in the right of jews to exercise their right to self determination in their historic homeland. Or, to the extent you do believe in it, it is easily trumped by other more important values. 

You can assert Y and NOT Y at the same time, but its meaningless to do so. Stop trying to have your cake and east it too. Just admit the point... 
Back to Top
ssmarcus View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: September 05 2019
Location: Israel
Status: Offline
Points: 261 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (1) Thanks(1)   Quote ssmarcus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 19 2021 at 14:22
Originally posted by suitkees suitkees wrote:

[QUOTE=ssmarcus][QUOTE=suitkees]
 It doesn't surprise me why you have remained silent, so far, about the information that started this thread.

The info that started this thread is a rant that tries to frame the shiekh jarrah legal case in a broad historical context. And THAT goes down way too many rabbit holes for that to be a constructive argument on a thread. 

As far as the as the details of the specific case, I don't know. There are a lot of dry real estate disputes the world over that are brought to court. But seeing as I am neither a litigant nor a judge, why do I need to have an opinion? Thank God, I live in a country of laws with a competent, scholarly, and well respected judiciary. Sometimes they determine a Jewish home to have been improperly purchased or built and sometimes its an Arab home. As long as the law is upheld, to the detriment of either Jew or Arab, my interests are served. 

But of course, if you listen to the rant that started this thread, one can only view this dry legal real estate dispute in some broad lense of historical justice. If thats what you wish to do, I dont have the strenght to convince you otherwise. 
Back to Top
Sagichim View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: November 29 2006
Location: Israel
Status: Offline
Points: 6632 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (1) Thanks(1)   Quote Sagichim Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 19 2021 at 17:19
Originally posted by rogerthat rogerthat wrote:

Originally posted by SteveG SteveG wrote:

Originally posted by rogerthat rogerthat wrote:

Originally posted by SteveG SteveG wrote:

The British were also getting a bit tired of their postal workers getting blown up by bombs planted in mailboxes by the Zionists. Then there's the King David hotel...


Terrorism employed in the service of one's own cause is always viewed as just and easily forgotten.
Worse when actually celebrated like the Israelis commemorating the bombing of the King David Hotel. An act that ended 92 lives. They would have done better to forget it.


Wow, wasn't aware of that.  Sounds demented.

Not sure what you mean by celebrating the commemorating of the bombing...nobody’s celebrating this event on the contrary really. Even in the time of the bombing other Jewish leaders ( of course there wasn’t a state at that point) had condemned that action. If there is a commemoration somewhere it’s there for historic purposes not something that we should be proud of, BTW there were about 20 Jews killed there.
Back to Top
SteveG View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: April 11 2014
Location: Kyiv In Spirit
Status: Offline
Points: 20617 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote SteveG Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 19 2021 at 18:13
The best book detailing the before, during and after effects of the Urguns bombing of the hotel can be found in Bruce Hoffman's seminal "Inside Terrorism". It's chilling, especially the after effects and actions of it's apologists.

Edited by SteveG - May 19 2021 at 18:22
This message was brought to you by a proud supporter of the Deep State.
Back to Top
jamesbaldwin View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: September 25 2015
Location: Milano
Status: Offline
Points: 6052 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote jamesbaldwin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 19 2021 at 18:42
Originally posted by tszirmay tszirmay wrote:

Originally posted by jamesbaldwin jamesbaldwin wrote:

Originally posted by suitkees suitkees wrote:

^ Good posts, Lorenzo!

There are basically two solutions, but both have problems:
1. The One State solution: the most reasonable and just, but indeed nowadays the least realist (because of the "demographic danger");
2. The Two State solution: probably the most realist, but fundamentally unjust.

If there is a third one, I would like to hear it!

The third one exists: From a realistic point of view, in the short and medium term, the Palestinians as a nation are doomed to disappear. Confused


They will not have a true, autonomous state, and Israel does not want to annex the West Bank because it does not want a secular state, it wants to remain Jewish, and to be Jewish it must have a Jewish majority (and if we add Israeli Palestinians to those of the West Bank, in total these are more than the Jews). 

We all are witnessing the demise of the Palestinian people, which is happening every day with the construction of new Israeli settlements and the demolition of Palestinian homes. Palestinians who do not emigrate will live in small enclaves, controlled by the Israeli military (similar to American reserves for Native Americans, but much more crowded), but the rest of the Palestinians, the majority of them, will live in exile.

This is what is happening.

One can argue whether it is right or wrong, who is to blame, but this is happening.

The one-state solution is the only viable "on the ground" but not realistically possible in the short and medium term, and above all: why should Israel give up now that it is close to its goal, which is to take over all of Jerusalem? I remember that East Jerusalem has been a Jewish majority for several years and as we know all the efforts of Israel go in the direction of making sure that the US and Europe recognize Jerusalem as the only and indivisible capital of the Jewish state, that is of Israel.

I don't think there is anything strange in what Israel is doing: having international impunity, it is carrying out its plan. Apart from the proclamations, no one opposes him, no one imposes sanctions.

I live in Italy, and I believe that the responsibility for the colonization of the occupied territories is to be divided between Israel, Europe and the United States.

I would like the Palestinians to react in a nonviolent way, but their leaders are divided, and they do not have the proper culture to do so, moreover, to do a nonviolent campaign they must have the support of the international community, as happened with the boycott of South Africa. 

I limit myself to pointing out what the associations led by Israeli and Palestinian nonviolent pacifists, united, Jews and Muslims, do as a testimony of what should be done.


There is also a fourth option as espoused by the Arab extremists = the destruction or eviction of all Jewish Israelis , maybe even the Christians (see Lebanon or Syria) permanently (which will not happen), but fear goes beyond logic . These are not my words but rather one that is loud and hard by religious fanatics who have no idea what any democracy (even semi-failed ones around the world) is and frankly , they don't even want it , as you correctly stated . What you said initially in your earlier posts were clearly tinged with the usual semi-propaganda, which is why some are frustrated. But you seem to have dropped the cut and paste methodology and replaced it with a modicum of logic. Yes , what is happening is horrible , even most Israelis feel fear, anger and disappointment. I have Arab Israeli friends who would shudder at the thought of living under Hamas or Hezbollah, there are 2.5 million of them. But until, the religious BS leaves the room, it will be hard. I was asked by 20 Muslim employees because of my history knowledge while I was managing a restaurant during the first Gulf War "Why is the West always on the side of Israel?". I answered slowly the following: name me one Arab or even Muslim country anywhere that has had any free and open multi-party elections? Answer: zero. Today, I still can't even name one . Your arguments are all valid but they are slanted by not looking at context, history, political realities and mostly that Israel does have a multi-faceted society as well as not all being "believers", where you can be gay, lesbian, trans and drink alcohol and party, as well as disagreeing with your leaders.   
Even unbiased experts are at a loss to extricate some kind of solution that would be fair to all. I must have thousands of pages of research and interviews and still can't really offer anything except a return to the original declaration of Independence and hope that saner leaders will prevail (Sadat, Rabin were assassinated for daring to try). Accept each other, live and respect each other , like you did a few times and for hundreds of years, in peace and harmony.  

The fourth solution is not realistic.

Israel is the only state who have real power in the Middle East, it is a strategic ally of the US, where the Jewish lobby actually decides the American president (no one who opposes it can ever be elected), and it is a military and commercial ally of Europe. Israel could destroy all the states of the Middle East if it wanted to, so it is ruled out that it could risk its existence.

Furthermore, a distinction must be made between propaganda and politics.
When the mouse is close to be eaten by the cat, it is clear that he would like to destroy the cat. But if you let the mouse run around here and there, the mouse comes to terms. 

Translated: what Hamas has written in its Statute is just propaganda to let off steam. If you listen to what Hamas says (but the Western media never explains it), you understand that Hamas wants the 1967 borders, and every time it launches rockets, it proposes conditions for a truce, which for example the Israeli Gideon Levy in the Haretz newspaper considers reasonable.

The point is this:


If when the cat (Israel) is eating the mouse (Palestinians), you worry about the future existence of the cat, well, you get something for sure: the mouse is eaten, and the cat has a full belly.

In history, the radicalization of a confrontation always favors extremists. But in an asymmetrical war, where one (Israel) of the two components has the almost total monopoly of violence, it is evident that this side is responsible for the radicalization. 

If the extremists of the subjugated (Palestinians) party take advantage of it, it is only a collateral damage, which in any case goes to the advantage of the oppressor (Israel), who can acquire consensus by presenting himself as attacked. 

The Shoah fostered Jewish extremism, Zionism, which advocated the creation of a Jewish national state in Palestine, a strongly minority idea in Europe until the Second World War. It cannot be said that this was the goal of the Nazis, nor can it be said that the Shoah was the goal of the Zionists, who, however, gained an objective political advantage from it. Likewise, and as much as I despise the methods and form of the Hamas movement, I doubt that its goal is the extermination of the Palestinians, although it is taking advantage of this. In turn, favoring Israeli extremism. 

In a vicious circle that can only be stopped by condemning those who have the almost total monopoly of violence and of land (Israele) and favoring democratic and inclusive demands in the two opposing societies.
Amos Goldberg (professor of Genocide Studies at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem): Yes, it's genocide. It's so difficult and painful to admit it, but we can no longer avoid this conclusion.
Back to Top
jamesbaldwin View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: September 25 2015
Location: Milano
Status: Offline
Points: 6052 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote jamesbaldwin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 19 2021 at 18:59
Originally posted by ssmarcus ssmarcus wrote:

Originally posted by suitkees suitkees wrote:

[QUOTE=ssmarcus][QUOTE=suitkees]
 It doesn't surprise me why you have remained silent, so far, about the information that started this thread.

The info that started this thread is a rant that tries to frame the shiekh jarrah legal case in a broad historical context. And THAT goes down way too many rabbit holes for that to be a constructive argument on a thread. 

As far as the as the details of the specific case, I don't know. There are a lot of dry real estate disputes the world over that are brought to court. But seeing as I am neither a litigant nor a judge, why do I need to have an opinion? Thank God, I live in a country of laws with a competent, scholarly, and well respected judiciary. Sometimes they determine a Jewish home to have been improperly purchased or built and sometimes its an Arab home. As long as the law is upheld, to the detriment of either Jew or Arab, my interests are served. 

But of course, if you listen to the rant that started this thread, one can only view this dry legal real estate dispute in some broad lense of historical justice. If thats what you wish to do, I dont have the strenght to convince you otherwise. 

If you live in Israel, you will know that it is virtually impossible for Palestinians to be licensed to build new houses in the Jerusalem area, on the contrary, licenses are easily given to Jews. Palestinian homes are being demolished all the time in Jerusalem, 55,000 since 1967, that is about one a day, and are being demolished for the most insane reasons. For several years, East Jerusalem has become predominantly Jewish for this reason. And this made any Palestinian State impossible, because to have a Palestinian state, you have to leave East Jerusalem (which I remember again, is NOT Israeli territory) to the Palestinians.

But apparently, while the West previously condemned in words (without doing anything) the colonization of the Occupied Territories, today it seems that the West and the UN, although they know that it is illegal, are ignoring anything.
Amos Goldberg (professor of Genocide Studies at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem): Yes, it's genocide. It's so difficult and painful to admit it, but we can no longer avoid this conclusion.
Back to Top
rogerthat View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer


Joined: September 03 2006
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 9869 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (1) Thanks(1)   Quote rogerthat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 19 2021 at 21:56
Originally posted by Sagichim Sagichim wrote:

Originally posted by rogerthat rogerthat wrote:

Originally posted by SteveG SteveG wrote:

Originally posted by rogerthat rogerthat wrote:

Originally posted by SteveG SteveG wrote:

The British were also getting a bit tired of their postal workers getting blown up by bombs planted in mailboxes by the Zionists. Then there's the King David hotel...


Terrorism employed in the service of one's own cause is always viewed as just and easily forgotten.
Worse when actually celebrated like the Israelis commemorating the bombing of the King David Hotel. An act that ended 92 lives. They would have done better to forget it.


Wow, wasn't aware of that.  Sounds demented.

Not sure what you mean by celebrating the commemorating of the bombing...nobody’s celebrating this event on the contrary really. Even in the time of the bombing other Jewish leaders ( of course there wasn’t a state at that point) had condemned that action. If there is a commemoration somewhere it’s there for historic purposes not something that we should be proud of, BTW there were about 20 Jews killed there.

I guess nobody then does not include Netanyahu's strenuous efforts to legitimize it.
Back to Top
rogerthat View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer


Joined: September 03 2006
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 9869 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote rogerthat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 19 2021 at 22:06
Originally posted by ssmarcus ssmarcus wrote:

"An uneasy peace could have existed between the Zionists and the Arabs while the others stayed on in Europe where they were already comfortable and prosperous." - This is such demonstrably false statement you should be embarrassed for saying it out loud without googling it first. The OVERWHELMING MAJORITY of European Jews lived in Eastern Europe as peasants. Their movement and line of work were heavily restricted thereby ensuring the majority remained impoverished. Just look up the "Pale of Settlement" for some context.
  That does not mean they would have risked everything to move to Israel.  Without the Nazi-fuelled exodus, there is not likely to have ever been a modern Israel state.  You also focus conveniently on the East Europeans and not on Germans who migrated in the 1930s from Nazi Germany. They would have had no reason to leave Germany without the anti Semiticism. 
Originally posted by ssmarcus ssmarcus wrote:

And as far as that "uneasy peace" with the Arabs is concerned, go google Arab revolts in Mandatory Palestine to get a sense of how willing the Arabs were to live side by side with Jews.

You didn't understand what I was driving at.  I meant only a few Zionists would have moved to Israel owing to their conviction that they needed to be in Jerusalem. Some would have been killed, some would have survived, seen as not posing a threat to the Arabs on account of their small numbers.  The need for a settlement never arose until very large numbers of Jews had to leave Europe for Israel.  And they wouldn't have had to leave but for the anti semitism in Europe. 

Originally posted by ssmarcus ssmarcus wrote:

"And that land had to come into being by way of carving it out from within then Palestine. " - Dude, there was never ever a country called Palestine. At no point was the territory ever governed by sovereign state of "native" arabs. I am not saying that the deny the fact that an Arab Palestinian identity has emerged and that it may be deserving, on some level, of self determination. But that is NOT what existed at any point prior to the British Mandate. Contrast this with two Jewish commonwealths in antiquity and a near continuous presence since the fall of the second commonwealth. 

If you want to play it that way, then there was no Israel either before 1948. There were no official nation states in large parts of the world ere the British Empire began to divide and partition them into parcels found convenient for ruling. 
Back to Top
jamesbaldwin View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: September 25 2015
Location: Milano
Status: Offline
Points: 6052 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote jamesbaldwin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 20 2021 at 01:59
Originally posted by Lewian Lewian wrote:

but I don't subscribe for example to the "the Palestinians shouldn't have a state because their leaders have been responsible for terrorism and there are no Muslim democracies" logic, but neither to "Israel is built on land grab so they have to give back the land".



Christian,

Israel should give back only the land occupied beyond the 1967 border. Instead, every day it destroys Palestinian houses in that land and builds new colonies. This is the problem on the ground.

East Jerusalem doesn't belong to Israel but Israel every day destroys Palestinian houses and builds houses for Jewish people.

Edited by jamesbaldwin - May 20 2021 at 02:02
Amos Goldberg (professor of Genocide Studies at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem): Yes, it's genocide. It's so difficult and painful to admit it, but we can no longer avoid this conclusion.
Back to Top
Lewian View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: August 09 2015
Location: Italy
Status: Offline
Points: 15151 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Lewian Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 20 2021 at 03:41
@Lorenzo: I find your talk about "monopoly of violence" very imbalanced. I can easily see why Israel feels threatened given that in 1948/49 Arab leaders talked confidently about driving the Jews into the sea, and many possible solutions have been rejected by them in the meantime. The borders of 1967 were not accepted by the Arab countries; if a peaceful solution could be found accepting these borders this would surely be good, and I agree with you that continuing expansion of settling by Israel doesn't help. However, I can also see that from past experiences the Israelis have some reason to believe that they could not live in peace within the borders of 1967 either. Also the power of Iran and Turkey should not be underestimated. If there is conflict with violence from both sides, it is hard to blame the side that has managed to develop their military higher for having done that, and be it with American support.

In fact I'd probably also agree with you that it would be a very good thing for Israel to unilaterally act as if 1967 borders are their limits, apart from self-defence. But this is in line with one thing that I see a lot from the pro-Palestinian side, which is holding Israel to higher standards than the Arabs and the Palestinian administration, and once more, I see why this is hard to accept on the Israeli side.


Edited by Lewian - May 20 2021 at 04:26
Back to Top
Shadowyzard View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member


Joined: February 24 2020
Location: Davutlar
Status: Offline
Points: 4506 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Shadowyzard Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 20 2021 at 04:02
Originally posted by Lewian Lewian wrote:

@Lorenzo: I find your talk about "monopoly of violence" very imbalanced. I can easily see why Israel feels threatened given that in 1948/49 Arab leaders talked confidently about driving the Jews into the sea, and many possible solutions have been rejected by them in the meantime. The borders of 1967 were not accepted by the Arab countries; if a peaceful solution could be found accepting these borders this would surely be good, and I agree with you that continuing expansion of settling by Israel doesn't help. However, I can also see that from past experiences the Israelis have some reason to believe that they could not live in peace within the borders of 1967 either. Also the power of Iran and Turkey should not be underestimated. If there is conflict with violence from both sides, it is hard to blame the side that has managed to develop their military higher for having done that, and be it with American support.


Another thing that should not be underestimated is... the shariah ideal of the Muslims. It is actually a threat to all the world. The dumb Turk that thinks that shariah is a good thing doesn't have the wits to see that, such an order, lifestyle, religious laws whatsoever... would be different in all cultures. We, Muslim Turks, had to accept being Muslims with force and bloodshed. We just had to succumb... 

Just as a "Pink Floydian Revolution" (I don't want to discuss this.) would be disastrous as a global revolution, same sh*t would happen if Islam becomes victorious.

I believe only the American culture can make a global revolution, if that is the last solution for humanity. All the other cultures in the world have "their own stands".

I don't like the idea of revolution very much. Here is how I see it: “The most radical revolutionary will become a conservative the day after the revolution.” ― Hannah Arendt
Back to Top
SteveG View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: April 11 2014
Location: Kyiv In Spirit
Status: Offline
Points: 20617 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote SteveG Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 20 2021 at 04:09
Originally posted by ssmarcus ssmarcus wrote:

Originally posted by SteveG SteveG wrote:

The British were also getting a bit tired of their postal workers getting blown up by bombs planted in mailboxes by the Zionists. Then there's the King David hotel...

  1. The King David hotel was, among other things, a military and security headquarters of the British Occupation forces. It housed military and security infrastructure and personnel. I don't consider attacks on uniformed military personnel to be terrorism.
  2. The Irgun delivered a warning about the bombing 30 minutes before. British authorities chose to ignore it and, according to some eye witnesses, even prevented people from exiting. 
  3. Contrast both 1 & 2 with Palestinian terror attacks at the time and throughout the conflict which routinely  sought out specifically civilian causalities from the outset with no consideration of military importance of the target. Buses, restaurants, airplanes, schools, even the goddam Olympics were are the intended targets of their operations. 
  4. Even IF you consider the King David bombing to be terrorism on account of the collateral damage or because you think attacking military targets can still be a form of terror, the British were colonial power who were depriving both Jews and, if I'm being honest, Arabs the right to self-determination. If you or anyone else on this thread have expressed at least some support for the Arab cause here despite what they're tactics, than you are admitting, at least implicitly, in the very legitimacy of such attacks in the first place! 
The so called warning is highly disputed. The British say even if it was given, which they contend it wasn't, the persons to be contacted were in no position to evacuate the hotel anyway, and a 30 minute warning was not enough time to evacuate an entire hotel with guests, in any case. And yes, any rational person would consider the bombing of a hotel where innocent people were in the same location as government officials is nothing less than an act of terrorism. And secondly, two wrongs don't make a right. There is no justification for such an action, regardless of the reasons. This is what I meant by Israeli apologists for their act of terror. You could not have demonstrated it any more clearly. Bravo.
This message was brought to you by a proud supporter of the Deep State.
Back to Top
ssmarcus View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: September 05 2019
Location: Israel
Status: Offline
Points: 261 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote ssmarcus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 20 2021 at 04:11
Originally posted by jamesbaldwin jamesbaldwin wrote:


The fourth solution is not realistic...

Translated: what Hamas has written in its Statute is just propaganda to let off steam. If you listen to what Hamas says (but the Western media never explains it), you understand that Hamas wants the 1967 borders, and every time it launches rockets, it proposes conditions for a truce, which for example the Israeli Gideon Levy in the Haretz newspaper considers reasonable.


I think we can both agree that, regardless of whether we believe Hamas' genocidal sentiment is merely propaganda or sincere, our assessments are being made in an environment of uncertainty. For example, I am 90% sure hamas is not bluffing (based on their own history and based on the actions of similarl islamist movements with more freedom of action and movement) while you are 90% certain that they are bluffing (based on how they actually manage their politics in practice). Even IF you were to convince me to be 90% sure they are bluffing, the existence of that 10% chance of being wrong multiplied by the cost in life and well being of being wrong still makes it that, from a self defense perspective, it is not rational for Israel to stop fighting. And in as much as self-defense is a moral imperative, it is also not moral for Israel to desist. 

Originally posted by jamesbaldwin jamesbaldwin wrote:

The Shoah fostered Jewish extremism, Zionism, which advocated the creation of a Jewish national state in Palestine, a strongly minority idea in Europe until the Second World War. It cannot be said that this was the goal of the Nazis, nor can it be said that the Shoah was the goal of the Zionists, who, however, gained an objective political advantage from it. 

The Zionist movement was in full swing with a full state-like apparatus and hundreds of thousands of settler  in place well before the outbreak of WW2. The Holocaust had nothing to do with that. If anything the, state of Israel was formed despite the Holocaust having wiped out millions of potential immigrants necessary for the success of the project. 

At best, the holocaust provided a temporary diplomatic advantage and is probably what gave Israel those few extra votes in the UN recognition vote. 

Originally posted by jamesbaldwin jamesbaldwin wrote:

The Shoah fostered Jewish extremism, Zionism... a strongly minority idea in Europe until the Second World War.  

Let's be very clear hear: the overwhelming majority of all Jews all over the held then, as they do now, that the area "from the river to the sea" is the historic homeland of the Jewish people meant to be the home of our own independent state. The debate about Zionism for MOST Jews (at that time) was a debate about timing and tactics. Secularist Jews, not believing in divine mandates, saw the modern era as an opportunity to realize this vision using "earthly" means like politics, land purchases, immigration, and, when necessary, self-defense. Religious objectors felt that this violated god's plan at that particular moment. It wasn't a repudiation of the centrality of Israel, it was a repudiation of angering the gentiles in the process and potentially showing lack of faith in god. 

Now there was indeed a small minority minority of Western European enlightenment inspired Jews, mostly in Germany, (e.g. Rabbi Shimshon Raphael Hirsh, the Reform Movement) who thought Judaism should abandon its nationalistic component and formulated a cosmopolitan vision of Jews engaged directly in the gentile world. We all of course know how the Germans felt about the naïve cosmopolitanism of their local Jews. It obviously did not end well... 



 


 


Back to Top
rogerthat View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer


Joined: September 03 2006
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 9869 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote rogerthat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 20 2021 at 04:15
Originally posted by Shadowyzard Shadowyzard wrote:


Another thing that should not be underestimated is... the shariah ideal of the Muslims. It is actually a threat to all the world. The dumb Turk that thinks that shariah is a good thing doesn't have the wits to see that, such an order, lifestyle, religious laws whatsoever... would be different in all cultures. We, Muslim Turks, had to accept being Muslims with force and bloodshed. We just had to succumb... 

Just as a "Pink Floydian Revolution" (I don't want to discuss this.) would be disastrous as a global revolution, same sh*t would happen if Islam becomes victorious.

I believe only the American culture can make a global revolution, if that is the last solution for humanity. All the other cultures in the world have "their own stands".

I don't like the idea of revolution very much. Here is how I see it: “The most radical revolutionary will become a conservative the day after the revolution.” ― Hannah Arendt

Thank you.  I have friends in Pakistan with whom I have discussed this subject and the way in which they would uncritically and unhesitatingly say that a land governed by sharia would be their paradise would frighten me. The problem is from their perspective, they see no harm done and don't understand why someone not of their religion would find it threatening.  So they are inclined to see anyone criticizing sharia law as anti-Muslim or a hater. 
Back to Top
Lewian View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: August 09 2015
Location: Italy
Status: Offline
Points: 15151 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Lewian Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 20 2021 at 04:22
@ssmarcus: You can see from my postings that I try to understand the Israeli side and for sure I think they should live there and be able to run and defend their own state. However I don't think there is any sacred right for anyone to have a state in some place just because their ancestors had one there 2000 years ago. If it were like that, the map of the world would look very, very different in many places. For sure there is a right of the Israeli people of now to have their country and there are some good reasons to have it about where it is, but I don't think it holds much water to claim anything for any present person based on what happened 2000 years ago.
Back to Top
rogerthat View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer


Joined: September 03 2006
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 9869 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote rogerthat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 20 2021 at 04:26
Originally posted by Lewian Lewian wrote:

@ssmarcus: You can see from my postings that I try to understand the Israeli side and for sure I think they should live there and be able to run and defend their own state. However I don't think there is any sacred right for anyone to have a state in some place just because their ancestors had one there 2000 years ago. If it were like that, the map of the world would look very, very different in many places. For sure there is a right of the Israeli people of now to have their country and there are some good reasons to have it about where it is, but I don't think it holds much water to claim anything for any present person based on what happened 2000 years ago.

Indeed, if we accept something based on some millennia old ancestral claim, it would make Erdogan right to have converted Hagia Sofia into a mosque and the Hindutva brigade justified in having demanded a temple in place of the Babri masjid.  Ancestral arguments are, if anything, dangerous. 


Edited by rogerthat - May 20 2021 at 04:26
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 678910 16>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down



This page was generated in 0.242 seconds.
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.