Author Topic: Israel v Hamas  (Read 8697 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: Israel v Hamas
« Reply #90 on: December 04, 2012, 09:03:38 AM »

Offline nickagneta

  • Bob Cousy
  • **************************
  • Posts: 26854
  • Tommy Points: 1993
I don't know just how one sided we are. Although the US was against the recent recognition of Palestine in the UN, the administration did denounce and condemn Israeli plans to expand settlements into the West Bank stating that they thought such actions would put into jeopardy any chance at keeping the peace.

This administration has been less pro-Israel than any other in recent memory. They appear set in their attempts to bridge a peace with the Muslim world and have time and again shown they want Israel as an ally but will not give them the unconditional support to do whatever they want that past administrations have given them.

And unfortunately, isolationism in this matter probably shouldn't and won't occur because, let's be realistic, the US was complicit in creating it by helping to create the nation of Israel in the first place.
2015 CB HISTORICAL DRAFT: COMING THIS OCTOBER
FORMAT:
3 players from 1960-73
3 players from 1974-86
3 players from 1987-00
3 players from 2001-Pres
1 player from any era

Re: Israel v Hamas
« Reply #91 on: December 04, 2012, 10:57:56 AM »

Offline LooseCannon

  • Satch Sanders
  • *********
  • Posts: 9273
  • Tommy Points: 698
I don't know just how one sided we are. Although the US was against the recent recognition of Palestine in the UN, the administration did denounce and condemn Israeli plans to expand settlements into the West Bank stating that they thought such actions would put into jeopardy any chance at keeping the peace.

The question is how far would Israel have to go to get a negative reaction from the US that is more than just words.  How much breathing space does Israel have to impose its will without more material repercussions?
"The worst thing that ever happened in sports was sports radio, and the internet is sports radio on steroids with lower IQs.” -- Brian Burke, former Toronto Maple Leafs senior adviser, at the 2013 MIT Sloan Sports Analytics Conference

Re: Israel v Hamas
« Reply #92 on: December 12, 2012, 09:48:43 PM »

Offline Brendan

  • Ray Allen
  • **
  • Posts: 2988
  • Tommy Points: 72
    • Self Assay
Define US?

Federal gov't or popular sentiment? from congress or the executive branch? From state dept or WH?


Re: Israel v Hamas
« Reply #93 on: December 13, 2012, 02:38:57 AM »

Offline LooseCannon

  • Satch Sanders
  • *********
  • Posts: 9273
  • Tommy Points: 698
Whatever part of the US can have a significant effect on Israel.
"The worst thing that ever happened in sports was sports radio, and the internet is sports radio on steroids with lower IQs.” -- Brian Burke, former Toronto Maple Leafs senior adviser, at the 2013 MIT Sloan Sports Analytics Conference

Re: Israel v Hamas
« Reply #94 on: December 13, 2012, 11:17:16 AM »

Offline Brendan

  • Ray Allen
  • **
  • Posts: 2988
  • Tommy Points: 72
    • Self Assay
All of those can. I think they'd have to do something actually disproportional to what's happening. As stirred up as people pre-disposed to not like Israel get, most people (correctly) see Hamas as a terrorist organizations and frankly short of civilian slaughter won't give a crud. Maybe pre 9/11 the bar was lower, but it's not.

On the other hand if the Palestinians were to start acting like MLK Jr or Gandi and doing peaceful resistance, then that bar might change. Fact of the matter is they won't - their are enough there who would see that as a cowards victory, that they'll keep blowing things up, and the west will keep using them as a political football and not anything more.

I'm cynical, but honest.

Re: Israel v Hamas
« Reply #95 on: December 13, 2012, 11:54:06 AM »

Online rocknrollforyoursoul

  • Ray Allen
  • **
  • Posts: 2075
  • Tommy Points: 190
I don't understand the back and forth thing....

It's more like 1000 israeli missiles to 1 missile from gaza ratio.

This.

Despite US media reports Israel is aggresor per usual.



If Israel is the aggressor, it's because it's surrounded by millions of militants who want it destroyed. Israel has done some things I don't condone, but in general terms, Israel is a tiny Jewish state in a vast sea of Muslims, many of whom hate Israel and want to see it wiped out, and Israel has already given up much of its land, so I'm with Israel.

If Palestinians are so bent on having their own state, I don't see why one of the big Muslim countries nearby, such as Iraq or Egypt, couldn't just give the Palestinians a piece of land.

Then again, it's not really about land for the Palestinians—a survey a few years ago found that something like 80% of Palestinians, even if they had their own state, would still want to see Israel destroyed.
"There are two kinds of people: those who say to God, 'Thy will be done,' and those to whom God says, 'All right, then, have it your way.'"

"You don't have a soul. You are a Soul. You have a body."

— C.S. Lewis


Re: Israel v Hamas
« Reply #96 on: December 13, 2012, 12:42:17 PM »

Offline indeedproceed

  • Global Moderator
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 38063
  • Tommy Points: 1900
  • You ain't the boss of the freakin' bedclothes.
I don't understand the back and forth thing....

It's more like 1000 israeli missiles to 1 missile from gaza ratio.

This.

Despite US media reports Israel is aggresor per usual.



If Israel is the aggressor, it's because it's surrounded by millions of militants who want it destroyed. Israel has done some things I don't condone, but in general terms, Israel is a tiny Jewish state in a vast sea of Muslims, many of whom hate Israel and want to see it wiped out, and Israel has already given up much of its land, so I'm with Israel.

This to me is combining two situations which are related, but not the same thing.

Israel is dealing with Palestine. They are surrounded by countries whose motives at the very least would be called ambiguous and problematic, but they aren't actually invading those countries. They're not dealing with Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, or Egypt here, even by proxy. They're dealing with a situation which has remained antagonistic and mostly unchanged for decades in Palestine.

I don't think is really fair to excuse the treatment of Palestine on Israel's tenuous relations with their neighbors.

Quote
If Palestinians are so bent on having their own state, I don't see why one of the big Muslim countries nearby, such as Iraq or Egypt, couldn't just give the Palestinians a piece of land.

Why would the Palestinians (or any of their nearby Islamic neighbors) walk away from a situation they see as outright larceny of something that rightly belongs to them?

Also, why would the nearby Islamic neighbors endorse such an action, or enable it by giving the Palestinians land (and what kind of cost would that entail for the Palestinians? I don't know if you've noticed, but people are kind of serious about land disputes over there)? They'd be ceding more land to Israel, whom many in the region consider a viable and persistent threat and interloper, and allowing Israel to stop focusing on Palestine and Hamas and start focusing on everyone else.

Really the only winner there is Israel, and the people the conflict would ultimately kill if it persists.

DKC Portland Trailblazers Team Card
Questions about the DKC? Ask here: LINK
Free Agency Tracker: Link

Re: Israel v Hamas
« Reply #97 on: December 13, 2012, 12:54:30 PM »

Offline nickagneta

  • Bob Cousy
  • **************************
  • Posts: 26854
  • Tommy Points: 1993
I look at the situation this way, if the Quakers because of persecution were suddenly to be given the state of Rhode Island to be their own country and the people of Rhode Island were suddenly thrown out of their homes because a religion wanted to be given it's own nation due to persecution of that religion, I'm guessing the people of Rhode Island would go to war over such a thing. And I doubt even a generation later they would be giving up on trying to get their state back.

Its easy to look at the modern situation and call Hamas terrorists but if the same thing happened here, would Americans react so differently?

The biggest problem here is what started the whole mess to begin with and until the West realizes they created the problem and forces Israel into some major concessions, this is going to go on until a nuclear warhead is used.
2015 CB HISTORICAL DRAFT: COMING THIS OCTOBER
FORMAT:
3 players from 1960-73
3 players from 1974-86
3 players from 1987-00
3 players from 2001-Pres
1 player from any era

Re: Israel v Hamas
« Reply #98 on: December 13, 2012, 02:21:15 PM »

Online rocknrollforyoursoul

  • Ray Allen
  • **
  • Posts: 2075
  • Tommy Points: 190
I don't understand the back and forth thing....

It's more like 1000 israeli missiles to 1 missile from gaza ratio.

This.

Despite US media reports Israel is aggresor per usual.



If Israel is the aggressor, it's because it's surrounded by millions of militants who want it destroyed. Israel has done some things I don't condone, but in general terms, Israel is a tiny Jewish state in a vast sea of Muslims, many of whom hate Israel and want to see it wiped out, and Israel has already given up much of its land, so I'm with Israel.

This to me is combining two situations which are related, but not the same thing.

Israel is dealing with Palestine. They are surrounded by countries whose motives at the very least would be called ambiguous and problematic, but they aren't actually invading those countries. They're not dealing with Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, or Egypt here, even by proxy. They're dealing with a situation which has remained antagonistic and mostly unchanged for decades in Palestine.

I don't think is really fair to excuse the treatment of Palestine on Israel's tenuous relations with their neighbors.

Quote
If Palestinians are so bent on having their own state, I don't see why one of the big Muslim countries nearby, such as Iraq or Egypt, couldn't just give the Palestinians a piece of land.

Why would the Palestinians (or any of their nearby Islamic neighbors) walk away from a situation they see as outright larceny of something that rightly belongs to them?

Also, why would the nearby Islamic neighbors endorse such an action, or enable it by giving the Palestinians land (and what kind of cost would that entail for the Palestinians? I don't know if you've noticed, but people are kind of serious about land disputes over there)? They'd be ceding more land to Israel, whom many in the region consider a viable and persistent threat and interloper, and allowing Israel to stop focusing on Palestine and Hamas and start focusing on everyone else.

Really the only winner there is Israel, and the people the conflict would ultimately kill if it persists.

Israel also isn't invading the Palestinians. The Palestinians have their own sort of "designated areas" in Israel, but these don't constitute a nation (more like large ethnic neighborhoods), and this is against the will of Israel in the first place. Like it or not, Israel is a sovereign nation, long recognized as such. The Palestinians wanting their own state carved out of Israel would be like a bunch of illegal immigrants (Mexican or otherwise) here in Southern California wanting to carve out their own separate nation.

And to respond to nick, I disagree that Israel was "given its own state because of religious persecution." The Jews were certainly persecuted (always have been, probably always will be), but this wasn't because of their religion, but simply because they're Jewish. Many Westerners justifiably decry the ethnic cleansing in places such as Serbia, but seem to forget that this is precisely what the Palestinians want to do to Israel. And Israel is somehow in the wrong for defending not only its sovereignty but its very existence. I think Israel would leave the Palestinians alone if the Palestinians left them alone.

I know that many people don't believe what the Bible says, but the Bible is clear on the history of this region and this issue. The history is kind of long, but put simply, the Israeli/Palestinian conflict is a longstanding family feud: God gave the land of Canaan to the Israelites (as they were then called)—and much more land, by the way, than what present-day Israel holds; these were the descendants of Israel, formerly called Jacob, who was a son of Isaac. Isaac's brother, Ishmael, was also given land by God, but this land was to the south of Canaan (Israel), in what is now called the Arabian peninsula (Ishmael's descendants became known as Arabs). The descendants of Jacob's brother, Esau, were known as Edomites, and they too lived south of Canaan/Israel. Over time, the Edomites essentially merged with the Arabs.

When Islam began to spread (by the sword, of course), Arabs (pretty much all of whom became Muslim) began to spread out, trying to conquer more areas; they went into Canaan/Israel about the 7th century AD, and then the Muslim Turks made a push into Canaan/Israel around the 10th century AD. It was at this time that these Arabs began calling themselves "Palestinians" and began laying claim to that area.

The terms "Palestine" and "Palestinian" aren't even mentioned in the Bible, and didn't originate until around the Byzantine era. These terms derive from "Philistine," the former people group that lived in what is now the Gaza Strip. If there were any actual Philistines still living, they'd have a bit more of a legitimate argument for possessing the Gaza Strip (though not really, since God gave that land to the Israelites), but that's neither here nor there, since there are essentially NO remaining Philistines, and the people who now call themselves Palestinians are actually of Arabian descent, and the have plenty of ancestral land south of Israel. That's why I said one of the nearby Muslim/Arab countries should just give a chunk of land to the Palestinians.

In short, Israel had the land first, and they had it long before various Arab groups invaded or European colonists arrived. Secularists could make the argument that the Canaanites were there before the Israelites—and from a historical point that would be accurate—but the Canaanite peoples essentially no longer exist. So if nothing else, this issue boils down to common law—out of all the living people groups trying to claim the Holy Land, Israel has the oldest claim, so therefore has the right to own it.

But as I said before, this isn't really about land. The Palestinians are mostly Arab and Muslim, and Arabs and Muslims have pretty much always hated Israel and wanted it destroyed. That still holds true. The land issue is sort of a red herring, and unfortunately the United Nations (which I find to be absolutely useless) is a great enabler of this anti-Semitism.
"There are two kinds of people: those who say to God, 'Thy will be done,' and those to whom God says, 'All right, then, have it your way.'"

"You don't have a soul. You are a Soul. You have a body."

— C.S. Lewis


Re: Israel v Hamas
« Reply #99 on: December 13, 2012, 02:32:25 PM »

Offline nickagneta

  • Bob Cousy
  • **************************
  • Posts: 26854
  • Tommy Points: 1993

The Palestinians wanting their own state carved out of Israel would be like a bunch of illegal immigrants (Mexican or otherwise) here in Southern California wanting to carve out their own separate nation.
You are aware of the history of the sovereign nation of Israel and how it came into existence aren't you? What you are claiming the Palestinians want is exactly how Israel came into existence in the first place while displacing the Palestinians.

Also, Israel should have been given a sovereign state because God decreed it. WOW! Now I really have heard everything!!
2015 CB HISTORICAL DRAFT: COMING THIS OCTOBER
FORMAT:
3 players from 1960-73
3 players from 1974-86
3 players from 1987-00
3 players from 2001-Pres
1 player from any era

Re: Israel v Hamas
« Reply #100 on: December 13, 2012, 02:37:18 PM »

Offline indeedproceed

  • Global Moderator
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 38063
  • Tommy Points: 1900
  • You ain't the boss of the freakin' bedclothes.
Israel also isn't invading the Palestinians. The Palestinians have their own sort of "designated areas" in Israel, but these don't constitute a nation (more like large ethnic neighborhoods), and this is against the will of Israel in the first place. Like it or not, Israel is a sovereign nation, long recognized as such. The Palestinians wanting their own state carved out of Israel would be like a bunch of illegal immigrants (Mexican or otherwise) here in Southern California wanting to carve out their own separate nation.

I think your analogy is off. It would be something like one group of native Americans who had been forced off their rightful land by another group of Native Americans who used to live there but didn't for a long time even though they always saw it as theirs, and then they came back, with really big really tough friends.

Quote
And to respond to nick, I disagree that Israel was "given its own state because of religious persecution." The Jews were certainly persecuted (always have been, probably always will be), but this wasn't because of their religion, but simply because they're Jewish.

How can you be Jewish without being Jewish?

Quote
Many Westerners justifiably decry the ethnic cleansing in places such as Serbia, but seem to forget that this is precisely what the Palestinians want to do to Israel.

Want to do, can do, and will do are all very separate things. Some factions in Palestine want to wipe Israel off the face of the earth. No arab nation is in a position of being able to do such a thing, and none of them have made any kind of solid signs that they'll ever attempt such a thing.

Its just not a good comparison to Serbia, where these things actually happened.

Quote
And Israel is somehow in the wrong for defending not only its sovereignty but its very existence. I think Israel would leave the Palestinians alone if the Palestinians left them alone.

I agree. But surrendering your fate to an enemy who doesn't value your culture and your people, or leaving your lands are likely two choices that many people (most Americans I'd imagine) would see as non-starters.

DKC Portland Trailblazers Team Card
Questions about the DKC? Ask here: LINK
Free Agency Tracker: Link

Re: Israel v Hamas
« Reply #101 on: December 13, 2012, 02:40:52 PM »

Offline Moranis

  • Satch Sanders
  • *********
  • Posts: 9532
  • Tommy Points: 410

The Palestinians wanting their own state carved out of Israel would be like a bunch of illegal immigrants (Mexican or otherwise) here in Southern California wanting to carve out their own separate nation.
You are aware of the history of the sovereign nation of Israel and how it came into existence aren't you? What you are claiming the Palestinians want is exactly how Israel came into existence in the first place while displacing the Palestinians.

Also, Israel should have been given a sovereign state because God decreed it. WOW! Now I really have heard everything!!
To be fair when Britain left, about 50% of present day Israel was a Palestine State and the other half was the Jewish State.  Israel just took the rest (as well as the Sinai Peninsula, which it has since given back to Egypt) after it won numerous wars started by the Palestinians and various surrounding Islamic countries.  To the victor goes the spoils.   
2014 Pick 2 Draft 18th pick of 20
Sacramento Kings
Starters - Isaiah Thomas, Eric Gordon, Jimmy Butler, Dirk Nowitzki, Demarcus Cousins
Bench - Kendall Marshall, Michael Carter-Williams, Vince Carter, Wesley Johnson, Marcus Morris, Miles Plumlee, Nerlens Noel

Re: Israel v Hamas
« Reply #102 on: December 13, 2012, 02:58:31 PM »

Online rocknrollforyoursoul

  • Ray Allen
  • **
  • Posts: 2075
  • Tommy Points: 190

The Palestinians wanting their own state carved out of Israel would be like a bunch of illegal immigrants (Mexican or otherwise) here in Southern California wanting to carve out their own separate nation.
You are aware of the history of the sovereign nation of Israel and how it came into existence aren't you? What you are claiming the Palestinians want is exactly how Israel came into existence in the first place while displacing the Palestinians.

You're talking about the modern political state of Israel, but that's merely the latest iteration of a nation/people group that has been present in that area for millennia—a people group, as I said before, that staked out the area long before Palestinian Arabs tried laying claim to it through Muslim fanaticism. I don't agree with every move that modern Israel has ever made, and I lament any loss of innocent life on either side, but any "displacing" of Palestinians is simply the removal of foreign invaders who are threatening Israel's sovereignty. The proper Palestinian land claim is south of Israel, in the Arabian Peninsula. That's where they should be.

This entire issue is fascinating for me, not only because of the biblical angle, but because it seems that even in the "pro-Israel" U.S. there's a lot of anti-Israel sentiment, and I just don't get it. Yeah, Israel's had its own share of bad moves along the way, but that doesn't change the overall situation, or the origin of the conflict, or the "original, pre-Islam" land agreement (Israel in one place, Arabs in another), which was working just fine before Mohammed came along.
"There are two kinds of people: those who say to God, 'Thy will be done,' and those to whom God says, 'All right, then, have it your way.'"

"You don't have a soul. You are a Soul. You have a body."

— C.S. Lewis


Re: Israel v Hamas
« Reply #103 on: December 13, 2012, 03:27:47 PM »

Online rocknrollforyoursoul

  • Ray Allen
  • **
  • Posts: 2075
  • Tommy Points: 190
I think your analogy is off. It would be something like one group of native Americans who had been forced off their rightful land by another group of Native Americans who used to live there but didn't for a long time even though they always saw it as theirs, and then they came back, with really big really tough friends.

I get your analogy, but you seem to be saying that the oldest of the two claims is in the wrong. How can that be? If I get the cool seat on the bus and then you try to horn in on it, you're in the wrong.

Also, the Jewish people never really left that area. A large number of Jews indeed left (or were forced to leave), but there's been a constant Jewish presence there for roughly 5,000 years, whereas the so-called Palestinian Arabs didn't arrive until about the 7th century AD.

Quote
How can you be Jewish without being Jewish?


Nowadays, at least, there are plenty of secular Jews—people who are ethnically Jewish but who don't practice the Jewish faith. And anyway, Hitler, for example, didn't seek to wipe them out because they followed the Torah, but simply because they were "other."

Quote
Want to do, can do, and will do are all very separate things. Some factions in Palestine want to wipe Israel off the face of the earth. No arab nation is in a position of being able to do such a thing, and none of them have made any kind of solid signs that they'll ever attempt such a thing.

Its just not a good comparison to Serbia, where these things actually happened.


I'm not sure if Iran is considered an Arab nation, but it certainly has a lot of Arabs, and it's certainly in a position where it will soon (within the next few years, perhaps) be able to attack Israel. Plus, in the age of terrorism, you don't have to have an actual nation attacking, not when you have the Muslim/Arab/Palestinian "nations" of Hamas and Hezbollah and Al-Qaeda and every other loony Muslim sect out to destroy you.

Quote
But surrendering your fate to an enemy who doesn't value your culture and your people, or leaving your lands are likely two choices that many people (most Americans I'd imagine) would see as non-starters.

I see what you're saying here: Regardless of past wrongs by either party, the current situation is what it is, removal of the Palestinians could cause a humanitarian crisis, etc. In that case, though, I still don't see the two-state approach as the best or the right answer. I would see it as, "Okay, fine, we can't move you Palestinians, because it's impractical/unethical, etc., so you can stay, but you're not going to own any land, because this land isn't yours."
"There are two kinds of people: those who say to God, 'Thy will be done,' and those to whom God says, 'All right, then, have it your way.'"

"You don't have a soul. You are a Soul. You have a body."

— C.S. Lewis


Re: Israel v Hamas
« Reply #104 on: December 13, 2012, 09:42:04 PM »

Offline nickagneta

  • Bob Cousy
  • **************************
  • Posts: 26854
  • Tommy Points: 1993
The origins of any religion have a beginning somewhere. Just because the Jewish people have an old claim to the land area of Israel doesn't mean it is their right to settle there. There were people there before the Jews and I can claim that those people have the right to the land.

But in the early 20th century Jews made up about 10% of the people living in the area that is currently Israel. Arabs and Muslims made up the rest. That number was fairly consistent until the beginning of WWII when, during the war, Jews migrated to the area of Israel by the hundreds of thousands to escape the Holocaust and the war(Nazi Germany was not the only area Jews migrated from during WWII. They came from Russia, the Slovaks and all across German occupied Europe).

When Britain decided to pull out of the area, urged on by their allies in WWII and the United Nations and sympathetically allowed Israel a sovereign state, Jews still made up only 30% or so of the people of the area. Over a million Palestinians would be displaced from the area of Israel over the next 5 years.

To me, that is pretty hard to defend with "well the Jewish people occupied the land 2300 years ago so it really was their land". If that is the case you should just leave your house and country right now and turn it over to a Native American because they owned this land first and their gods said it was their land.
2015 CB HISTORICAL DRAFT: COMING THIS OCTOBER
FORMAT:
3 players from 1960-73
3 players from 1974-86
3 players from 1987-00
3 players from 2001-Pres
1 player from any era

 

Hello! Guest

Welcome to the CelticsBlog Forums.

Welcome to CelticsBlog