Author Topic: Israel v Hamas  (Read 7768 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline D.o.s.

  • Antoine Walker
  • *****
  • Posts: 5431
  • Tommy Points: 330
Re: Israel v Hamas
« Reply #120 on: December 17, 2012, 02:40:43 PM »
And that's you being secular?

At least we can agree on basketball teams.
Michael Jordan: It's a man's game, and you can't play.
 Bill Murray: It's 'cause I'm white, isn't it?
Michael Jordan: No. Larry's white, so what?
Bill Murray: Larry's not white. Larry's clear.

not sure the point of this thread.

Online rocknrollforyoursoul

  • Don Chaney
  • *
  • Posts: 1848
  • Tommy Points: 177
Re: Israel v Hamas
« Reply #121 on: December 17, 2012, 02:49:56 PM »
And that's you being secular?

As I wrote in a previous post, I can discuss this in secular terms, in which case the argument goes like this: the Jews were there first, then they were largely forced out–by numerous people groups, but Muslim Arabs being among the chief perpetrators–so the legitimate land claim belongs to the Jews. Further rationale for this argument is that Arabs were once content in their own land–the Arabian Peninsula, which is a much larger area than Israel and in which someone (particularly Saudi Arabia) should be able to carve out a spot for the Palestinians.

Quote
At least we can agree on basketball teams.

Ha! Yes, we can.  :D
"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


Offline D.o.s.

  • Antoine Walker
  • *****
  • Posts: 5431
  • Tommy Points: 330
Re: Israel v Hamas
« Reply #122 on: December 17, 2012, 02:56:28 PM »
Right, but I think that you're conflating Arabs into this gigantic group of people rather than, say, Saudi Arabians, Egyptians, Lebanese, etc. To my thinking that's an oversimplification.


Regardless of opinion, the whole situation over there sucks for a whole lot of people who don't have any say in the matter.
Michael Jordan: It's a man's game, and you can't play.
 Bill Murray: It's 'cause I'm white, isn't it?
Michael Jordan: No. Larry's white, so what?
Bill Murray: Larry's not white. Larry's clear.

not sure the point of this thread.

Online rocknrollforyoursoul

  • Don Chaney
  • *
  • Posts: 1848
  • Tommy Points: 177
Re: Israel v Hamas
« Reply #123 on: December 17, 2012, 03:34:38 PM »
Right, but I think that you're conflating Arabs into this gigantic group of people rather than, say, Saudi Arabians, Egyptians, Lebanese, etc. To my thinking that's an oversimplification.


Regardless of opinion, the whole situation over there sucks for a whole lot of people who don't have any say in the matter.

I guess I'm still a bit confused on how I'm conflating Arabs. I realize that Arabs aren't constricted to one country, but are instead found in countries throughout the Middle East. Perhaps my point would be clearer if I said that Palestinian Arabs do not have a claim to Israel superior to that of the Jews, and that if Palestinians (who are largely Arab, in culture and in language) want their own state, they should seek to establish it in the area that has long belonged to Arabs (the Arabian Peninsula), and leave the Jews alone, in the area that has long been the homeland of Jews.

But you're right: the whole situation is terrible.
"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


Offline IndeedProceed

  • Global Moderator
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 36535
  • Tommy Points: 1769
  • You ain't the boss of the freakin' bedclothes.
Re: Israel v Hamas
« Reply #124 on: December 17, 2012, 03:47:37 PM »
Right, but I think that you're conflating Arabs into this gigantic group of people rather than, say, Saudi Arabians, Egyptians, Lebanese, etc. To my thinking that's an oversimplification.


Regardless of opinion, the whole situation over there sucks for a whole lot of people who don't have any say in the matter.

I guess I'm still a bit confused on how I'm conflating Arabs. I realize that Arabs aren't constricted to one country, but are instead found in countries throughout the Middle East. Perhaps my point would be clearer if I said that Palestinian Arabs do not have a claim to Israel superior to that of the Jews, and that if Palestinians (who are largely Arab, in culture and in language) want their own state, they should seek to establish it in the area that has long belonged to Arabs (the Arabian Peninsula), and leave the Jews alone, in the area that has long been the homeland of Jews.

But you're right: the whole situation is terrible.

So my question then becomes, why do the Israelies have superior claim here that requires our intervention to help enforce, when there are legions of nations of displaced and lost/retaken/lost to someone else territories out there that we do nothing about?

Why aren't we ceding the northeast to the english? Shouldn't they then cede it to the dutch? And then you know, native Americans.

It seems inconsistent. Everyone is on someone else's land a thousand years ago.

Theoretically, we helped establish Israel and have been helping grow them militarily because they needed their own state and the means to defend themselves from persecution and oppression.

But in the meantime we unseated people without cause other than 'I said so', and have allowed Israel virtual impunity when dealing with the displaced Palestinians.

It would seem that by aiding one group, we've helped to oppress another, and as an American I can't help but have silly idealistic thoughts like 'we're better than that'.

Of course, I'm not the one who has to mitigate the argument between two nations with visceral hatred for each other, so I'm pretty much just chirping in from the cheap seats here.
« Last Edit: December 17, 2012, 04:04:01 PM by IndeedProceed »

DKC Portland Trailblazers Team Card
Questions about the DKC? Ask here: LINK

Offline ACF

  • Danny Ainge
  • **********
  • Posts: 10660
  • Tommy Points: 1142
Re: Israel v Hamas
« Reply #125 on: December 17, 2012, 04:00:20 PM »
IP ftw. Thank you for that there dose of sanity. 1189.




PS. We want Norway and parts of Sweden back.

Online rocknrollforyoursoul

  • Don Chaney
  • *
  • Posts: 1848
  • Tommy Points: 177
Re: Israel v Hamas
« Reply #126 on: December 17, 2012, 04:55:24 PM »
Right, but I think that you're conflating Arabs into this gigantic group of people rather than, say, Saudi Arabians, Egyptians, Lebanese, etc. To my thinking that's an oversimplification.


Regardless of opinion, the whole situation over there sucks for a whole lot of people who don't have any say in the matter.

I guess I'm still a bit confused on how I'm conflating Arabs. I realize that Arabs aren't constricted to one country, but are instead found in countries throughout the Middle East. Perhaps my point would be clearer if I said that Palestinian Arabs do not have a claim to Israel superior to that of the Jews, and that if Palestinians (who are largely Arab, in culture and in language) want their own state, they should seek to establish it in the area that has long belonged to Arabs (the Arabian Peninsula), and leave the Jews alone, in the area that has long been the homeland of Jews.

But you're right: the whole situation is terrible.

So my question then becomes, why do the Israelies have superior claim here that requires our intervention to help enforce, when there are legions of nations of displaced and lost/retaken/lost to someone else territories out there that we do nothing about?

Why aren't we ceding the northeast to the english? Shouldn't they then cede it to the dutch? And then you know, native Americans.

It seems inconsistent. Everyone is on someone else's land a thousand years ago.

Theoretically, we helped establish Israel and have been helping grow them militarily because they needed their own state and the means to defend themselves from persecution and oppression.

But in the meantime we unseated people without cause other than 'I said so', and have allowed Israel virtual impunity when dealing with the displaced Palestinians.

It would seem that by aiding one group, we've helped to oppress another, and as an American I can't help but have silly idealistic thoughts like 'we're better than that'.

Of course, I'm not the one who has to mitigate the argument between two nations with visceral hatred for each other, so I'm pretty much just chirping in from the cheap seats here.

You make a good point about the idea of getting back land that used to belong to someone else. In one sense, what's done is done. For me, as a Christian, I view this situation as being unlike any other in the world, because of the heavenly mandate we've mentioned before. Of course, I realize that such an idea has little to no legitimacy with a lot of people, so bearing that in mind, I'll say that the Jews' land claim should take precedence because they have no place else to go, whereas Palestinians, who are mostly Arab, could conceivably obtain land for their own state in one of the several nearby Arab nations, particularly large and wealthy Saudi Arabia, which could probably even help finance such an undertaking.

Since biblical times, Israel has been fine with peaceful members of other people groups living there, and I think that still holds true. And, for what it's worth, I'm fine with that. I feel bad about innocent Palestinians being displaced, especially for the ones who've been there a long time, but I just can't see the fairness in taking land from the only Jewish state in the world, in the only homeland they've ever had, and giving it to a people who already had their own homeland, and could still quite possibly go back there and live in peace.

Just a hypothetical: If Saudi Arabia, for example, stepped forward today and said, "We'll give a million acres to the Palestinians so they can have their own state, and we'll even help finance their move," would you be okay with that?
"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


Offline IndeedProceed

  • Global Moderator
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 36535
  • Tommy Points: 1769
  • You ain't the boss of the freakin' bedclothes.
Re: Israel v Hamas
« Reply #127 on: December 17, 2012, 05:08:49 PM »
Right, but I think that you're conflating Arabs into this gigantic group of people rather than, say, Saudi Arabians, Egyptians, Lebanese, etc. To my thinking that's an oversimplification.


Regardless of opinion, the whole situation over there sucks for a whole lot of people who don't have any say in the matter.

I guess I'm still a bit confused on how I'm conflating Arabs. I realize that Arabs aren't constricted to one country, but are instead found in countries throughout the Middle East. Perhaps my point would be clearer if I said that Palestinian Arabs do not have a claim to Israel superior to that of the Jews, and that if Palestinians (who are largely Arab, in culture and in language) want their own state, they should seek to establish it in the area that has long belonged to Arabs (the Arabian Peninsula), and leave the Jews alone, in the area that has long been the homeland of Jews.

But you're right: the whole situation is terrible.

So my question then becomes, why do the Israelies have superior claim here that requires our intervention to help enforce, when there are legions of nations of displaced and lost/retaken/lost to someone else territories out there that we do nothing about?

Why aren't we ceding the northeast to the english? Shouldn't they then cede it to the dutch? And then you know, native Americans.

It seems inconsistent. Everyone is on someone else's land a thousand years ago.

Theoretically, we helped establish Israel and have been helping grow them militarily because they needed their own state and the means to defend themselves from persecution and oppression.

But in the meantime we unseated people without cause other than 'I said so', and have allowed Israel virtual impunity when dealing with the displaced Palestinians.

It would seem that by aiding one group, we've helped to oppress another, and as an American I can't help but have silly idealistic thoughts like 'we're better than that'.

Of course, I'm not the one who has to mitigate the argument between two nations with visceral hatred for each other, so I'm pretty much just chirping in from the cheap seats here.

You make a good point about the idea of getting back land that used to belong to someone else. In one sense, what's done is done. For me, as a Christian, I view this situation as being unlike any other in the world, because of the heavenly mandate we've mentioned before. Of course, I realize that such an idea has little to no legitimacy with a lot of people, so bearing that in mind, I'll say that the Jews' land claim should take precedence because they have no place else to go, whereas Palestinians, who are mostly Arab, could conceivably obtain land for their own state in one of the several nearby Arab nations, particularly large and wealthy Saudi Arabia, which could probably even help finance such an undertaking.

Since biblical times, Israel has been fine with peaceful members of other people groups living there, and I think that still holds true. And, for what it's worth, I'm fine with that. I feel bad about innocent Palestinians being displaced, especially for the ones who've been there a long time, but I just can't see the fairness in taking land from the only Jewish state in the world, in the only homeland they've ever had, and giving it to a people who already had their own homeland, and could still quite possibly go back there and live in peace.

I think that your picture of how that would work out is a bit inaccurate. Any sovereign nation giving up any parcel of land for any reason is a huge undertaking, and when they're getting nothing but a silent sight of thank you from people they at best have a cool regard for (Israel), I just don't think neighbors are that nice.

I'm sure some other country would accept the Palestinians as refugees, but that's not what you're talking about here. What you're talking about isn't letting them stay in your metaphorical guesthouse, its giving them the guest house for keeps, along with some land near it, and paying them for the pleasure.

I just don't think its a likely scenario, and isn't one I'd expect many countries would even entertain.

Quote
Just a hypothetical: If Saudi Arabia, for example, stepped forward today and said, "We'll give a million acres to the Palestinians so they can have their own state, and we'll even help finance their move," would you be okay with that?

I'd be fine with that, sure. I just don't think its likely.

In effect, I don't really care about who 'wins' the conflict, I just think that its kind of inaccurate to paint the Israelis as the defacto 'right choice' who haven't done anything wrong. I guess it goes back to the election in a lot of ways.

DKC Portland Trailblazers Team Card
Questions about the DKC? Ask here: LINK

Online rocknrollforyoursoul

  • Don Chaney
  • *
  • Posts: 1848
  • Tommy Points: 177
Re: Israel v Hamas
« Reply #128 on: December 17, 2012, 05:23:47 PM »
In effect, I don't really care about who 'wins' the conflict, I just think that its kind of inaccurate to paint the Israelis as the defacto 'right choice' who haven't done anything wrong. I guess it goes back to the election in a lot of ways.

Which election?

And I would never claim Israel's done nothing wrong. Both sides have innocent blood on their hands. But if you can't see any Arab nation giving its guesthouse to the Palestinians, how could you expect Israel to do so? Some people disagree with Israel being officially handed land and statehood in 1948, but going back to your point about not correcting for the past when it comes to land ownership, what's done is done. It's been the Jewish state for 64 years. Besides, I think the Jews deserved a homeland, and that's the only place they'd ever called home (as a people), whereas Palestinian Arabs (not today's individuals, but as a people) previously lived elsewhere. And modern Israel is already smaller than some of its previous iterations, so taking some of its land would squish the Jews further.
"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


Offline IndeedProceed

  • Global Moderator
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 36535
  • Tommy Points: 1769
  • You ain't the boss of the freakin' bedclothes.
Re: Israel v Hamas
« Reply #129 on: December 17, 2012, 09:12:05 PM »
I meant this past presidential, where any disagreement by the president or percieved discord with Israel was criticized harshly.

And it is kind of a relative point, like you say. You can start with the 64 number, but a lot of lands has continued to change hands since then, and Israel continues to grow.

DKC Portland Trailblazers Team Card
Questions about the DKC? Ask here: LINK

Offline Brendan

  • Ray Allen
  • **
  • Posts: 2987
  • Tommy Points: 72
    • Self Assay
Re: Israel v Hamas
« Reply #130 on: December 18, 2012, 04:47:17 PM »
There are no long time countries in the region. All of them have been created since the fall of the Ottoman empire, and many of them or at least their actual borders, are the arbitrary borders drawn by Imperial powers and their local cronies. I'm fine pointing out that Israel is fake because of this, but then so are Jordan, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Syria, etc.

Israel exists, and has for quite some time, and defended itself from external threat multiple times. Just like the revolutionary war made permanent the separation from Britain for the US, so did these wars entrench Israel on the map. Land taken in a war of defense can be legitimately held.

The "Palestinians" have had plenty of chances to be peaceful. They failed. When the day comes that they are ready to cease military and terrorist actions, I'm sure the Israelis will accomodate them. And yes its on the Palestinians to do so - the Israelis have tried in the past and had to pay in blood for that good will.

Online rocknrollforyoursoul

  • Don Chaney
  • *
  • Posts: 1848
  • Tommy Points: 177
Re: Israel v Hamas
« Reply #131 on: December 18, 2012, 05:08:57 PM »
I meant this past presidential, where any disagreement by the president or percieved discord with Israel was criticized harshly.

Ok, got it now.
"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


Offline hwangjini_1

  • Bailey Howell
  • ***
  • Posts: 3410
  • Tommy Points: 381
  • 밥을 먹자!
Re: Israel v Hamas
« Reply #132 on: December 18, 2012, 06:32:07 PM »
for those who have not seen this, and judging from the general flow of discourses above, many have not.

here is a link to one of the best videos out to help people better understand this long standing conflict, how the media positions/portrays the conflict, and the US-israel relationship.



and by the way, both sides have had plenty of chances for peace and we have what we have, which is anything but peaceful.

also please remember that currently israelis illegally occupy palestinian land. that is a key part of this all.
“When you hurt people, they begin to love you less. That's what careless words do. They make people love you a little less.”
― Arundhati Roy

 

Hello! Guest

Welcome to the CelticsBlog Forums.

Welcome to CelticsBlog