well in fairness to Mr. Sharone he wouldnt say any of that. he's dead

Fine, then David Ben-Gurion.

would you accept that?

Repeatedly missing the point. As in "more than once."

If somebody stole my car, absolutely I'd say "that's my car."

If I then went over to him and said "that's my car," and he said "well, it's mine now," I would not then say "no, but don't you understand, it's my car because I bought it, and you just took it, and, etc. etc. etc."

As if he was merely confused on my argument, and needed some help understanding, then he'd abashedly return it to me.

That would be idiotic.

In real life, he'd say "well, it's mine now," and I'd understand the situation I was dealing with, and not bother with the ridiculous deliberations on the meaning of ownership. I'd either find a way to take my car back, or realize that in the world in which I live, it really IS his car now.

I'm not saying that the Palestinians shouldn't feel that they've had their land stolen from them. I'm just saying that talking about it is getting them ZERO closer to having it back.

You know who I'm talking about.

Oh, I do. I'm just trying to give you the chance to sound a bit less anti-semitic, assuming that's something you aspire to.

And, yes, I know it's not.

please. enlighten me. how do *you* decide what a word means?

You can get cute, but your whole "Israel is a little kid and the US is the parent" line is so ridiculously ill informed and wrong I can't really even find the energy to explain it to you.

So you can pretend I didn't tell you why your definition is wrong, but I did.

Perhaps it would help to model your own behavior back at you.

This is you: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/moron

But wait... You're not affected with mild mental retardation, and thus the definition is completely inapplicable to you?

Allow me to ignore you on that subject and post the link again:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/moron

I have decided, you have mild mental retardation. I am now incredulous that you can't read a web page that describes you EXACTLY as my made up fantasy world definition does. I'm sure you're saying something, probably lies about not being mentally slowed. Let me post my link again:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/moron

In case this is not clear to you, here's supporting information:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/lodgepole%20pine

DUH!

Phryxis wrote:
For example, it could come to pass that Iran could strike at Israel with aircraft or missile attacks and not suffer beyond a level they'd accept.

They would have to overcome a 30 year technological deficit first, which would imply that Israel would cease to be a major developer of arms technology. Even if they softened their stance regarding the Arab world, the arms industry would still be an economic cornerstone of the state, you don't just cut out 6-7% of your GDP on a whim.

Phryxis wrote:
Don't forget, Saddam shot all the SCUDS he had at Israel during the first Gulf War, and it took us 10 years ago and a 9-11 to decide to do something about him.

Saddam only launched 39 of his SCUDs at Israel, and they were all in direct retaliation to the coalition invasion of the Gulf. Its hardly as if he simply lashed out at them and no one did anything about it. I mean, Israel didn't even respond militarily, they tried to have it labeled a war crime in order to prod the coalition into deposing him.

Phryxis wrote:
A country that's incredibly chaotic, stupid, and compromised by Taliban supporters? Like Pakistan?

Why would the Taliban care about Israel? They aren't globally minded in the same way that Al Qaeda was/is. Similarly, Pakistan has never shown any significant interest in Middle Eastern affairs, outside of making money anyway.

Phryxis wrote:
It doesn't have to be state sponsored. It can just as easily be "lost" and then used against Israel.

Shouldn't they then be engaging in preemptive strikes on Russian nuclear sites? They straight up admit that they don't know where all their warheads are, and they deal openly with Iran with regard to nuclear tech.

Phryxis wrote:
Iran is quite large, Israel is quite small. I think Iran might be willing to absorb some punative air raids, to get a crushing shot off on Israel, especially with the apocalyptic minded cats that run it these days.

They're not apocalyptic minded, that's a common misinterpretation of the religious positions of the two primary Iranian leadership figures. Dinnerjacket and the Supreme Leader basically believe that the Madhi is coming, but nothing can be done to speed his arrival. It also ignores the plainly rational mode in which Iran has acted in the past 30 years; from holding back the Green Wave, to pushing for nuclear technology when the US was tied down by two wars.

Phryxis wrote:
I don't think it's LIKELY, mind you, but it's as I was saying, Israel has people REALLY trying to think of ways to nuke it, bomb it, destroy it as a nation. That's really not the case for most places.

Israel is under no threat of being nuked, perhaps attacked but not nuked.. You might say that Fundamental ideologues are irrational and would do such a crazy thing but that's completely against their stated aim of freeing their holy land from the oppressor.

Muslim terrorists or nations nuking the land they consider sacred is like a catholic blowing up the Vatican because he doesn't like Pope Benedict, it's a completely absurd notion.

Why would the Taliban care about Israel? They aren't globally minded in the same way that Al Qaeda was/is. Similarly, Pakistan has never shown any significant interest in Middle Eastern affairs, outside of making money anyway

Well.....Pakistan has let soldiers volunteer in the Arab Israeli Wars.

LordofHats wrote:

AbaddonFidelis wrote:you are using a historically localized definition of a term that has broader meaning. The romans for instance had colonies, but they did not participate in colonialism. please self educate. Im not being paid Im not going to do it for you. if your going to talk down to people at least know what you're talking about. you plainly do not.

Roman colonies fulfilled the same function as those of the Colonial era. BTW. Colonialism, is not limited to the Colonial era. It's ironic you continue to use dictionaries with provide an extremely narrow overview of the term with no description of the economic, political, or social role and structure of colonies. You can delude yourself all you want. Israel isn't a colony just because you wish them to be. Stop using a dictionary and try a history book.

which history book.....?
which page of that history book...?
I can provide a legitimate, 3rd party reference for my use of that word. Can you?

lordofhats wrote:

abaddonfidelis wrote:Their government is not sovereign because it can only act within the boundaries set for it by US foreign policy. Of course we have clout in Isreali politics. Without us they dont have a snow balls chance in hell. Thats why they arent sovereign, get it? they have only very limited independence.

A nation being dependent on another, is not the sole criteria to define a colony.

you said they were an indepednent state.

lordofhats wrote:The United States does not directly control Israel. Israel maintains its own government, its own international relations, its own military force, and pursues its own interests all of which exclude it from being a colony. That it received significant amounts of aid from the US and has close ties to its government doesn't make it a colony. That Israel bows to outside pressure from foreign powers does not make it a colony. All countries do this. It's typical to back off when you suddenly realize that the rest of the world might get a little pissy these days. The only country that seems to defy this rule is the US because we know we can get away with it.

Prior to 1773 the British did not directly control India, but it was still a colony.
Massechussettes and Virginia colonies maintained their own government and their own military force, and pursued their own interests, none of which excluded them from being colonies.
Isreal does not bow to outside pressure. Isreal bows to United States pressure. They could care less what China or Mexico thinks.

abaddonfidelis wrote:
Really Fed. You have a seriously lacking understanding seeing as you're relying on Zionist conspiracy and a false definition of colony to make your case. Your standing is why Israel does what it does. It doesn't think anyone is on its side. It expects everyone to be against it. They've built their entire foreign policy on this pretext. Proving them right isn't going to help the Palestinians, those outside or inside Israel. Destroy Israel isn't going to solve the problems here.

who said anything about a zionist conspiracy?

I pulled my definition out of merriam webster.
you pulled yours out of your ass.

the isrealis do have friends.... the jewish lobby in the united states, which ruthlessly attacks anyone who does not profess their undying love for isreal. their need for a state has hijacked our democracy. I'm not ok with that. why are you?
AF

They would have to overcome a 30 year technological deficit first, which would imply that Israel would cease to be a major developer of arms technology.

Two things:

1) Offensive technology is vastly more capable than defensive technology. As advanced as Israel may be, they still don't have a ton of ways to stop missiles being lobbed at them. The common solution is retribution. Iran seems content to absorb some in order to further their agenda.

2) It doesn't take 30 years to make up 30 years when the technology is out there. All it takes is Russia or China to feel impertinent. They could have modern hardware overnight.

Saddam only launched 39 of his SCUDs at Israel, and they were all in direct retaliation to the coalition invasion of the Gulf.

Right, but I'm not sure how that changes anything. He had his reasons. He wanted to get Israel involved and rally regional support via anti-Israel sentiment.

My point is to show that we've already had situations where Israel was directly and deliberately attacked which did not spell instant removal of the leadership making the decision.

Also, none of this happens in a vaccuum. Let's say Iran decides that they're going to weaponize their fissionable materials, announces it. The world community will whine and do nothing. Then Israel strikes against their nuclear facilities. Iran responds with large scale ballistic strikes of their own.

You SERIOUSLY can't see the world community wringing their hands and doing nothing with that?

Why would the Taliban care about Israel?

I'm not suggesting they'd care so much as the fact that Pakistan is full of destabilizing lunatic factions. If things get too far out of line there, nuclear weapons can hit the market. I'm talking about stolen nuclear weapons, not Pakistan the official state making the attack.

It also ignores the plainly rational mode in which Iran has acted in the past 30 years; from holding back the Green Wave, to pushing for nuclear technology when the US was tied down by two wars.

Don't get me wrong, I see that. The popular reporting on Iran is that they're "just crazy," when in reality they're very pragmatic and just happen to have a GWB-like stupidmouth doing their public face.

Their goal is to establish themselves as a regional power. I don't view them coming to violence with Israel is being at all "irrational." It makes a lot of sense for their goals, and if they manage to drum up enough perceived justification it'd win them HUGE cred in the region as a major opponent of the West, which doesn't have to pander.

Muslim terrorists or nations nuking the land they consider sacred is like a catholic blowing up the Vatican because he doesn't like Pope Benedict, it's a completely absurd notion.

Israel isn't ALL al-Aqsa, dude. Tel-Aviv? Haifa? That's not the Vatican. Nukes are big, but they're not THAT big. They're not going to blow up the whole country.

Observe this incredibly morbid website:

http://meyerweb.com/eric/tools/gmap/hydesim.html?dll=32.79036,34.99059&mll=32.60459,35.09393&yd=20&zm=9&op=156

That's a 20KT yield weapon (similar in size to the ones used on Japan), being set off on Haifa.

Thank you, Phryxis, for my new favorite website!

Phryxis

to be clear I'm not saying that the Isreali state can be dismantled, thats not a realistic goal. and I dont think they can be shamed into giving the land back. obviously they cant. what I'm saying is that we ought to boycott their trade in order to force them to come to a reasonable compromise with the Palestinians. We did it in South Africa, it worked there.

well I dont think I'm a moron but the thing is.... I'm not going to pretend that the authors of a dictionary dont know what a moron is. I would argue that I dont fit the definition as provided. Now you and lord of hats are both making up your own definitions and calling me names when I point to the dictionary. Is that fair? Lets be adults here. If you dont think Isreal is a colony, then tell me why it doesnt fit that definition.

Obviously it irritates me when I can back up my use of that word but you two cant, and then you turn around and say I dont know what Im talking about. If you dont like being ridiculed then stop being ridiculous.
AF

Just because I know it'll give AbbadonFidelis to think of all "those people" that would die, here's another:

http://meyerweb.com/eric/tools/gmap/hydesim.html?dll=30.86766,34.88073&yd=50000&zm=7&op=156

That's a 50 Megaton Yield fitting completely in Israel. That would be the largest nuclear explosion in history, on par with the "Tsar Bomba" device the Russians tested because they ALWAYS have to make the biggest weapon in any given category.

AbaddonFidelis wrote:which history book.....?
which page of that history book...?
I can provide a legitimate, 3rd party reference for my use of that word. Can you?

I'm not going to play the citation game. You are asserting that Israel is a colony. Prove it. So far you haven't, and anyone who knows anything about Israel or Colonialism knows you can't.

AbaddonFidelis wrote:A nation being dependent on another, is not the sole criteria to define a colony.
you said they were an indepednent state.

A nation can be an independent state and yet still be dependent on another nation. Satellite states depend on their sponsors, the US directly after the Revolution was heavily dependent on support from France, most of the third world is economically dependent on foreign aid.

Prior to 1773 the British did not directly control India, but it was still a colony.
Massechussettes and Virginia colonies maintained their own government and their own military force, and pursued their own interests, none of which excluded them from being colonies.

Really, read a history book. The British shared India with other European powers for decades, establishing colonies in India for nearly a century before actually taking all of India as a colony itself. Massechussettes and Virginia were administered by the Massechussettes Bay Company and the Virginia Company respectively, and both derived their power from charter from the English government. They were acting as agents of the English government. The English could revoke the charter whenever they wanted and put someone else in charge; eventually the charters were revoked and the monarchy took direct control of the colonies which ended in the American Revolution. All power those companies exerted were derived from the English government, not their own authority. EDIT: And don't confuse a militia with a modern military force. They're very different things.

who said anything about a zionist conspiracy?

No one, but your statements are riddled with its implications.

I pulled my definition out of merriam webster.
you pulled yours out of your ass.

If you want to reduce yourself to childish arguments you only show your backed into a corner. Colonialism cannot be defined by a sentence, not can Colony. Not if you want a true understanding of the terms.

the isrealis do have friends.... the jewish lobby in the united states, which ruthlessly attacks anyone who does not profess their undying love for isreal. their need for a state has hijacked our democracy. I'm not ok with that. why are you?

And you say you don't talk about a Zionist conspiracy?

Phryxis wrote:Just because I know it'll give AbbadonFidelis to think of all "those people" that would die, here's another:

http://meyerweb.com/eric/tools/gmap/hydesim.html?dll=30.86766,34.88073&yd=50000&zm=7&op=156

That's a 50 Megaton Yield fitting completely in Israel. That would be the largest nuclear explosion in history, on par with the "Tsar Bomba" device the Russians tested because they ALWAYS have to make the biggest weapon in any given category.

I'm not talking about killing anyone.
I honestly dont understand where this is coming from.
What I'm talking about is....
Ideally: the jews all go back to where they or their fathers and grand fathers came from. Poland. Russia. The United States.
Practically: the jews admit palestinians to full citizenship and legal equality in the Isreali state or they endorse and facilitate a 2 state solution.
AF

If you dont think Isreal is a colony, then tell me why it doesnt fit that definition.

You're actually making me wonder if you're not mentally slowed.

I've told you. I even told you when I told you the last time.

I'll quote myself, "You can get cute, but your whole "Israel is a little kid and the US is the parent" line is so ridiculously ill informed and wrong I can't really even find the energy to explain it to you. So you can pretend I didn't tell you why your definition is wrong, but I did. "

Israel is not "child state" of the United States. That's the critical point in order for your application of the word "colony" and it's not even remotely accurate. They don't just do what we say. If they did just do what we say, then WHY exactly are you calling for us to "boycott their trade?" Somehow they're simultaneous taking orders from us and yet have to be forced to take orders from us?

Look, dude, I can go into how much they're not a client state, but I'm really hoping you'll get a clue before that becomes necessary, and even if you don't I'm not sure I have the energy to do it.

I think I went astray with the "moron" link. It was too focused on being snarky, and not enough on making the actual point. Let me try again.

The moon is made out of cheese.

Here: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cheese

I have linked to the definition of cheese. Now I petulantly demand that you show me where I have gone wrong in my proof that the moon is made of cheese?

Normal Human: "Ahh, well, it's not. That's certainly a link to the defnition of cheese, but the moon is not made of cheese."

Stop obfuscating. Please just tell me how my argument is wrong. I have provided 3rd party documents.

Normal Human: "Moron."

I mean, seriously, the moon isn't cheese, dude. Let's not have to talk about it. Just stop being wrong, and drop it.

Phryxis wrote:Meh, they're a very small nation, money isn't THAT easy to come by. We're tossing billions of dollars a year their way. It's non-trivial. They'd remain a major power, certainly, but it's not to be overlooked.

In terms of the power balance between Israel and it's neighbours it's trivial. Who in the area has the capability, militarily and politically, to begin to threaten Israel? Who could possibly build that capability in the next ten years?

And what does any of that have to do with looking for a practical solution to Palestine?

Saudi Arabia in particular is already buying HUGE amounts of US weaponry. They're not especially anti-Israeli as that region goes, but there's oil money all over that joint.

Yes, buying US weapons. Like Egypt is dependant on US weapons. The US exerts tremendous control over the region, to the point where trying to mount up a coalition to take on Israel is complete madness, and that's before you get into the idea that such a coalition is militarily outmatched.

Are you assuming that the US might switch it's position from directly supporting Israel to not doing anything for Israel in the event of attack, or passively watching other countries closely tied to the US, such as Saudi Arabia and Egypt, begin to plan an attack. That's clearly fantastical.

The US gives Australia no US support, but if Indonesia was to suddenly invade there would be a US response. Such a thing would still occur with Israel - there isn't just the binary states of 'give them loads of military gear' and 'do nothing if they're attacked'.

Iran actually has a lot to gain in terms of regional cache by defying the US and hitting Israel. It's very much in line with their current goals and desires (to be seen as a dominant regional power that doesn't need to play the US's game) if they can manage the fallout.

They also have a lot to lose by forcing a military engagement, and they're not loons. I can easily see them angling to force a US/Israeli backdown on one issue or another, and gaining a lot from that - but actually undertaking military strikes to boost their national standing? It sounds like the backpage of a Clancy book.

I don't mean to suggest it's not farfetched, but I do think it's possible. I also think your presumed response is a bit "optimistic." I think you're underestimating just how totally gutless the "world" is these days. The first, second and third instinct is to rationalize things and take no action.

You only have to look at our very recent history to see, in the wake of a terrorist attack by non-state actors, you had the world's agreement and support to invade Afghanistan. If it was the case of a state doing something even worse, there'd be no issue of rationalising anything.

What's more, the idea that the world is too 'gutless' to fight wars now doesn't make any sense. The wars in which we're apparently too weak to fight now are wars that wouldn't have even been considered a hundred years ago.

When are we talking about? Because I think pretty much the majority of human history is just "I can take that land, so I am." There might be some rhetoric around things, but it was pretty much just "take what you can."

No, that simply isn't true. Very few people are sociopaths, and even less think of themselves as such, hardly any conflict has simply been one group simply taking someone else's land without having a belief, at least to themselves, that they can legitimately claim that land. There's almost always a claim of some sort to the land.

Even so, I don't really mean to digress into rationalizations used for past actions. My point is to say that the discussion of who "has a right" to the land is totally irrelevant to a solution in the Israel/Palestinian conflict. Both sides have their arguments. No amount of rheotrical justification is changing it.

Except that that really isn't the point. It simply doesn't matter who's ancestors lived somewhere centuries ago. There is no ethnic claim to any piece of land. Even if could be proved somehow that it really was Palestinian land all along, it wouldn't be right to force the Israelis to move. Even if it could be proved that it was all really Jewish land, it wouldn't be right to force them to move.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

AbaddonFidelis wrote:well lets say someone evicts me from my house at gun point and then invites his cousin to move in and share the new place. does that make the cousin a thief? no. but when the sheriff comes he's still got to go. If the arabs were in control of palestine I dont think, based on the historical precedent, that they would try to prevent jews from living in the area. they've been pretty tolerant in the past. all this bad blood is new.

Again, it really doesn't help to term things as personal morality. It doesn't work that way. The formation of Israel didn't involve one guy stealing a place and then inviting his cousin to live there. It was created by international consensus, and people moved there believing they had a legal right to do so. The majority of the population there has never had another home but Israel, just like the Palestinians.

It would be wrong to force them to move to fit someone else's grand political schemes.

well I mean the government of Isreal. Its democratically elected and its policies are racist, so you can at least say that racist policies are broadly supported by the Isreali electorate. So to be clear I'm not saying that a Jew or an Isreali is necessarily a racist. But I'm saying that the government he elects is, so there are clearly alot of Isrealis who are racists.

That's a fairer position, and I'd agree the Israeli government has it's fair share of racist policies. And there is certainly a lot of racism in the population in general - did you see the case recently of a guy who lied to sleep with a girl - he said he was Israeli when he was Palestinian. He got charged with rape. I mean, it's a dick move to lie to sleep with a girl but it isn't rape if a guy pretends he earns more money than he does...

But all that said, you have to be careful when assuming the racist policies of government have purely racist intentions. There is a lot of frustration in Israel, there is no clear path to solving the Palestine problem, if one existed I think you'd get significant support. I certainly believe most Israelis would be more than willing to stop the settlement programs in exchange for peace - they see the settlers as religious extremists themselves.

I honestly dont understand where this is coming from.

Really? You don't? Honestly, I'm just making fun of how completely tactless you are. I don't really think you want to exterminate the Jews, but you're so comically bad at talking about it, it's kinda funny. Example:

Ideally: the jews all go back to where they or their fathers and grand fathers came from. Poland. Russia. The United States.

I mean, seriously? Do better.

AbaddonFidelis wrote:Ideally: the jews all go back to where they or their fathers and grand fathers came from. Poland. Russia. The United States.

Why is it ideal that someone is to be forced out of the home they lived in all their lives, because they're not the right ethnicity? feth that.

Practically: the jews admit palestinians to full citizenship and legal equality in the Isreali state or they endorse and facilitate a 2 state solution.
AF

The one state solution is impractical because there is no way Jews will accept at this point in time becoming a minority in their own country. And I think at this point in time they've got a fair point.

This leaves the two state solutiion as the only workable option.

LordofHats wrote:

AbaddonFidelis wrote:which history book.....?
which page of that history book...?
I can provide a legitimate, 3rd party reference for my use of that word. Can you?

I'm not going to play the citation game. You are asserting that Israel is a colony. Prove it. So far you haven't, and anyone who knows anything about Israel or Colonialism knows you can't.

predictable.

lordofhats wrote:

AbaddonFidelis wrote:A nation being dependent on another, is not the sole criteria to define a colony.
you said they were an indepednent state.

A nation can be an independent state and yet still be dependent on another nation.

lol. dependent is the opposite of independent. that's called an antonym. it really couldnt be any more obvious....

Satellite states depend on their sponsors, the US directly after the Revolution was heavily dependent on support from France, most of the third world is economically dependent on foreign aid.

ummmm.... no.... the US directly after the revolution was not heavily dependent on support from france. where do you get this stuff from? honestly? I mean you talk about reading history alot but as near as I can tell you dont know anything about it.

lordofhats wrote:

abaddonfidelis wrote:Prior to 1773 the British did not directly control India, but it was still a colony.
Massechussettes and Virginia colonies maintained their own government and their own military force, and pursued their own interests, none of which excluded them from being colonies.

Really, read a history book. The British shared India with other European powers for decades, establishing colonies in India for nearly a century before actually taking all of India as a colony itself. Massechussettes and Virginia were administered by the Massechussettes Bay Company and the Virginia Company respectively, and both derived their power from charter from the English government.

I guess its no surprise that a person who cant handle a dictionary can't find their way around a history book either. Really though, any moron can use wikipedia, so why dont you try that?

What you've said about India is true but doesnt have anything to do with anything. Did you know that?
Virginia was governed directly by the British govt for the majority of its history.
Massachusetts was never run by a company.
Try googling this stuff.
You'll fail less.

lordofhats wrote:
They were acting as agents of the English government. The English could revoke the charter whenever they wanted and put someone else in charge; eventually the charters were revoked and the monarchy took direct control of the colonies which ended in the American Revolution. All power those companies exerted were derived from the English government, not their own authority. EDIT: And don't confuse a militia with a modern military force. They're very different things.

the american revolution was not the result of the revocation of the charter of the Virginia, Massachusetts, or any other colony.
You plainly do not know what you are talking about.
A militia is a military organization and it was administered by the state. It fit the criteria you provided.

who said anything about a zionist conspiracy?
No one, but your statements are riddled with its implications.

ok well lets just stick to what I actually said ok? it's no secret that there is a powerful jewish lobby in this country. I'm not making that up. But I guess it follows that someone who cant handle a dictionary and cant be bothered to google his history before he types it in, can't be bothered to fact check whether or not such lobbies exist either. Just trust me, as an educated person speaking to an uneducated person, that its real and it exerts an influence.

lordofhats wrote:

abaddonfidelis wrote:I pulled my definition out of merriam webster.
you pulled yours out of your ass.

If you want to reduce yourself to childish arguments you only show your backed into a corner. Colonialism cannot be defined by a sentence, not can Colony. Not if you want a true understanding of the terms.

then what is it defined by? please, reference something. anything. you're just making gak up. that's what's childish.

lordofhats wrote:

abaddonfidelis wrote:the isrealis do have friends.... the jewish lobby in the united states, which ruthlessly attacks anyone who does not profess their undying love for isreal. their need for a state has hijacked our democracy. I'm not ok with that. why are you?

And you say you don't talk about a Zionist conspiracy?

forming a PAC isnt a conspiracy. Its lobbying.

If you cant start making sense I cant be bothered to reply to your posts. Fair?
AF

And what does any of that have to do with looking for a practical solution to Palestine?

I don't think Palestinian wellbeing is actually salient to anybody except the Palestinians themselves.

The other states in the region which pretend to care about them have no real concern for the Palestinians. They're a convenient proxy to bash against Israel.

Who in the area has the capability, militarily and politically, to begin to threaten Israel? Who could possibly build that capability in the next ten years?

Define "threaten?" To threaten them with total extermination, occupation, etc?

Nobody.

To threaten them with a projection of military force? Within ten years? Numerous states. And let's bear context in mind. The context here is that we've already assumed the US has "cut Israel loose."

I'm not suggesting that any of this is at all likely. But Israel's attitude has always been to be CERTAIN of things. They don't want to rely on anybody.

I can easily see them angling to force a US/Israeli backdown on one issue or another, and gaining a lot from that - but actually undertaking military strikes to boost their national standing?

Their weapons development programs and rhetoric speak to a desire to strike Israel in retribution for some preceding military operation on Israel's part. While I realize that rhetoric is just rhetoric, it's also generally a pretty accurate reflection of the orator's actual worldview. Iran has proven to be remarkably direct and literal in their message, as well (with Dimmyjad being an occasional exception).

It's strange to me how smart you think these guys are...

George W Bush talked at length about bringing freedom and democracy to Iraq. Then he went ahead and "did it." And everyone just CAN'T BELIEVE what a dolt he was to think he could successfully do that. WHAT A DUMMY. Clearly we've got endless precedent for leaders doing things that seem stupid to armchair potentates.

Let's be honest, you probably have more in common ideologically with GWB than with Ayatollah Khamenei... If you can't fathom why Bush thought he could pull off democratizing Iraq, what makes you think you can understand Khamenei any better?

You only have to look at our very recent history to see, in the wake of a terrorist attack by non-state actors, you had the world's agreement and support to invade Afghanistan.

First off, it's not the same. The Taliban, while it wasn't AQ, was willing to get AQ's back, to refuse to give them up, to shelter them, etc. They essentially signed on to what AQ did. We're not talking about them losing one of their airliners, having it turn up in the World Trade Center, and them saying "wow, we're sorry, we absolutely don't condone that, and we're sorry we lost track of that 707."

Second, the fact that they paid for backing AQ doesn't change the fact that they DID do it. If some nutjob gets ahold of a nuke in Pakistan, gives it to another nutjob who uses it on Israel, it won't change much for Israel if we go kill all those nutjobs. Honestly, all you're proving is that people will attack major military powers DESPITE the consequences.

The wars in which we're apparently too weak to fight now are wars that wouldn't have even been considered a hundred years ago.

I'm not sure what you mean. People have generally been much more willing to go to war than they are now, and for much worse reasons.

Except that that really isn't the point. It simply doesn't matter who's ancestors lived somewhere centuries ago. There is no ethnic claim to any piece of land.

So are you agreeing with me?

AbaddonFidelis wrote:

LordofHats wrote:

AbaddonFidelis wrote:which history book.....?
which page of that history book...?
I can provide a legitimate, 3rd party reference for my use of that word. Can you?

I'm not going to play the citation game. You are asserting that Israel is a colony. Prove it. So far you haven't, and anyone who knows anything about Israel or Colonialism knows you can't.

predictable.
AF

Actually, what was predictable was LordofHats not dignifying your Negative Proof Fallacy by actually citing sources.

Phryxis wrote:If some nutjob gets ahold of a nuke in Pakistan, gives it to another nutjob who uses it on Israel, it won't change much for Israel if we go kill all those nutjobs. Honestly, all you're proving is that people will attack major military powers DESPITE the consequences.

Precisely. Particularly people that think they are doing the work of Allah by attacking Israel. Someone who thinks they will be rewarded in the afterlife for their horrific actions isn't thinking rationally to begin with, so it's kind of silly to apply logic to what we think they might do.

Phryxis
ok then lets leave all snarkiness aside. There appears to be alot of confusion about what that definition says, so here it is:

1. a body of people living in a new territory but retaining ties to the parent state
2. the territory inhabited by such a body.

that is the relationship that I am arguing exists between the west and Isreal. Most isrealis are either 1st or 2nd generation immigrants from a western country; they began to arrive in large numbers in the 40s. They retain ties to their states of origin - through family members that they left behind, through business contacts, through dual citizenship, etc.

Do you disagree with any of that? Without introducing some new concept, without calling names, without ridicule, do you disagree with any of those points of fact? If so what? If not, then how is it not a colony? Or do you have an alternative definition that you would like to bring up?
AF


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Monster
what was predictable is that someone who doesnt know gak about history cant reference a single reputable scholar in defense of his arguments. that doesnt mean he's wrong. (if I said that, that would be a negative proof fallacy.) It just means that he's a gas bag who I dont have to take seriously.
AF


Automatically Appended Next Post:

sebster wrote:

AbaddonFidelis wrote:Ideally: the jews all go back to where they or their fathers and grand fathers came from. Poland. Russia. The United States.

Why is it ideal that someone is to be forced out of the home they lived in all their lives, because they're not the right ethnicity? feth that.

because its ideal that people not take other peoples land by force.

Practically: the jews admit palestinians to full citizenship and legal equality in the Isreali state or they endorse and facilitate a 2 state solution.
AF

The one state solution is impractical because there is no way Jews will accept at this point in time becoming a minority in their own country. And I think at this point in time they've got a fair point.

This leaves the two state solutiion as the only workable option.

really? do you think it would be fair in the US if all white people suddenly refused to share the franchise with blacks and hispanics? Because white people are used to being the majority in this country and will soon be the minority. If its not ok for us to do it here, why is it ok for the jews to do it in Isreal? Dont you see how racist that whole line of thinking is? But yes if the jews would stop building apartment blocks on land that doesnt belong to them, a 2 state solution might work. not that they want it. they have the solution that they want - an oppressed underclass whose sporadic, desperate acts of violence only serve to underline their nobility and martial prowess. All at the cost of a rocket landing in a playground every once in a while. good deal if you're an isreali MP.
AF

Phryxis wrote:I don't think Palestinian wellbeing is actually salient to anybody except the Palestinians themselves.

I think anyone with empathy for other human beings should show empathy to the Palesitinians, most of whom are suffering through nothing but an unfornate time and place of birth.

And that's a lot more relevant to the issue at hand than Israel's worries over national security. Remember this thread was started over a report into the Israeli blockade of Palestine. Nothing to do with any other nation.

The other states in the region which pretend to care about them have no real concern for the Palestinians. They're a convenient proxy to bash against Israel.

True, but I don't see why that means the Palestinians don't deserve the chance to start their lives again.

To threaten them with a projection of military force? Within ten years? Numerous states. And let's bear context in mind. The context here is that we've already assumed the US has "cut Israel loose."

Have they cut Israel loose or just stopped sending military aid?

Their weapons development programs and rhetoric speak to a desire to strike Israel in retribution for some preceding military operation on Israel's part.

They want to be capable of striking Israel. Everything else is you assuming. Did the US build it's stockpile because it wanted to launch them, or just because it wanted to be able to, just in case?

Let's be honest, you probably have more in common ideologically with GWB than with Ayatollah Khamenei... If you can't fathom why Bush thought he could pull off democratizing Iraq, what makes you think you can understand Khamenei any better?

I probably do have more in common with W. But your whole argument there was 'Bush was a dolt therefore these other people are too, so they're a chance of doing something really stupid and counterproductive' is very speculative. Bush was an outlier in world affairs, few people fail their way to the top like he did. The reason diplomatic affairs got so screwy for a while there is because the world wasn't used to having a guy like that around.

There's also the point that people are a whole lot smarter with things that affect them directly, and a whole lot dumber and more simplistic about things on the other side of the globe. There's a basic self interest in getting smart about your own affairs, that just isn't there when talking about sending troops to the other side of the world.

First off, it's not the same. The Taliban, while it wasn't AQ, was willing to get AQ's back, to refuse to give them up, to shelter them, etc. They essentially signed on to what AQ did. We're not talking about them losing one of their airliners, having it turn up in the World Trade Center, and them saying "wow, we're sorry, we absolutely don't condone that, and we're sorry we lost track of that 707."

Second, the fact that they paid for backing AQ doesn't change the fact that they DID do it. If some nutjob gets ahold of a nuke in Pakistan, gives it to another nutjob who uses it on Israel, it won't change much for Israel if we go kill all those nutjobs. Honestly, all you're proving is that people will attack major military powers DESPITE the consequences.

Okay, I thought we were talking about a nuke strike supported by a state. If that isn't the case, and it's by non-state actors with no ties... then how in the sweet moogly googly is the continued occupation of Palestine going to be helped by that?

I'm not sure what you mean. People have generally been much more willing to go to war than they are now, and for much worse reasons.

I'm talking about peacekeeping operations around the world. They are the operations that are typically used as evidence for how much more timid we are, but people miss the point that a hundred years ago we never would have even bothered to stop someone else fighting.

Wars of other types don't happen as often, because the economic incentives for such wars just don't exist any more, because these days the money is in stability, not land.

So are you agreeing with me?

Our conclusion is the same but our reasoning seems quite different. As I understand it, you're saying the claim to the land is so confused that no claim can be established, whereas I'm saying that there's no good to be found in ancestral claims to land, because no ethnic group can ever own land. What matters is who is living there now.

sebster
well.... if personal morality doesnt apply I'm not sure what morality does. it's just an analogy of course but I think the point is fair. yes its tough beans for a guy who moved to isreal thinking he could live there happily. but its also tough beans for the guy who cant go back to the home he had all his life, because that isreali guy is living there. its a hard situation no doubt. I think that the best thing practically is for the Isrealis to recognize that there are alot of non-jews in that area who have a right either to that land or to fair compensation for its...... appropriation.

personally I believe that the Isrealis will never come to just terms with the palestinians until some outside group that is stronger than they are forces them to do it. After all who wants to stick their neck out? Rabin tried to come to a just settlement and he got shot. Then, tragedy again, Sharone, potentialy the 1 man in Isreal with the reputation to pull it off, suffers a stroke and goes into a coma. What the last 20 years shows is that giving Palestinians even a modicum of justice is just too painful politically for Isreal to pull off. They need to be helped from the outside. That could be us if Americans can stop seeing the Isrealis as white like them and the palestinians as brown like osama. we need to recognize that supporting Isreal is not in our interests as a nation - it is only in the interests of our politicians who are desperately afraid of a loud, aggressive, and very well funded jewish lobby. The whole country could fall off the map and it wouldnt hurt our fundamental interests at all. It might in fact improve them bc we wouldnt be putting down insurrections in Iraq and Afghanistan if we had not allowed Isreal to drag us into their bloody mess.
AF

a body of people living in a new territory but retaining ties to the parent state

There several problems.

First off "the west" is not a state. It's a moniker often used to describe a vaguely defined group of first world nations.

Second, the state is described as a "parent," which is verbiage you repeated in order to describe Israel as a "child" or "client" state. This is how colonies are generally understood to operate, and is completely inapplicable to Israel, which is an exceedingly independant minded state.

Third, the definition itself is uselessly vague in this discussion. It could just as well describe, for example, Somali immigrants living in the United States, who send money back home. Is there a Somali "colony" in the United States? By the provided definition, yes. But that's not really how the word is used.

I think it's probably no coincidence that you chose dictionary entries that were as vague as possible, rather than something like this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colony

"In politics and history, a colony is a territory under the immediate political control of a state."

Immediate political control is not present with Israel. The fact that you keep trying to allege that there is that sort of control suggests that you KNOW the actual definition, even as you look for softer, vaguer ones that don't undermine your argument as immediately.

AbaddonFidelis wrote:because its ideal that people not take other peoples land by force.

Then it would be ideal that the Jewish people living in Israel don't have their land taken by force, no?

really? do you think it would be fair in the US if all white people suddenly refused to share the franchise with blacks and hispanics? Because white people are used to being the majority in this country and will soon be the minority. If its not ok for us to do it here, why is it ok for the jews to do it in Isreal? Dont you see how racist that whole line of thinking is?

Because Israel and the US are totally different countries with totally different racial and political environments. Because we still have rocket attacks and bombings in Israel. Democracy requires goodwill and a history of political compromise, especially when it comes to ethnic minorities. That simply doesn't exist, so it's crazy to suggest Jews could agree to becoming a minority in their own country.

However, the two populations are already largely segregated into Israel and the almost-a-state of Palestine. A two state solution is almost in place right now, they just have to give Palestine sovereignty.

But yes if the jews would stop building apartment blocks on land that doesnt belong to them, a 2 state solution might work. not that they want it. they have the solution that they want - an oppressed underclass whose sporadic, desperate acts of violence only serve to underline their nobility and martial prowess. All at the cost of a rocket landing in a playground every once in a while. good deal if you're an isreali MP.

It's a nice piece of rhetoric to claim Israel as a whole supports the on-going settlements - they don't. While general Israeli sentiment towards Palestine is negative, there's little general support. The settlers represent the last of the old guard, and their political connections allow them to continue the program going.

Your claim that they want an oppressed Palestinian class doesn't grok with anything I've read. For the most part, Israelis want the problem to go away. They don't really know to do that, and they view previous peace offerings such as withdrawing from Lebanon as ineffective at best - so now they're back to the use of disproportionate force. It won't work any better, obviously, but it has to be seen as the product of frustration with the peace efforts, not some Machiavellian scheme to control the Palestinians.

True, but I don't see why that means the Palestinians don't deserve the chance to start their lives again.

I'm not saying they don't. I'm saying that there are forces in the region which don't want them to have a better life, because then they won't serve the only use those forces have for them: making Israel look bad.

They're a club. If Israel finds a way to leave amicably with them, they cease to function as a club.

Have they cut Israel loose or just stopped sending military aid?

It's all hypothetical jabbering, and honestly now I've lost the plot.

Bush was an outlier in world affairs, few people fail their way to the top like he did.

But he also had a cabinet of very wise, accomplished men. I know it's very fashionable to comic-book the sitauation up, and pretend they're all Darth Vader and Grand Moff Tarkin, but the fact is Bush's policy was pretty mainstream (if right leaning).

One can also look at Saddam, at the things he thought were going on, at how totally out of touch with reality he was as war came to him. These guys don't always see things the way you think they do. I realize it's very speculative, but I think the speculation is mutual.

When they're working on weapons to engage Israel, I think it's actually more odd for you to suggest they DON'T plan to engage Israel than it is for me to suggest that they might.

Okay, I thought we were talking about a nuke strike supported by a state.

Well, I agree that it's very unlikely, but we can talk about it if you want... And honestly, your mention of the Taliban reminded me of just how bizzarely willing they were to ride the ship down with AQ. It makes me wonder if other governments, including Pakistan, might be willing to be similarly suicidal.

If that isn't the case, and it's by non-state actors with no ties... then how in the sweet moogly googly is the continued occupation of Palestine going to be helped by that?

Oh, it's not. It's just that some people were suggesting that Israel is in no danger. I was merely trying to point out that they're in vastly more danger than the average state, even if it's also vastly less than they like to suggest.

It's a side argument.

But, then again, it's also not, because I don't view the Israel/Palestine strife to be a direct policy choice. It's more a side effect of the general regional strife and resentment to the very presence of Israel. It would solve itself if the bigger picture of conflict went away.

They are the operations that are typically used as evidence for how much more timid we are, but people miss the point that a hundred years ago we never would have even bothered to stop someone else fighting.

I don't think it's changed as much as you're suggesting. We don't really "stop someone else fighting" even now. We go in and represent our ideals/priorities when people fight. We pick the side we want to win and help them, or if there's nobody we like, we create one. We just couch it in more compassionate language. We still pretty much ignore conflicts that don't impact us and don't have any bearing on our commerce. That's why Africa is not much bothered with.

The issue I see, is that in couching it in all that false compassion, we've gotten to where we believe our own Ballistic Skill, that we really SHOULD be ridiculous overcompassionate, to the point that we just can't judge or act anymore.

AbaddonFidelis wrote:sebster
well.... if personal morality doesnt apply I'm not sure what morality does.

It's not that it doesn't apply, it's just that it tends to us seeing things in terms of false analogies. If I go to your house and shoot you, it's murder. If our nations go to war and I shoot you it isn't murder, because national relations don't work like personal relations.

it's just an analogy of course but I think the point is fair. yes its tough beans for a guy who moved to isreal thinking he could live there happily. but its also tough beans for the guy who cant go back to the home he had all his life, because that isreali guy is living there. its a hard situation no doubt. I think that the best thing practically is for the Isrealis to recognize that there are alot of non-jews in that area who have a right either to that land or to fair compensation for its...... appropriation.

Why is it more important who was living there 1,000 years ago than who is living there now?

What the last 20 years shows is that giving Palestinians even a modicum of justice is just too painful politically for Isreal to pull off.

The Israelis left Lebanon. They've ceded a lot of control to the Palestinians, and underwrite much of the state. They also put up settlements, bulldoze houses and have set up a spiteful blockade program. It's complicated, but in amongst the things that clearly aren't helping there's also a genuine desire for a peaceful solution, likely not out of any genuine concern for Palestinians among the majority of Israelis, but certainly a desire for the problem to go away.

Phryxis wrote:

Muslim terrorists or nations nuking the land they consider sacred is like a catholic blowing up the Vatican because he doesn't like Pope Benedict, it's a completely absurd notion.

Israel isn't ALL al-Aqsa, dude. Tel-Aviv? Haifa? That's not the Vatican. Nukes are big, but they're not THAT big. They're not going to blow up the whole country.

Observe this incredibly morbid website:

http://meyerweb.com/eric/tools/gmap/hydesim.html?dll=32.79036,34.99059&mll=32.60459,35.09393&yd=20&zm=9&op=156

That's a 20KT yield weapon (similar in size to the ones used on Japan), being set off on Haifa.

"I'm going to free Al Aqsa by turning the rest of the Holy Land into a nuclear wasteland and choking the worshippers with nuclear fallout! Let's GO "

"I'm going to free Al Aqsa by turning the rest of the Holy Land into a nuclear wasteland and choking the worshippers with nuclear fallout! Let's GO

Are we forgetting that Muslim states have already tried, more than once, to attack Israel with heavy military force?

Or that people have been fighting in that region, in general, pretty much forever?

At the end of the day, I think you're forgetting that people are much better at hating things than they are at loving things.

Phryxis wrote:I'm not saying they don't. I'm saying that there are forces in the region which don't want them to have a better life, because then they won't serve the only use those forces have for them: making Israel look bad.

They're a club. If Israel finds a way to leave amicably with them, they cease to function as a club.

True, Palestine is a convenient stick to hit Israel with, and Israel is a convenient way to encourage unity among certain groups. Their existance will make a solution harder.

It's all hypothetical jabbering, and honestly now I've lost the plot.

Fair enough Let's just pretend that conversation never happened

But he also had a cabinet of very wise, accomplished men. I know it's very fashionable to comic-book the sitauation up, and pretend they're all Darth Vader and Grand Moff Tarkin, but the fact is Bush's policy was pretty mainstream (if right leaning).

True, but their approach to affairs on the other side of the world was crazy. The kind of crazy you can only produce when you're talking about things on the other side of the world.

When it comes to things that could actually see missiles launched at your own cities then that kind of crazy is a whole lot less common. It's the kind of crazy that doesn't just suddenly spring out of mature state.

When they're working on weapons to engage Israel, I think it's actually more odd for you to suggest they DON'T plan to engage Israel than it is for me to suggest that they might.

I never said conflict couldn't happen. I said I that Iran choosing to engage Israel to assert regional dominance didn't make any sense. There will be Iranian plans to attack Israel, just as there are no doubt Israeli and US plans to attack Iran. But these are capabilities you have in case things go wrong.

Well, I agree that it's very unlikely, but we can talk about it if you want... And honestly, your mention of the Taliban reminded me of just how bizzarely willing they were to ride the ship down with AQ. It makes me wonder if other governments, including Pakistan, might be willing to be similarly suicidal.

The 'something like a government but not quite' of the Taliban was definitely an outlier in world affairs. Pakistan has nothing like that - in fact it's engaged in fighting with those people. If the government of Pakistan was to change then that might change, but it's very unlikely we'll see a takeover by Taliban - that required a much poorer, much less urbanised country in the wake of foreign occupation.

Oh, it's not. It's just that some people were suggesting that Israel is in no danger. I was merely trying to point out that they're in vastly more danger than the average state, even if it's also vastly less than they like to suggest.

Okay then, sure. There is a minute but non-zero chance of Israel suffering an attack that would stop it existing as a state, which is greater than the minute but non-existant chance of the same facing other nations. But it would still be much smaller than the same issue faced by many other nations, such as Iraq. Hell, even Pakistan.

I don't think it's changed as much as you're suggesting. We don't really "stop someone else fighting" even now. We go in and represent our ideals/priorities when people fight. We pick the side we want to win and help them, or if there's nobody we like, we create one. We just couch it in more compassionate language. We still pretty much ignore conflicts that don't impact us and don't have any bearing on our commerce. That's why Africa is not much bothered with.

There's a crapload of peacekeepers in Africa. They're just not Western troops for the most part, so the media doesn't report on it, but they're there.

The issue I see, is that in couching it in all that false compassion, we've gotten to where we believe our own Ballistic Skill, that we really SHOULD be ridiculous overcompassionate, to the point that we just can't judge or act anymore.

I would say that it's more that we've noticed the last couple of centuries of just acting has done as much harm as good, and now we couch things in terms of making sure we act in the best way given the problem.

Phryxis wrote:
1) Offensive technology is vastly more capable than defensive technology. As advanced as Israel may be, they still don't have a ton of ways to stop missiles being lobbed at them. The common solution is retribution. Iran seems content to absorb some in order to further their agenda.

I don't see a way that a direct Iranian strike on Israel favors the Iranian position. I think they're content to play the waiting game, and continue funding their asymmetric forces throughout the Middle East.

Phryxis wrote:
2) It doesn't take 30 years to make up 30 years when the technology is out there. All it takes is Russia or China to feel impertinent. They could have modern hardware overnight.

I was already accounting for that, and perhaps using a little hyperbole. Russia and China don't possess weapons technology that is generationally equivalent to either NATO or Israeli technology.

Phryxis wrote:
My point is to show that we've already had situations where Israel was directly and deliberately attacked which did not spell instant removal of the leadership making the decision.

I realize that, and my contention is that Israel never really through its weight around in order to move the coalition towards intervention. They didn't even commit troops as a conciliatory gesture. That may have been due to the limited aims of the coalition forces, or it may have been the result a backroom deal regarding the post-war santion on Iraq. Either way, Saddam lost control of 2/3s of his country, and ended up on the receiving end of the most comprehensive sanctions in history.

If Israel had wanted him removed, then they had other means of pushing for it beyond having him labeled as a war criminal. But they didn't pursue them. Admittedly, that may be the source of their current aggression, but given the relatively unique nature of the Iranian situation, it still seems like a misguided course of action.

Phryxis wrote:
Also, none of this happens in a vaccuum. Let's say Iran decides that they're going to weaponize their fissionable materials, announces it. The world community will whine and do nothing. Then Israel strikes against their nuclear facilities. Iran responds with large scale ballistic strikes of their own.

You SERIOUSLY can't see the world community wringing their hands and doing nothing with that?

An open war with each combatant on either side of the world's most significant oil producing region, one of them almost definitely possessing nukes and a history of using excessive force? Absolutely not.

Hell, even China would probably be willing to commit troops, and they get about 7% of their oil from Iran.

Phryxis wrote:
Their goal is to establish themselves as a regional power. I don't view them coming to violence with Israel is being at all "irrational." It makes a lot of sense for their goals, and if they manage to drum up enough perceived justification it'd win them HUGE cred in the region as a major opponent of the West, which doesn't have to pander.

It really depends on how they approach it. The whole thing necessarily hinges on goading Israel into attacking first, responding, and then playing the victim when, and if, Israel decides to play the decisive card by rolling out its warheads. At that point you've basically got an NPT state (Iran) on the receiving end of a non-NPT state (Israel), which pretty well reverses the game. Or at the very least complicates it massively.

If Iran attacks first, and Israel responds there may be an intervention if the conflict escalates. If not, there will be a massive upswell of sympathy for Israel. AS much as many people hate them, I'm willing to be that they hate unprovoked attacks by third-party combatants even more.

AbaddonFidelis wrote:

sebster wrote:

AbaddonFidelis wrote:Ideally: the jews all go back to where they or their fathers and grand fathers came from. Poland. Russia. The United States.

Why is it ideal that someone is to be forced out of the home they lived in all their lives, because they're not the right ethnicity? feth that.

because its ideal that people not take other peoples land by force.

So wait, let me get this straight. You want ME to bugger off back to the UK becuase I am not an Aboriginal? ...And then where does everyone in America go? Arguing that one ethnicity has more right to a land then another is, in all honesty, slowed.

In response to OP.

I think the response to the topic of this thread if it was a newspaper headline would be:
"Israel decides to ignore UN findings".

The only thing Israel did wrong on a geopolitical level was go in too early, if they had waited until they were in Israeli waters they could have sunk the buggers.

AbaddonFidelis wrote:well of course they werent surprised. getting the isrealis to over-react was the point. like morons the isrealis obliged them and made an international incident out of it. if anyone in that govt had a clue they would have used watercannon sound guns etc.
AF

No they would have used torpedoes and sunk them. Maybe they'll learn next time.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Monster Rain wrote:

Orkeosaurus wrote:I'm sure there have been more Americans killed by the Mexican drug cartels than Israelis killed by Palestinian rockets. Should we annex Mexico? Kill a few thousand people in the process? There gets to be a point where levels of reprisal are simply not justifiable.

If you're asking whether I think the US should do something about the situation in Mexico, at least on our border, the answer is yes.

We invaded Mexico for that before. We may have to do it again.

ummmm.... no.... the US directly after the revolution was not heavily dependent on support from france. where do you get this stuff from? honestly? I mean you talk about reading history alot but as near as I can tell you dont know anything about it.

So you fail at US history too? It was one of the reasons for the war with the Barbary States. The US had no ability during or directly after the revolution to defend its shipping and had a treaty with France that obligated them to defend US ships. For a decade we were completely dependent on France for our survival.

What you've said about India is true but doesnt have anything to do with anything. Did you know that?
Virginia was governed directly by the British govt for the majority of its history.

So you don't know anything about US history? Not surprising... After the Virginia company was dissolved, surprise surprise, the crown took over and it was still a colony! Subject to rule by the king. It remained that way until the Revolution.

Massachusetts was never run by a company.

And you're saying I don't know anything? Wikipedia yey!. The English used this model for much of their early colonization before dissolving or revoking charters and taking direct control of colonies themselves rather than handing the power down to enterprises. This was called Charter Colonization.

Read a history book.

the american revolution was not the result of the revocation of the charter of the Virginia, Massachusetts, or any other colony.
You plainly do not know what you are talking about.

The Revolution was a direct result of royal rule, but it would take a whole page to discuss the unique circumstances that created the Revolution. Enlightenment. 16th-17th Century England. Protestant Reformation. Go read up on some of that stuff. And refresh your US history.

A militia is a military organization and it was administered by the state. It fit the criteria you provided.

No. A militia is not a standing military. See what a militia is.

ok well lets just stick to what I actually said ok? it's no secret that there is a powerful jewish lobby in this country. I'm not making that up.

What's its name? Who is in it? Sorry. THe Jewish lobby conspiracy has been proven false. Try studying political science instead of spouting off.

That's all I can honestly think after reading this thread. My face is actually in the palm of one of my hands as I type this.
Again for effect.



In this thread, I've read people advocating the nuking of Israel, the removal of the 'Jews' back to wherever they came from, due to the fact that they are 'colonial oppressors'. Israel has been accused of being controlled completely by the US, and of desiring to commit mass genocide on every single Palestinian if they got the chance.

And those are just the things that really jumped out. There was far more minor stuff I'm not even raising.

I want to post, and make a constructive, well thought out rebuttal to the amount of stupidity, ill informed statements, and general 'fail'(to quote) in this thread. But I actually don't know where to begin. I'm actually speechless. Congratulations OT forum. My brain has finally overloaded due to the amount of fake conjecture, statement of opinion as fact, and simple retardedness that this thread possesses.

This forum has hit a new low.

Waaagh_Gonads wrote:In response to OP.

I think the response to the topic of this thread if it was a newspaper headline would be:
"Israel decides to ignore UN findings".

The only thing Israel did wrong on a geopolitical level was go in too early, if they had waited until they were in Israeli waters they could have sunk the buggers.

You're making the assumption that the problem is with the legality of when they enforced the blockade. That makes no sense. Strangely enough, people's decision making is based on more than the specifics of maritime law.

What really matters is the actual nature of blockade, and Israel's willingness to use deadly force to enforce that blockade.

Ketara wrote:

That's all I can honestly think after reading this thread. My face is actually in the palm of one of my hands as I type this.
Again for effect.



In this thread, I've read people advocating the nuking of Israel, the removal of the 'Jews' back to wherever they came from, due to the fact that they are 'colonial oppressors'. Israel has been accused of being controlled completely by the US, and of desiring to commit mass genocide on every single Palestinian if they got the chance.

And those are just the things that really jumped out. There was far more minor stuff I'm not even raising.

I want to post, and make a constructive, well thought out rebuttal to the amount of stupidity, ill informed statements, and general 'fail'(to quote) in this thread. But I actually don't know where to begin. I'm actually speechless. Congratulations OT forum. My brain has finally overloaded due to the amount of fake conjecture, statement of opinion as fact, and simple retardedness that this thread possesses.

This forum has hit a new low.

no u

Phryxis wrote:

a body of people living in a new territory but retaining ties to the parent state

There several problems.

First off "the west" is not a state. It's a moniker often used to describe a vaguely defined group of first world nations.

ok. but it is a group of states. Russia Germany France the USA etc.

Phryxis wrote:
Second, the state is described as a "parent," which is verbiage you repeated in order to describe Israel as a "child" or "client" state. This is how colonies are generally understood to operate, and is completely inapplicable to Israel, which is an exceedingly independant minded state.

they cant act without us. they are dependent on our political protection, on our military alliance (they cant manufacture alot of their own hardware - we sell it to them at knock down prices) and on our trade. If we stopped supporting them they could never last, and they know it. I think that disqualifies them as independent.

Phryxis wrote:
Third, the definition itself is uselessly vague in this discussion.

then provide another and we'll talk about that one. I'm not opposed to looking at other definitions. I'm just opposed to making them up.

Phryxis wrote:
It could just as well describe, for example, Somali immigrants living in the United States, who send money back home. Is there a Somali "colony" in the United States? By the provided definition, yes. But that's not really how the word is used.

yes, there is a somali colony in the united states. It's not how you're used to using the word, but according to that definition it is not a wrong use. Colony has a broader meaning than just the ways we're used to thinking about it - like the British in Africa or in North America. I recognize that we're not used to applying it to Isreal but I think that has more to do with habit than anything else.

Phryxis wrote:
I think it's probably no coincidence that you chose dictionary entries that were as vague as possible, rather than something like this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colony

"In politics and history, a colony is a territory under the immediate political control of a state."

Immediate political control is not present with Israel. The fact that you keep trying to allege that there is that sort of control suggests that you KNOW the actual definition, even as you look for softer, vaguer ones that don't undermine your argument as immediately.

so....because the dictionary agrees with me.....I'm dishonest? I'm really sorry you look at it that way. Imagine how it looks to me when you all dont have any definition at all, you just flatly assert, on your own authority, that isreal isnt a colony. well anyway I'm glad to talk about colony under other definitions.

from the same article: The term "informal colony" is used by some historians to describe a country which is under the de facto control of another state, although this description is often contentious.
which is our relationship with Isreal. perhaps satellite state would have been a better description. from that wikipedia article:
A satellite state (sometimes referred to as a client state) is a political term that refers to a country that is formally independent, but under heavy influence or control by another country....A satellite state is a country that is dominated politically and economically by another nation.
Do you think we dominate Isreal politically and economically? please say yes.

I think colony is particularly apt as a description because most Isrealis are 1st or 2nd generation immigrants. that is, they come from somewhere else. Also, since you all seem to be stuck on the 19th century context of that word, reflect that Isrealis are westerners with access to high technology who are surrounded by a numerically superior but technologically inferior, hostile, darker skinned group of people. It's really not all that different than English operations in India or in Africa.
AF


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sebster
sure the Isrealis want peace. on the basis of continued injustice. a second state or political freedom and full equality before the law are just too scary for them. well thats what it would take, so if they cant be serious they get no peace. I dont disagree that theyre genuinely tired of the situation. but theyre not willing to make the concessions necessary to make it go away, so they kind of deserve what they get.

it would be ideal if the jews living in that area had not created this situation. If someone commits a crime and they are punished by the police, both actions have an element of force but they are not morally equivalent. what the criminal did was a crime. what the police did was justice. force is necessary in order to create justice. So ideally yes the Isrealis would atone for their crime by leaving the area. That would be a good first step. I recognize that analogies about personal morality dont tell the full story, but I think that morality is applicable to groups as well as to individuals. We at least should recognize that. Acting under the protection of the law does not make a persons actions right. There needs to be accountability to something more than that.

I'd like to point out also that if we're against forcing people off of their land, but we aren't in favor of restoring that land to the people it was taken from, then it follows that we're favoring aggressors over the victims of aggression. Under that system any group that can defeat its rival and set up a new status quo now has the right to the land because it would be too hard for them to go back to where they came from. Basically you're just legitimizing armed conquest. Well that's the whole problem. Yes the Isrealis took the land yes they have it now; it doesnt follow that they should be allowed to keep it.

It matters more than the people from a thousand years ago because those people are dead and nothing we can do will effect how their lives turned out. but we can effect the living. so the palestinians and their children, who have been directly affected - those people we can and should help.

I tend to think that the rocket attacks and bombings would stop if the Palestinians could vote in Isreali elections.
Its not that relations would be great between the jews and palestinians; but it would be a start. If the palestinians tried to turn the apparatus of state against the Jews then it would be our obligation to help the jews. But if the Isrealis cant admit the palestinians to full citizenship and equality because theyre terrified of being swamped by a sea of brown people, then they should, as you say, recognize Palestine as a sovereign state.

Getting the jews to give anything like justice to the palestinians is crazy difficult. They want peace, but they dont want to do whats necessary to make it. Therefore the Palestinians resist. I hope they continue to make trouble for Isreal, because politically thats the only way you get things done. No one in Isreal or in the rest of the world would care 1 way or another about the Palestinians if it werent for the rocket attacks. Their choice is either to use those rockets or to be forgotten about entirely. Well under the circumstances I think rocket attacks are fair. There just isnt any alternative for people seeking justice at the hands of a state that would just a soon kill them as look at them.
AF

AbaddonFidelis wrote:so....because the dictionary agrees with me.....I'm dishonest?

No. You're using a very definition that is so broad that just about anything could be a colony. It works for the general idea of what a colony is but it in no way gives a proper understanding.

I'm really sorry you look at it that way. Imagine how it looks to me when you all dont have any definition at all, you just flatly assert, on your own authority, that isreal isnt a colony.

We've both directed you to Wikipedia, which has a generally good article that gives a basic overview of what a colony is. You just don't accept it. It isn't our authority, its the actually description of a colony.

Do you think we dominate Isreal politically and economically? please say yes.

No. Israel has an economy of its own. The loss of US aid would be big but its not going to result in the collapse of Israel. They'll get along just fine. Politically they're completely independent from us. You have to concoct a Zionist conspiracy and a non-existent Jewish lobby and a false application of colony to make it seem they aren't. Phyrix and me can just point to the fact that there isn't a jewish lobby with the level of power you suggest to disprove you. It's quite simple.

They are not a satellite state. We don't have that much control over them. They aren't a puppet state either cause we don't have enough control over them. At best, the US can walk to the Israeli government and ask them to do something which we can do with pretty much any country. They usually don't listen.

I tend to think that the rocket attacks and bombings would stop if the Palestinians could vote in Isreali elections.
Its not that relations would be great between the jews and palestinians; but it would be a start. If the palestinians tried to turn the apparatus of state against the Jews then it would be our obligation to help the jews. But if the Isrealis cant admit the palestinians to full citizenship and equality because theyre terrified of being swamped by a sea of brown people, then they should, as you say, recognize Palestine as a sovereign state.

Getting the jews to give anything like justice to the palestinians is crazy difficult. They want peace, but they dont want to do whats necessary to make it. Therefore the Palestinians resist. I hope they continue to make trouble for Isreal, because politically thats the only way you get things done. No one in Isreal or in the rest of the world would care 1 way or another about the Palestinians if it werent for the rocket attacks. Their choice is either to use those rockets or to be forgotten about entirely. Well under the circumstances I think rocket attacks are fair. There just isnt any alternative for people seeking justice at the hands of a state that would just a soon kill them as look at them.
AF

Its extremely interesting, and by interesting I mean revieals a lot, that you keep saying Jews. Israel is a nation. Jews are part of a religion. The fact you think rocket attacks against children is justified is just the icing on the cake. I guess its just too bad that don't have enough Zyklon B to put on those warheads eh?

On the positive, if this thread isn't Exhbit A on why the OT should be eliminated I don't know what is.

Well, might as well start with correcting a few problems here....

If we stopped supporting them they could never last, and they know it. I think that disqualifies them as independent.

Verification. Please. To claim a nation as geographically distant, and radically different as Israel is 100% susceptible to, and influenced by the whims of American foreign policy requires substantial, unarguable proof, let alone to claim that the nation would collapse altogether. Please provide this evidence in the form of academic citation, or at the very least, a verifiable and academcially respected source. Until then, I'll take such a wild sounding statement with a small mountain of salt.

you just flatly assert, on your own authority, that isreal isnt a colony.

You just as equally assert that is. A link to a dictionary does not equate proof. As a War Studies student (think history and politics combined), who recently finished a term studying the myriad types of colonialism from British Empire building, to American financial colonialism, you will have to excuse me if I take the umpteen dozen books I just read on the topic over your word for it.

reflect that Isrealis are westerners

Where does this perception of Israeli's as white skinned westerners come from? Have you ever met many Israeli's? Methinks not.
There were Jews who lived there long before Israel came into existence. By this stage of the game, fifty years down the line, the racial groupings get a little blurred. They're all quite tanned, and fairly similar. Please, no more bad analogies to prove this 'colonialism' point.

they kind of deserve what they get.

Y'know, I could turn that on it's head quite easily. For example, you could say that any American who gets blown up by an Islamic terrorist deserves what he gets, because US troops are in Afganistan. And I mean, if the US was willing to make the concession, and pull out, that terror attack would never have happened. Right? He clearly had it coming!

it would be ideal if the jews living in that area had not created this situation......So ideally yes the Isrealis would atone for their crime by leaving the area.

Let em get this straight. You think the Israeli's should all pack up and leave? Despite them having been dumped there fifty years ago by a world that didn't want them? Hang on. Little backstory on the creation of Israel here.

The plan to give the Jews their own homeland was proposed by the British goverment pre World War 1. The idea got pushed to one side shortly after due to larger events. Post World War 2, the Allies had all these Holocaust survivors left on their hands that they didn't know what to do with. The French mentione dthe original British idea of a Jewish homeland, but the British weren't interested. They'd gone off the idea. Not only that, they closed their doors to the survivors. Didn't want them in their country. The French did the same. The Jews were moved out of Nazi camps into marginally better camps, but they still had nothing apart from the clothes on their backs.

The French kept pushing the idea, mainly to hack off the British. The Americans weren't too keen on taking in all these boatloads of refugees either, so they pressured the British into agreeing. Hence, all the Jews got moved to Israel.

As you can see, they kind of didn't have much choice in the equation. They didn't invade, they didn't even set up their own 'homeland'. They were dumped there by an international community who wanted nothing more to do with them.
They didn't 'steal' the land. I think this is a very basic error that colours everything you say on the topic. I hope that once you realise this, you'll also realise how very, very foolish you sound when talking about how they should all be 'leaving the area'.

This thread is made of win.

I always find it odd how so many people hate the Israelis.. but most of all i love all this aggression... yeah!

mattyrm wrote:This thread is made of win.

I always find it odd how so many people hate the Israelis.. but most of all i love all this aggression... yeah!

On the positivbe I find it strangely reassuring that Matty could probably drink the entire Middle East under the table and manage to stagger out of the pub without difficulty.

Frazzled wrote:

mattyrm wrote:This thread is made of win.

I always find it odd how so many people hate the Israelis.. but most of all i love all this aggression... yeah!

On the positivbe I find it strangely reassuring that Matty could probably drink the entire Middle East under the table and manage to stagger out of the pub without difficulty.

Based on the performance he put on in Nottingham, I agree.

dogma wrote:

Phryxis wrote:
Also, none of this happens in a vaccuum. Let's say Iran decides that they're going to weaponize their fissionable materials, announces it. The world community will whine and do nothing. Then Israel strikes against their nuclear facilities. Iran responds with large scale ballistic strikes of their own.

You SERIOUSLY can't see the world community wringing their hands and doing nothing with that?

An open war with each combatant on either side of the world's most significant oil producing region, one of them almost definitely possessing nukes and a history of using excessive force? Absolutely not.

Hell, even China would probably be willing to commit troops, and they get about 7% of their oil from Iran.

I've always wondered what would happen if you nuke an oil field, hell it might solve this whole mess by removing the region entirely

Frazzled wrote:

I tend to think that the rocket attacks and bombings would stop if the Palestinians could vote in Isreali elections.
Its not that relations would be great between the jews and palestinians; but it would be a start. If the palestinians tried to turn the apparatus of state against the Jews then it would be our obligation to help the jews. But if the Isrealis cant admit the palestinians to full citizenship and equality because theyre terrified of being swamped by a sea of brown people, then they should, as you say, recognize Palestine as a sovereign state.

Getting the jews to give anything like justice to the palestinians is crazy difficult. They want peace, but they dont want to do whats necessary to make it. Therefore the Palestinians resist. I hope they continue to make trouble for Isreal, because politically thats the only way you get things done. No one in Isreal or in the rest of the world would care 1 way or another about the Palestinians if it werent for the rocket attacks. Their choice is either to use those rockets or to be forgotten about entirely. Well under the circumstances I think rocket attacks are fair. There just isnt any alternative for people seeking justice at the hands of a state that would just a soon kill them as look at them.
AF

Its extremely interesting, and by interesting I mean revieals a lot, that you keep saying Jews. Israel is a nation. Jews are part of a religion. The fact you think rocket attacks against children is justified is just the icing on the cake. I guess its just too bad that don't have enough Zyklon B to put on those warheads eh?

On the positive, if this thread isn't Exhbit A on why the OT should be eliminated I don't know what is.

anyone who calls a jew a jew is a skinhead. disappointing but entirely predictable.
I say jew because its not just the isrealis that were talking about. they are a cultural group no matter what their particular country of origin.
AF

AbaddonFidelis wrote:they are a cultural group no matter what their particular country of origin.
AF

No, they are many different cultural groups. There is no single defining 'Jew'. While many may be pro-Israel on foreign policy, there are also those that aren't. There are some that are highly religious and others that aren't at all with everything in between. By lumping them all together you propagate the misconception that they are some sort of bizarre hive mind.

Ketara
I'll find some sources for you. It wont convince you or anyone else, but whatever. Sources you will have....
AF


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Atman
lol. of course theres a definition of a jew. are you from another planet?


Jew   /dʒu/ Show Spelled
[joo] Show IPA

–noun
1. one of a scattered group of people that traces its descent from the Biblical Hebrews or from postexilic adherents of Judaism; Israelite.
2. a person whose religion is Judaism.
3. a subject of the ancient kingdom of Judah.


http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/jew?&qsrc=
AF

AbaddonFidelis wrote:anyone who calls a jew a jew is a skinhead. disappointing but entirely predictable.

No, but someone who lumps Israelis, Jews, and anyone else even remotely close either in ethnicity, religious practice, or geographical location into a single group and considers them interchangable is displaying a certain lack of... not being a jackass.

You don't have to be a Jew to be an Israeli and you don't have to be an Israeli to be a Jew. There are a lot of Jews in Israel, but there are also a lot of Jews in West Palm Beach. Neither has much to do with the other. When you're speaking of Israel I'd strongly recommend using terms like Israel and Israeli and avoid statements like, "Just throw all the Jews out."

I say jew because its not just the isrealis that were talking about. they are a cultural group no matter what their particular country of origin.

Jew =/= Israeli
Jewish People =/= Israel
Jews are also not interchangeable as they run the gamut of political opinions on the subject from "kill all the Palestinians" to "Lets just give them their land back."

I know this is high level political gak but trust me, there's a difference.

AbaddonFidelis wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Atman
lol. of course theres a definition of a jew. are you from another planet?

AF

Are you having a special moment? I didn't say there wasn't a definition. Someone who claims Judaism as their religion is a Jew, but there is no singular culture or viewpoint within Judaism. A Russian Orthodox is not the same as an American Reform and their perspectives on issues can be different as well as their priorities. It is akin to saying Westboro Baptist is the same as The Church of Hip Hop. Sure they are both Christian in designation, but there theology and viewpoints are radically different. Saying "Jews do this" is just not true because there is no singular Jewish ideology.

Tyyr
sure there's a difference. did I say there wasnt?
If you dont think there's an affinity between jews world wide - that they dont self identify as belonging to a group - then you're out of your fething mind. No matter how painful it is to your precious fething sensibilities, jews do self identify as a group.
AF


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ahtman wrote:there is no singular culture or viewpoint within Judaism.

did I say there was?
AF

AbaddonFidelis wrote:Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ahtman wrote:there is no singular culture or viewpoint within Judaism.

did I say there was?
AF

Every single time you open your mouth on the subject. Or put fingers to keyboard in this case.

For example: "Getting the jews to give anything like justice"

This insinuates that there is some wierd pan-Judaic view of the world and that they all act and think the same. You aren't just lambasting Israeli policy and it's supporters, you going after all people who claim Judiasm as their faith. You have done this consistently.

AbaddonFidelis wrote:Tyyr
sure there's a difference. did I say there wasnt?

Given your continued use of Jew and Israel as interchangeable you sure are acting as if there isn't.

If you dont think there's an affinity between jews world wide - that they dont self identify as belonging to a group - then you're out of your fething mind.

Affinity does not mean they act as a single block, think as a single block, all believe the same thing etc. To suggest that would make you... well see your own comment. Do Jews self identify as Jews? Sure. Does that mean they are a coherent inseparable whole? About as much as Christians, Muslims, Brits, or Americans represent coherent same thinking groups. Treating them as if they were totally united demonstrates a level of understanding on the subject that pretty much disqualifies you from discussing it with anyone over the age of five.

Atman
If you dont think there's an affinity between jews world wide - that they dont self identify as belonging to a group - then you're out of your fething mind. No matter how painful it is to your precious fething sensibilities, jews do self identify as a group.
AF

AbaddonFidelis wrote:isreal didnt need to kill anyone to stop that fleet. not that their blockade is legal or justified anyway.

Did you bother watching the video's of the attack? Israeli's only used deadly force once it was warranted. The second the Commando's hit the ship, they were attacked by a mob weilding deadly weapons. When a man comes running at you with a giant metal bar, you do not try to engage him with your hands. That bar will kill you with one hit. You put two in his chest, and move on to the next target. Rules of Engagement and LOAC made that a legal engagement. The commando's were met with deadly force while enacting a lawful boarding action, and they responded with deadly force.

And please cite how the blockade is not legal? They are at war with the governing body of Gaza. Hamas launches numerous attacks against Israel all the time. Even President Obama says the blockade is legal.

Israel has delivered more then 2 billion pounds of aid to Gaza in the last year and a half. Thats more then 1300lbs per person. Meanwhile, Egypt which also shares a border with Gaza, has blockaded all aid shipments to the area through their territory. Israeli's are the bad guys though.

Israelies provide medical care to the citizens of Gaza. Treating them in hospitals that Hamas attacks with rockets. But the Israeli's are the bad guys.

Hamas attacks aid convoys entering Gaza, and steals the content and then sells it to the highest bidder. But the Israeli's are the bad guys.

Hamas attacked a UN Aid station and stole all the supplies there. Israeli's are the bad guys though.

Hamas illegally takes over the Gaza Strip, instigating the entire crisis, but Israel is to blame.

Within 6 months of Hamas taking over the Gaza Strip, they launched nearly 700 rockets, and nearly a thousand mortar attacks into Israel. Israeli's are the bad guys though. Even though they waited 14 months after the take over to declare the Gaza Strip a hostile region.

It never ceases to amaze me that a terrorist organization gets more support by people like you then a country actively fighting the terrorists.

AbaddonFidelis wrote:Atman
If you dont think there's an affinity between jews world wide - that they dont self identify as belonging to a group - then you're out of your fething mind. No matter how painful it is to your precious fething sensibilities, jews do self identify as a group.
AF

I see you don't know any Jewish people. That is like saying Christians self identify as belonging to a group. Sure, they call themselves Christian, but that doesn't mean they think the same on subjects and that they blindly support each other. You probably aren't a skin head or anything like that, but you are obliviously fairly ignorant on the subject.

MasterDRD Wrote ATTENTION EVERYONE WHO THINKS ISRAEL IS IN ANY WAY A VICTIM:
Watch this documentary. It should be eye-opening for you. And if you're too busy to watch this and broaden your understanding of a very serious issue going on in our world for many years, one you've been arguing about in this thread for hours, then wtf are you doing in the OT forum debating anyway? If you're not willing to research your stance then you don't belong in a debate.

For the ones who know what's really going on, I would imagine you've already seen this; but if not then you should watch it too.

Just watched this "documentary"! I think it's funny how a documentary about Israeli propaganda is really a Palestinian propaganda movie. Not that I expected much, both sides are pretty good at pulling the heart strings to your face, while being evil behind your back.

According to this documentary it's all Israels fault. It's much more than that. I feel for the average Palestinian person, it sucks! They can't really leave, as their friends (the other arab countries) don't want them either, they just want to use them as pawns against the Israelis.

Look stop throwing rocks, launching rockets, and blowing gak up and maybe the Israelis won't shoot you all the time. Everytime there is peace it's almost always the Palestinians that start the problems again.

You lost your land in the 60's. Get over it, move the *&^ on! Oh wait your friend's don't want to help you, they will just give you weapons to be a thorn in Israels side.

The fact that often times the Israelis use teargas, rubber bullets and pepper balls against the Palestinians, shows to me that they aren't just out to massacre, everyone. Yes, ok, that may be a tactic, less than lethal munitions can get you sympathy.

I don't know I'm sick of the whole thing really. The blockade run is a prime example. Pretty stupid to bait the Israelis with a blockade run, Pretty stupid of the Israel's to respond the way they did. However, they could have waited until they actually broke the blockade and just sunk the ship. Call the Israelis what you want, but they are not being as belligerent as they could be. The Palestinians are however being as belligerent as they can be.

You can agree or disagree with the blockade. The fact is it's there. To bait it is just asking for trouble.

Even in this documentary you see that there are average Israelis that are trying to help the Palestinians rebuild their homes, and others trying to help the Palestinians. When was the last time you saw an arab or a muslim helping anybody that isn't one of their own, much less an opponent?

Ahtman wrote:

AbaddonFidelis wrote:Atman
If you dont think there's an affinity between jews world wide - that they dont self identify as belonging to a group - then you're out of your fething mind. No matter how painful it is to your precious fething sensibilities, jews do self identify as a group.
AF

I see you don't know any Jewish people. That is like saying Christians self identify as belonging to a group. Sure, they call themselves Christian, but that doesn't mean they think the same on subjects and that they blindly support each other. You probably aren't a skin head or anything like that, but you are obliviously fairly ignorant on the subject.

Christians do self identify as belonging to a group.
consider yourself..... dismissed.
AF

AbaddonFidelis wrote:

Ahtman wrote:

AbaddonFidelis wrote:Atman
If you dont think there's an affinity between jews world wide - that they dont self identify as belonging to a group - then you're out of your fething mind. No matter how painful it is to your precious fething sensibilities, jews do self identify as a group.
AF

I see you don't know any Jewish people. That is like saying Christians self identify as belonging to a group. Sure, they call themselves Christian, but that doesn't mean they think the same on subjects and that they blindly support each other. You probably aren't a skin head or anything like that, but you are obliviously fairly ignorant on the subject.

Christians do self identify as belonging to a group.
consider yourself..... dismissed.
AF

You can't be serious. You're not this ignorant, right?

Please tell me you're joking around here.

Monster Rain wrote:

AbaddonFidelis wrote:

Ahtman wrote:

AbaddonFidelis wrote:Atman
If you dont think there's an affinity between jews world wide - that they dont self identify as belonging to a group - then you're out of your fething mind. No matter how painful it is to your precious fething sensibilities, jews do self identify as a group.
AF

I see you don't know any Jewish people. That is like saying Christians self identify as belonging to a group. Sure, they call themselves Christian, but that doesn't mean they think the same on subjects and that they blindly support each other. You probably aren't a skin head or anything like that, but you are obliviously fairly ignorant on the subject.

Christians do self identify as belonging to a group.
consider yourself..... dismissed.
AF

You can't be serious. You're not this ignorant, right?

Please tell me you're joking around here.

You didn't notice by his poor understanding of history? US or otherwise.

djones520 wrote: Israeli's only used deadly force once it was warranted. The second the Commando's hit the ship, they were attacked by a mob weilding deadly weapons.

The Isrealis knew they would be resisted, they could have used non-lethal force to control the situation, they didnt do it, thats a war crime. If the people on that ship had attacked them with a machine gun it would have been different.

djones520 wrote: And please cite how the blockade is not legal?

they are an occupying power with obligations under the 1949 geneva conventions to the civilian population of that region.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7069203.stm

The UN, Human Rights Watch and many other international bodies and NGOs consider Israel to be the occupying power of the Gaza Strip as Israel controls Gaza's airspace and territorial waters, and does not allow the movement or goods in or out of Gaza by air or sea
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaza_Strip

djones520 wrote:
They are at war with the governing body of Gaza.

an entirely predictable result of invading someone else's territory, forcibly evicting its inhabitants, setting up a state, then using the aperatus of that state to conduct a program of systematic racial oppression. damn peculiar, that...

djones520 wrote:
Israel has delivered more then 2 billion pounds of aid to Gaza in the last year and a half. Thats more then 1300lbs per person. Meanwhile, Egypt which also shares a border with Gaza, has blockaded all aid shipments to the area through their territory. Israeli's are the bad guys though.

You're asking me for my sources. I think its fair to ask you for yours.
Egypt's culpability does not excuse or justify Isreal's actions.

djones wrote:
Israelies provide medical care to the citizens of Gaza. Treating them in hospitals that Hamas attacks with rockets. But the Israeli's are the bad guys.

Hamas attacks aid convoys entering Gaza, and steals the content and then sells it to the highest bidder. But the Israeli's are the bad guys.

Hamas attacked a UN Aid station and stole all the supplies there. Israeli's are the bad guys though.

Hamas illegally takes over the Gaza Strip, instigating the entire crisis, but Israel is to blame.

People cannot and should not be bought off by being thrown the scraps of someone else's charity. The Palestinians have the same rights as any other group of people; to full political and legal equality within the state. That means either getting their own state or being admitted on equal terms within the Isreali state. But since the Isrealis arent willing to do that then they have every right to take up arms.

djones520 wrote:
Within 6 months of Hamas taking over the Gaza Strip, they launched nearly 700 rockets, and nearly a thousand mortar attacks into Israel. Israeli's are the bad guys though. Even though they waited 14 months after the take over to declare the Gaza Strip a hostile region.

Why arent you counting all the bombs and missiles the Isrealis have dropped on the Palestinians?

djones520 wrote:
It never ceases to amaze me that a terrorist organization gets more support by people like you then a country actively fighting the terrorists.

sadly the post 9/11 reality is that all you have to do to discredit someone is call them a terrorist. Why the hell do you think those people are fighting? They have no home, no future, no rights, all because the damn isrealis are holding the whole region by force and refusing every sensible compromise. Under those circumstances I would be fighting too. Whats worse, we're the ones who make it possible. Because the Isrealis are white like us and the palestinians are brown like Osama. The whole thing is racist. We should be on the side of justice, not on the side of skin color.
AF


Automatically Appended Next Post:
MonsterRain
sorry did you actually have something to say? I missed it.
AF


Automatically Appended Next Post:
LordOfHats
pretention and ignorance is a bad combination.
There was never a massachussetts bay company. It didnt have a corporate charter. There was a massachussetts bay COLONY however. Please google this gak before you type. Watching you is painful.
AF

LordOfHats
pretention and ignorance is a bad combination.
There was never a massachussetts bay company. It didnt have a corporate charter. There was a massachussetts bay COLONY however. Please google this gak before you type. Watching you is painful.
AF

You didn't even bother reading did you? Fine. I'll point them out for you.

The Massachusetts Colony (sometimes called the Massachusetts Company, for the institution that founded it) was an English settlement on the east coast of North America in the 17th century, in New England, centered around the present-day cities of Salem and Boston. The area is now in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, one of the 50 United States of America.

If you bothered to read further, you'd notice a dead link to Massachusettes Bay Company that only redirects back to the Massachusettes Bay Colony article, hinting that there were at one time two articles that have since been merged into one seeing as the Colony and the Company are the same thing.

Since you're so big on sources, here is more information from one of my US History text books:

Before the 1620s ended, another group of Puritans (Congregationalists who hoped to reform the church of England from within) launched another colonial enterprise that would come to dominate New England and would absorb Plymouth in 1691. Charles I, who became king in 1625, was more hostile to Puritans than his father had been. Under his leadership, the Church of England attempted to suppress Puritan practices, driving clergymen from their pulpits and forcing congregations to worship secretly. Some Congregationalist merchants concerned about their long-term prospects in England sent out a body of colonists to Cape Ann in 1628. The following year the merchants obtained a royal charter, constituting themselves as the Massachusettes Bay Company.

I digress. I'm not going to type out my whole text book. I do hope you realize Abb that this is intended to help. You don't know as much as you think you do. That you can't even grasp what Ahtman was trying to say is rather hard the fathom.

whoops. It existed for 3 years out of a total of 403 years of settlement. The Virginia company lasted about 20. But yes, you do digress. Your original point was that Palestine is not a colony because a colony cant have its own government or military organization, which massachussetts colony clearly did. So while its fun to point out footnotes, your larger point is still clearly mistaken.
AF

AbaddonFidelis wrote:whoops. It existed for 3 years out of a total of 403 years of settlement. The Virginia company lasted about 20. But yes, you do digress. Your original point was that Palestine is not a colony because a colony cant have its own government or military organization, which massachussetts colony clearly did. So while its fun to point out footnotes, your larger point is still clearly mistaken.
AF

In 1684 England revoked the Massachusetts charter, sent over a royal governor to enforce English laws in 1686

Not 3 years. Really. READ.

403 years of settlement

Massachussettes bay was colonized for the first time in 1606. 171 years of colonization.

There is a difference between a standing military force like the IDF and a militia, which is as Lord Cornwallis is a somewhat decent movie said 'farmers with pitchforks'. The Militias of the colonies (legally) were under the authority of royal appointees, but England was pretty new at the colonization thing and the unique environment of the American colonies ultimately led to their rebellion. Colonies are not sovereign. They have no political authority unto themselves but are subject to rule from the parent state. They are incapable of pursing their own interests but must pursue the interests of the parent state and they cannot form their own military forces. American Colonial militias were not a standing army and were subject to royal rule anyway not colonial rule (legally). The American colonies had a lot of friction with royal governors and didn't always enjoy their presence which is one of the reasons the Revolution happened. Really Abb stop digging yourself deeper.

you're so cute.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plymouth_Company
The article says the company had fallen into disuse by 1609.

AbaddonFidelis wrote:you're so cute.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plymouth_Company
The article says the company had fallen into disuse by 1609.

That's the Plymouth Company Abb, not the MBC

ofcourse theres a difference between the IDF and a Militia. They are both state sponsored military organizations, so they both fit according to the criteria you provided.

It is, alas, you, who dont know gak about gak.
AF

AbaddonFidelis wrote:ofcourse theres a difference between the IDF and a Militia. They are both state sponsored military organizations, so they both fit according to the criteria you provided.

It is, alas, you, who dont know gak about gak.
AF

Sigh. Why do I bother... You just spout off and don't even seem to be capable of actually reading or thinking critically. I highly advise you either pay attention in school, or go back to it and educate yourself. Your understanding of just about everything in this thread is horribly lacking.

The Colonial militias were not sponsored by the colonies. They formed under royal charter or royal decree. They were English sponsored organizations (legally).

LordOfHats wrote:
There is a difference between a standing military force like the IDF and a militia, which is as Lord Cornwallis is a somewhat decent movie said 'farmers with pitchforks'. The Militias of the colonies (legally) were under the authority of royal appointees, but England was pretty new at the colonization thing and the unique environment of the American colonies ultimately led to their rebellion. Colonies are not sovereign. They have no political authority unto themselves but are subject to rule from the parent state. They are incapable of pursing their own interests but must pursue the interests of the parent state and they cannot form their own military forces. American Colonial militias were not a standing army and were subject to royal rule anyway not colonial rule (legally). The American colonies had a lot of friction with royal governors and didn't always enjoy their presence which is one of the reasons the Revolution happened. Really Abb stop digging yourself deeper.

they are both legally constituted military organizations. the QUALITY of the organization is not what is under discussion, merely the EXISTANCE of the organization. The rule of the british Parliament was exercised indirectly through the Assemblies. Militia commanders answered directly to the Massachussetts assembly which in turn answered to Parliament. Your definition doesnt fit because Massachussetts and Virginia colonies both did indeed have political authority to themselves, but were subject to an overrarching authority exercised by the British Parliament through the American Declaratory Act. If you knew gak about the British in India you would know that their colony in Calcutta did IN FACT pursue the interests of the company officers sent to govern it, and were often at VARIANCE with the interests of the English East India Company board of directors. your definition does not, alas, fit here either.
You obviously dont know anything about this subject.
AF


Automatically Appended Next Post:

LordofHats wrote:

AbaddonFidelis wrote:ofcourse theres a difference between the IDF and a Militia. They are both state sponsored military organizations, so they both fit according to the criteria you provided.

It is, alas, you, who dont know gak about gak.
AF

Sigh. Why do I bother... You just spout off and don't even seem to be capable of actually reading or thinking critically. I highly advise you either pay attention in school, or go back to it and educate yourself. Your understanding of just about everything in this thread is horribly lacking.

The Colonial militias were not sponsored by the colonies. They formed under royal charter or royal decree. They were English sponsored organizations (legally).

I'm done going round and round with you. You're obviously a .
AF

Self-identification as a Jew does not make all Jews identical.

One definition of a Londoner is a person who defines himself as a Londoner.


A Jew.


Another Jew.


The Mayor of London, with friends.


A Londoner.


A London Jew burns Israeli flag to protest against Zionism.

nobody said that all jews were identical.
AF

AbaddonFidelis wrote:
I say jew because its not just the isrealis that were talking about. they are a cultural group no matter what their particular country of origin.
AF

What kind of cultural group lives 5,000 miles away and burns its flag to protest at its own national actions?

AbaddonFidelis wrote:The rule of the british Parliament was exercised indirectly through the Assemblies. Militia commanders answered directly to the Massachussetts assembly which in turn answered to Parliament.

You realize this statement agrees with me right? In this statement power flows from Parliament, to the assembly, to the militia. Ultimately the militia answer to the British, not the colony. Power lies in Parliament. The ruling legislative body of the parent state.

Your definition doesnt fit because Massachussetts and Virginia colonies both did indeed have political authority to themselves, but were subject to an overrarching authority exercised by the British Parliament through the American Declaratory Act.

You... you baffle me... the evidence that the colonies were colonies as I have stated is somehow evidence that they aren't? The ADA was formed in response to the colonies forming the Stamp Congress, which was an attempt by Colonial powers to challenge the Stamp Act. Fearing they would lose control of the colonies, Parliament passed the ADA, repealing the Stamp Act, and stating that they ruled the colonies and that all laws they made governed them. If you at all understood the American Revolution you'd know that this was one of the critical points that sparked the American Revolution and why colonialism in the Americas by the British failed.

If you knew gak about the British in India you would know that their colony in Calcutta did IN FACT pursue the interests of the company officers sent to govern it, and were often at VARIANCE with the interests of the English East India Company board of directors.

And? Ultimately the British benefited from the colonies economically. They held political power over them. This doesn't disprove that fact. That Britain didn't have perfect control of a colony thousands of miles away doesn't negate the traits of a colony or what a colony is. EDIT: This same thing happened in the Americas. If you bothered properly reading the text book excerpt, you'd notice that colonization in Massachussettes began before the colonists even had a charter that allowed them to legally be there!

You seem to be done but really Abb. Come on. You can't be this bad at critical reading or thinking. I don't want to believe anyone is. You prove incapable of understanding what a colony is, even when directed to the information. You fail to notice in the first sentence what the MBC is, and then fail to properly read an excerpt from a text book and just spout off random things. And then you go and describe the break down of a colony's political authority and yet, claim that it is evidence that what a colony is isn't a colony...

Kilkrazy wrote:

AbaddonFidelis wrote:
I say jew because its not just the isrealis that were talking about. they are a cultural group no matter what their particular country of origin.
AF

What kind of cultural group lives 5,000 miles away and burns its flag to protest at its own national actions?

Americans?

AbaddonFidelis wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:

AbaddonFidelis wrote:
I say jew because its not just the isrealis that were talking about. they are a cultural group no matter what their particular country of origin.
AF

What kind of cultural group lives 5,000 miles away and burns its flag to protest at its own national actions?

Americans?

What?

Ketara wrote:Well, might as well start with correcting a few problems here....

If we stopped supporting them they could never last, and they know it. I think that disqualifies them as independent.

Verification. Please. To claim a nation as geographically distant, and radically different as Israel is 100% susceptible to, and influenced by the whims of American foreign policy requires substantial, unarguable proof

Indeed it does. Not that I argued that. Obviously the Isrealis are not 100% susceptible to the whims of American foreign policy. If they were they'd stop building their settlements bc thats not what we want.
What I argued was

If we stopped trading with them, stopped selling them our military surplus at bargain basement deals, and in general treated them like the world treated South Africa in the 80s, they would have to give the palestinians justice. But we dont bc of domestic politics....the isrealis are like little kids who know just how far they can push it without getting spanked. If it were up to them they would have blasted iran's nuclear sites last year or earlier. why havent they? we wont let them. If it were up to them they'd still be in lebanon right now. why did they leave? because papa bear US was getting pissed. Do they do everything we tell them? No. Can they act without tacit US approval? No they cant.

Thats not the same thing as what you said. What I said was that the Isrealis have to stay in bounds and they know that. Not that they do just whatever we tell them to do. Obviously they dont.

Ketara wrote:
let alone to claim that the nation would collapse altogether. Please provide this evidence in the form of academic citation, or at the very least, a verifiable and academcially respected source. Until then, I'll take such a wild sounding statement with a small mountain of salt.

No it wouldnt collapse all together. But their standard of living and their industrial base would depriciate considerably. Without access to military equipment supplied by the US, to unlimied financing provided by the US, to the diplomatic protection provided by the US, or to US markets, which are the largest in the world. Isreal is a democracy its domestic politics are heavily influenced by economic issues as is the domestic politics of the US. If we took a hard line, they would be forced to compromise with the Palestinians. Why do I think that? Below:

Isreal is resource poor and dependent on imports of raw materials to maintain an industrial economy. No imports, no industrial economy, no modern nation state. A US lead international boycott of Isreal would force them to negotiate.
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/is.html
It [Isreal] depends on imports of crude oil, grains, raw materials, and military equipment. Despite limited natural resources ...

The United States has been and continues to be the chief source of finance to Isreal
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/is.html
Israel usually posts sizable trade deficits, which are covered by large transfer payments from abroad and by foreign loans. Roughly half of the government's external debt is owed to the US, its major source of economic and military aid.

We support Isreal Militarily and Financially
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/US-Israel/foreign_aid.html
In August 2007, the Bush Administration agreed to increase U.S. military assistance to Israel by $6 billion over the following decade. Israel is to receive incremental annual increases of $150 mllion, starting at $2.55 billion in FY2009 and reaching $3.15 billion per year for FY2013-2018.

we loan them as much money as they want
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE56M2QL20090723
Israel does not expect the United States to limit use of loan guarantees despite a dispute with Washington over building in East Jerusalem or in West Bank settlements, Finance Minister Yuval Steinitz said on Thursday. "I don't see any limitations on the horizon. It's not time to be concerned about that," Steinitz told reporters.

To get a good idea of what would happen to Isreal without the ability to receive aid, financing, or trade with the US, see here:
http://www.south-africa-tours-and-travel.com/apartheid.html
The country was in great turmoil and the anti apartheid struggle had succeeded in capturing the attention of the world. As pressures from outside as well as inside the country were building up, economic sanctions were beginning to seriously hurt the economy...With international pressure continuing to grow and the country on the verge of becoming ungovernable, the South African government was left with no other option then to look for a negotiated settlement, recognizing the demands of the blacks and ending the racial segregation system...In February 1990 de Klerk announced the dismantling of the racial segregation system, the un-banning of all liberation movements and the release of political prisoners, in particular Nelson Mandela.

kletara wrote:

abaddonfidelis wrote:you just flatly assert, on your own authority, that isreal isnt a colony.

You just as equally assert that is. A link to a dictionary does not equate proof. As a War Studies student (think history and politics combined), who recently finished a term studying the myriad types of colonialism from British Empire building, to American financial colonialism, you will have to excuse me if I take the umpteen dozen books I just read on the topic over your word for it.

nope. what I assert is that Isreal fits the definition of a colony found here:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/colony
It is a "a body of people living in a new territory but maintaining ties to the parent state" or, in this case, states - the west collectively.
LordOfHats could not provide an alternative definition of a colony and did not even attempt to argue that Isreal did not fit that definition. His argument (and if you'll scroll back I think you'll see this) was that a colony meant something established during Colonialism - that is, European expansion from the 16th to the 19th centuries. What I told him was that this was a historically localized definition of a term with broader meaning. So, as I said, I pulled my definition from a reputable, 3rd party source. He pulled his out of his ass.

ketara wrote:

abaddonfidelis wrote: reflect that Isrealis are westerners

Where does this perception of Israeli's as white skinned westerners come from? Have you ever met many Israeli's? Methinks not.
There were Jews who lived there long before Israel came into existence. By this stage of the game, fifty years down the line, the racial groupings get a little blurred. They're all quite tanned, and fairly similar. Please, no more bad analogies to prove this 'colonialism' point.

they have close cultural, political, and economic links to the west. Most Isreals are either 1st 2nd or 3rd generation immigrants from western nations. see here:
http://www.adl.org/israel/record/immigration_since_30.asp
while there are a high number of non-western sources for emmigration to Isreal, the USSR, Poland, Rumania, the United States, Argentina, France, Hungary, the UK and Germany are all represented and together comprise the majority of emmigration to Isreal from 1948-1995. I never said that they were western because they are white. Thats an unfair caracture of what I said. The fact of the business is that their culture is western derived and their citizens are mostly western emmigrants. That is why they are westerners.

Ketara wrote:

abaddonfidelis wrote:they kind of deserve what they get.

Y'know, I could turn that on it's head quite easily. For example, you could say that any American who gets blown up by an Islamic terrorist deserves what he gets, because US troops are in Afganistan. And I mean, if the US was willing to make the concession, and pull out, that terror attack would never have happened. Right? He clearly had it coming!

again, caracture. what I said was that the Isrealis are an occupying power in someone else's territory and it's to be expected that they will be met with violent opposition.

Ketara wrote:

abaddonfidelis wrote:it would be ideal if the jews living in that area had not created this situation......So ideally yes the Isrealis would atone for their crime by leaving the area.

Let em get this straight. You think the Israeli's should all pack up and leave? Despite them having been dumped there fifty years ago by a world that didn't want them? Hang on. Little backstory on the creation of Israel here.

you got it straight. that would be the best thing. thieves give back what they stole. that's justice. practically the best thing would be for isreal to grant the palestinians full political and legal equality within the state of isreal, or, failing that, to permit them an independent state. But the isrealis, you see, are racist, and they're afraid that their democracy will be swamped with angry brown people. which it probably would be. so they should give them a state. why dont they? dont have to as long as we're protecting them. politically its easier to maintain the status quo than to grant justice to the palestinians, who do not, after all, vote in isreali elections.

ketara wrote:
The plan to give the Jews their own homeland was proposed by the British goverment pre World War 1. The idea got pushed to one side shortly after due to larger events. Post World War 2, the Allies had all these Holocaust survivors left on their hands that they didn't know what to do with. The French mentione dthe original British idea of a Jewish homeland, but the British weren't interested. They'd gone off the idea. Not only that, they closed their doors to the survivors. Didn't want them in their country. The French did the same. The Jews were moved out of Nazi camps into marginally better camps, but they still had nothing apart from the clothes on their backs.

The French kept pushing the idea, mainly to hack off the British. The Americans weren't too keen on taking in all these boatloads of refugees either, so they pressured the British into agreeing. Hence, all the Jews got moved to Israel.

As you can see, they kind of didn't have much choice in the equation. They didn't invade, they didn't even set up their own 'homeland'. They were dumped there by an international community who wanted nothing more to do with them.
They didn't 'steal' the land. I think this is a very basic error that colours everything you say on the topic. I hope that once you realise this, you'll also realise how very, very foolish you sound when talking about how they should all be 'leaving the area'.

really Ketara I dont give a damn whether you think I sound foolish or not. lets just stick to the facts ok? If you cant handle civil discourse just let me know and we dont have to talk about it anymore.
The area was taken by force during the so called Isreali "War of Independence" in 1948. The presence of large numbers of jews did not necessitate the creation of an independent state in an arab-dominated territory any more than the presence of large numbers of black people in alabama necessitates the creation of an independent state there. Colonialism has left problems all over the world: wars in vietnam, algeria, rwanda, in the Kashmir between Pakistan and India, and, incidentally, in Palestine between the Arabs and the Jews. If you think colonialism was great then I guess you can argue that the land was the property of the british and they could give it to whoever you wanted. But if you recognize that colonialism was always an injustice committed by technologically superior people against the technologically inferior possessors of that land then you recognize that the arabs had a just claim to that land which currently only Isreal and the United States prevents them from exercising.
AF

AbaddonFidelis wrote:nobody said that all jews were identical.
AF

No one, except you.

You remind me of someone... are you related to G-Baby?

Emperors Faithful wrote:

AbaddonFidelis wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:

AbaddonFidelis wrote:
I say jew because its not just the isrealis that were talking about. they are a cultural group no matter what their particular country of origin.
AF

What kind of cultural group lives 5,000 miles away and burns its flag to protest at its own national actions?

Americans?

What?

Seriously.

I have read through the greater part of this thread. The pattern here is mindbogglingly obvious.

http://th08.deviantart.net/fs39/PRE/f/2008/332/9/9/lolwut_pear_template_by_sgoheen06.png

Go ahead, print that out and get something cool from the thread. It's in 3-D, which is pretty awesome.

Tyyr wrote:

AbaddonFidelis wrote:nobody said that all jews were identical.
AF

No one, except you.

You remind me of someone... are you related to G-Baby?

No.... Not even me. I said they were a cultural group. Are all Americans the same? Nope but they are a group. Are all Catholics? Nope. But they are a group. That's not the same as being identical.
AF

djones520 wrote:And please cite how the blockade is not legal? They are at war with the governing body of Gaza. Hamas launches numerous attacks against Israel all the time. Even President Obama says the blockade is legal.

Umm, no. There is no declaration of war, and even if there were it is illegal and immoral to inflict collective punishment on a population for the actions of a few.

It is hilarious that you'd say 'even Obama' as if Obama was anything like the people who are actually critical of Israel. He's a mainstream US politician, he falls well and truly into the pro-Israel side.

Israel has delivered more then 2 billion pounds of aid to Gaza in the last year and a half. Thats more then 1300lbs per person. Meanwhile, Egypt which also shares a border with Gaza, has blockaded all aid shipments to the area through their territory. Israeli's are the bad guys though.

The Egyptian blockade is undertaken in close co-operation with Israel, as part of the greater quarantine effort led by Israel. Meanwhile Israel is the primary deliverer of aid, because they take it on themselves to control everything that moves into Palestine. What you've basically said above is complete nonsense, and I'd really like to know who's phrasing it that way to you, because they're clearly phrasing it to mislead you.

It never ceases to amaze me that a terrorist organization gets more support by people like you then a country actively fighting the terrorists.

You are quite right that Hamas are very bad, but it's very funny that you'd use that point to try and show that Israel must be good. You have assumed that there must be one good side and one bad side, which is a very silly thing to assume.

We can, in fact, be critical of both Israel and Hamas. We can also be critical of Fatah.

Wrexasaur wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:

AbaddonFidelis wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:

AbaddonFidelis wrote:
I say jew because its not just the isrealis that were talking about. they are a cultural group no matter what their particular country of origin.
AF

What kind of cultural group lives 5,000 miles away and burns its flag to protest at its own national actions?

Americans?

What?

Seriously.

I have read through the greater part of this thread. The pattern here is mindbogglingly obvious.

http://th08.deviantart.net/fs39/PRE/f/2008/332/9/9/lolwut_pear_template_by_sgoheen06.png

Go ahead, print that out and get something cool from the thread. It's in 3-D, which is pretty awesome.

I've said it before, I watched that raid and as far as on concerned nobody could blame the guys for shooting. The legality of the whole thing... well, that's above my pay scale. I tend to sympathize with the Israelis though...

mattyrm wrote:I've said it before, I watched that raid and as far as on concerned nobody could blame the guys for shooting. The legality of the whole thing... well, that's above my pay scale. I tend to sympathize with the Israelis though...

mattrym siding with Israel?! Well I never!

loki old fart wrote:Israel's military broke international laws during its raid on a Gaza-bound aid flotilla, a UN Human Rights Council investigation says.

The three-member panel said the Israeli commandoes' response to the flotilla was "disproportionate" and "betrayed an unacceptable level of brutality"

Israel: "La-la-la we don't hear you"