Shocked

[BigCats]

source:
what carries more weight in my opinion is to look at the recent history. and recent history looks pretty bad on balance for israel.

Yeah, because that whole Holocaust thing just can't be seen as recent history, can it. Viewing Zionism and the establishment of an Israeli state without taking the centuries of European/Russian ethnic cleansing, pogroms and general malfeasance into account is just incomplete and doesn't address one of the central rationales for Zionism. Not saying that the Isralei state's actions aren't heinous, bordering on criminal at times, but, if you want to look at recent history, look at it all.

As for the Old Testament angle (I think that's what someone was actually trying to cite earlier) - don't even go there, down that road lies madness. I spent 9 months last year studying old testament prophets last and trust me, there's a lot of wisdom for living there (David, Solomon, etc.) but not much that's going solve this problem (i.e. Judges, Kings or Chronicles).

K

BTW - back on the original topic - anyone else think Cheney was going look over at Edwards, freeze him with a Darth Vader choke hold while saying "I find your lack of faith most disturbing"? K

[awolski]

So, a question for which I have no answer: would the creation of a Palestinian (with or without quote marks, your choice) state end this conflict? And to bring us back on topic, what presidential/vice presidential candidate will get us closer to this peaceful end? Or is it impossible?

OK that was a bunch of questions.

[awolski]

When I mentioned the Bible I mentioned the New Testament because of all that stuff about treating your neighbor how you would like to be treated yourself. I'm not a religious person, but those are some good survival tactics in general. I didn't bring up the Old Testament because I realize what a landmine that will be.

[TrumpsHair]

And to bring us back on topic, what presidential/vice presidential candidate will get us closer to this peaceful end?

Clinton/Gore.

[eeldip]

source:
what carries more weight in my opinion is to look at the recent history. and recent history looks pretty bad on balance for israel.

Yeah, because that whole Holocaust thing just can't be seen as recent history, can it. Viewing Zionism and the establishment of an Israeli state without taking the centuries of European/Russian ethnic cleansing, pogroms and general malfeasance into account is just incomplete and doesn't address one of the central rationales for Zionism.

agreed, but i dont see why the palestinians have to pay for european/russian ethnic cleansing.

i think it just obscures the issue.

[BigCats]

agreed, but i dont see why the palestinians have to pay for european/russian ethnic cleansing.

i think it just obscures the issue.

Yeah, we're going to do that "I agree with you, but . . ." thing here.

I don't think it obscures, it's just a very real part of the equation that gets ignored.

Amazing how violence only breeds violence isn't it? Too bad our own government isn't able comprehend that very basic and obvious truth.

K

[BigCats]

And to bring us back on topic, what presidential/vice presidential candidate will get us closer to this peaceful end?

Clinton/Gore.

And I'm one of the Dark Side's supposed core constituency evangelicals. Ya gotta wonder whether any of these guys actually picks up a Bible!?!

K

[eeldip]

agreed, but i dont see why the palestinians have to pay for european/russian ethnic cleansing.

i think it just obscures the issue.

Yeah, we're going to do that "I agree with you, but . . ." thing here.

I don't think it obscures, it's just a very real part of the equation that gets ignored.


K

well, it explains part of the reasoning behind the original zionist movement. and to the credit of that movement (lets set aside all the anit-arab racism for a moment) their heart was in the right place. they were trying to prevent future genocide.

however, try to explain that to someone who's land you stole.

"see MY father was killed by germans, so i have to kick you out of your house, put you in a refugee camp and not let you back, that way i wont be killed by future germans. i would let you back, but it would ruin the 'special character' of israel. by the way, that is what your old country is called now"

[BigCats]

"see MY father was killed by germans, so i have to kick you out of your house, put you in a refugee camp and not let you back, that way i wont be killed by future germans. i would let you back, but it would ruin the 'special character' of israel. by the way, that is what your old country is called now"

Wow, is this ever getting off-off-topic. Before referring to Palestine as a country that actually existed, check out this link
http://www.un.org/Depts/dpa/ngo/history.html

As i said, it's a messed up situation and I don't think anyone claims the moral high ground.

K

[eeldip]

well, i think people casually use the word country to mean things more than a nation state.

however, you are right to point out that there was never a such thing as a contemporary nation state called palestine.

OH YEA, its a mess.

and the good old USA bears a bit of the blame. i think its gonna take someone other than the US to bail the world out of this situation.

[ubertar]

however, try to explain that to someone who's land you stole.

"see MY father was killed by germans, so i have to kick you out of your house, put you in a refugee camp and not let you back, that way i wont be killed by future germans. i would let you back, but it would ruin the 'special character' of israel. by the way, that is what your old country is called now"

How do you steal what's yours?

Suppose someone took your house, and gave it away, and you were homeless the rest of your life, staying here and there until people kicked you out or beat you up, and the same happened to your kids and their kids until finally they come back to your house, and find other people living there. Now, these people are innocent. They're not the ones who took your house-- those people are long gone. Do your descendants have the right to take it back? If they do, they're still going to find resistance; after all, the new people have been there for a while and consider it theirs. Who has the right to it? Obviously it's not a simple matter or it would have been resolved a long time ago. Both sides have legitimate claims. Whose are more legitimate?

If you think the Palestinians have the stronger claim, I can respect that position, although I disagree with it. To say the Jews stole the land from them is to be blind to history (and yes, history that goes back over thousands of years is significant-- it's only Americans that don't realize that, since this country is so new). If we understood more of broader history, we might not be in such a mess in Iraq. People there are still pissed off about the Crusades, and events before that.

[eeldip]

well...

lets avoid ancient history. can we agree on that?

here is a good reason why: every single one of us has some distant relative that has had land somewhere that was taken by someone unknown in the past.

however, the palestinians have a good case in that:

1. the people who lost their land are still alive, still remember where their land is, many of them still claim structures occupied by israelis (although for the most part their structures were bulldozed). many of them still cary the keys to their former homes. therefore they have a valid claim in terms of most legal systems in the world.

2. the israelis are clearly at fault. many people involved in the land theft/aquisition are still alive.

[eeldip]

How do you steal what's yours?

Suppose someone took your house, and gave it away, and you were homeless the rest of your life, staying here and there until people kicked you out or beat you up, and the same happened to your kids and their kids until finally they come back to your house, and find other people living there. Now, these people are innocent. They're not the ones who took your house-- those people are long gone. Do your descendants have the right to take it back? If they do, they're still going to find resistance; after all, the new people have been there for a while and consider it theirs. Who has the right to it? Obviously it's not a simple matter or it would have been resolved a long time ago. Both sides have legitimate claims. Whose are more legitimate?

legitimacy is a big issue. how can a modern adherent to the jewish religion claim land rights in israel/palestine? DNA relationships to ancient inhabitants? documentation (for example, if a family created a map in 100 BC and layed out their property and claimed it for all time, then every descendant had their name added and notarized it might be a useful document)? its very difficult. and what can they claim? that their claimed ancestors controlled a subsection of modern israel for 200 years or so 2000 years ago. not for as long as other people, not controlling as much land as other people, not controlling all the land before everyone else, not controlling it after everyone else. the claims are legitimate, but very weak.

how does a palestinian make a claim for land rights? at the very least they can walk over to the land that they lost and say, "here, right here, is where i grew up, the home my father built was here, my father died and gave it to me". even if they didnt have documentation, even if all traces of their homes are destroyed, at the very least there is first hand testimony. and plenty of witnesses. and there is the historical fact that they were kicked out.

so yea, they have a MUCH BETTER CLAIM. MUCH MUCH BETTER.

there are other ways to frame the claim. but they get MUCH trickier.

[ubertar]

legitimacy is a big issue. how can a modern adherent to the jewish religion claim land rights in israel/palestine? DNA relationships to ancient inhabitants? documentation (for example, if a family created a map in 100 BC and layed out their property and claimed it for all time, then every descendant had their name added and notarized it might be a useful document)? its very difficult. and what can they claim? that their claimed ancestors controlled a subsection of modern israel for 200 years or so 2000 years ago. not for as long as other people, not controlling as much land as other people, not controlling all the land before everyone else, not controlling it after everyone else. the claims are legitimate, but very weak.

It's not that individuals can say, "this piece of land belongs to me". It belongs to them collectively. The history of the Jews is well documented. By your phrase, "a modern adherent to the jewish religion", I take it you believe the propaganda that says the Jews are really Khazars? It ain't so.

[eeldip]

nope, i fully believe that most people who identify themselves as jewish are descended from the original population in judea.

but identifying yourself as jewish is not be enough proof.

you have to use a better measure than that.