|
|
|
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Antrax
ESL Student
|
 Posted: Sun Jun 13, 2010 6:48 am Post subject: 241 |
 |
|
Well, now I heard a claim. However, I'm not sure "Ethnically cleansed" is really the implication you want to make (or at least, I hope that's not what you're suggesting). Do you happen to know if this Najd was a part of Israel before the 48 war or not? The citations in Wikipedia are to a book I don't own.
_________________
After years of disappointment with get rich quick schemes, I know I'm gonna get rich with this scheme. And quick! |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Nsof
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 13, 2010 9:08 am Post subject: 242 |
|
|
Regarding refugees:
It is undeniable that Israel has actively expelled some arab vilagers/settlers. All of them will have to be given reparations.
(BTW, more than 500K Jews were forces out of their homes in Arab countries. I would forgo reparations on this it it means getting peace.)
Here is a good article about the The Palestinian Refugees.
_________________
Will sell this place for beer |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jack_Ian
Big Endian
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 14, 2010 12:35 pm Post subject: 243 |
|
|
It certainly does seem balanced and comprehensive.
| Antrax wrote: |
| However, I'm not sure "Ethnically cleansed" is really the implication you want to make (or at least, I hope that's not what you're suggesting). |
I actually did mean that, but I'm rethinking it.
I had always assumed the eviction of Arabs from Israel was the implementation of the Jabotinsky's policies, fueled by a mistrust and hate of Israel's neighbours.
| Jabotinsky wrote: |
| What I do not deny is that in that process the Arabs of Palestine will necessarily become a minority in the country. I do deny that that is a hardship. It is not a hardship on any race, any nation, possessing so many national states now and so many more national states in the future. One fraction, one branch of that race, and not a big one, will have to live in someone else's state: Well, that is the case with all the mightiest nations in the world. |
Also I believed at the time that Arabs were considered to be of low class. Uneducated, labourer types. For example,
| This Article wrote: |
| an action which required Jews to work as managers of Arab labor rather than laboring themselves and which resulted in the generation of class distinctions between local Arab workers and immigrating Jewish managers. Jews would enter a community, buy up property from Arab landlords (creating economic prosperity for a few), and then kicked out the Arab workers and residents. If Arabs were allowed to return as laborers, they treated as second-class; very often, however, the land was reserved for Jewish settlers. It was all legal, but it is impossible to imagine the Arab residents as regarding it as very moral - especially when it happened over and over on a mass scale. |
I had always assumed that it was a matter of policy to remove the vast majority of Arabs from Jewish land in order to cement the Jewish character of the nation and assure its survival. I had seen the expulsion of Arabs from places like Najd as the implementation of this policy. Now that I've been asked to defend that statement, I decided to do a little deeper research. I see now, that it was always intended that Arabs would become part of Jewish society and were to be treated with equal respect. Also, Nsof's link has shown how these evictions concentrated on areas of security risk. I don't doubt that some Jewish people wanted all Arabs to leave and acted accordingly and I don't doubt that it was a matter of policy that the Arab population should be diminished in Israel, but "ethnic cleansing", implies a racial element that I no longer believe existed. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jack_Ian
Big Endian
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 14, 2010 1:14 pm Post subject: 244 |
|
|
| Antrax wrote: |
| Do you happen to know if this Najd was a part of Israel before the 48 war or not?. |
I know this might seem ridiculous, but I don't actually know what that question means. To me, although Israel goes back to biblical times, the State of Israel, as we know it, began in 1948. Before that, Najd was part of Britain, or Turkey, or whoever else happened to be occupying it. Immediately before 1948 it was part of The British Mandate of Palestine and before that it was part of The Ottoman Empire.
If it's any help to you, here's a map of how the U.N. intended to set up Palestine in 1947. As you can see, there's no mention of Israel, anywhere. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Antrax
ESL Student
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 14, 2010 5:39 pm Post subject: 245 |
|
|
Ah okay, I'm calling the "Jewish state" bit "Israel" because that's what it became. That map isn't a ton of help, sadly. The point is that if it's not a part of Israel, and it was conquered, then the land becomes Israel's, no? Or have I misunderstood the concept of military conquest?
_________________
After years of disappointment with get rich quick schemes, I know I'm gonna get rich with this scheme. And quick! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Johny Fake
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 14, 2010 6:16 pm Post subject: 246 |
|
|
The latest ethnic spat.
Is it just me, or is the world filled with adults acting like children? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Johny Fake
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 14, 2010 6:19 pm Post subject: 247 |
|
|
| Antrax wrote: |
| Ah okay, I'm calling the "Jewish state" bit "Israel" because that's what it became. That map isn't a ton of help, sadly. The point is that if it's not a part of Israel, and it was conquered, then the land becomes Israel's, no? Or have I misunderstood the concept of military conquest? |
Interesting that Jerusalem is completely neutral (?) in the map. Is military conquest okay??? If surrounding powers run you over, should we just redraw the map? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Antrax
ESL Student
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 14, 2010 6:59 pm Post subject: 248 |
|
|
Dunno. I said earlier I don't really see a consistent moral principle, and this is one of the points that always confused me. I don't know what happens if the conqueror is the aggressive side - historically most of Europe's borders were drawn exactly this way. But in this specific case, it's a moot point, because it was the aggressor that lost, so I never understood how keeping the territory is illegitimate. Anything else is just irrational and encourages violence, which we abhor as a modern liberal society.
_________________
After years of disappointment with get rich quick schemes, I know I'm gonna get rich with this scheme. And quick! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jack_Ian
Big Endian
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 14, 2010 7:40 pm Post subject: 249 |
|
|
| Antrax wrote: |
| The point is that if it's not a part of Israel, and it was conquered, then the land becomes Israel's, no? Or have I misunderstood the concept of military conquest? |
There were many military conflicts in the area over the years. The ordinary people, both Jew and Arab, would move away from the fighting until it died down and then return to pick up the pieces. They had no reason to suspect that this civil war was any different. After the Jewish faction won, the ordinary people who happened to be Arab, were surprised to find that they were no longer allowed to go home and worse, that their land was given to someone else. This was not a military conquest of another nation, but rather a civil war where some of the country's civilians were cheated of their possessions. They didn't care whether it was called Israel or Palestine, they just wanted to continue caring for their farm, as they had for generations, through all the regime and name changes.
It would be like thinking it was OK to give the Southern States of the U.S. to loyal Northerners after the American Civil War and telling the Southeners, slaves included, to get lost and find a country of their own.
| Antrax wrote: |
| I'm calling the "Jewish state" bit "Israel |
There was no "Jewish state" bit. It never got a chance to exist. It was only a proposal of how a State of Palestine might be arranged as two communities working together. In reality, it was just a mixture of people, with some higher concentrations of a particular ethnicity in places. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Antrax
ESL Student
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 15, 2010 5:24 am Post subject: 250 |
|
|
It's only a civil war if it's inside the country, no? People in Najd and people in Israel weren't civilians of the same country. So, I can't say I agree with the portrayal as a "Jewish faction". There was Israel or "the Jewish area" and there was everything else: the Arab area, Jordan, Egypt, Syria and Lebanon. It's a war between countries, not some inner conflict.
| Quote: |
| They didn't care whether it was called Israel or Palestine, they just wanted to continue caring for their farm |
I really don't see the distinction between this and any number of historical examples. You think Ukranian citizens all really wanted to fight Russia? Or the Germans in Sudetenland all cared as one person about obliterating Czechoslovakia? Turks in Cyprus, or Greeks in the norther part of Cyprus? I'm pretty lousy with history, but I'm pretty sure there are dozens upon dozens of examples where people were displaced following a war. In most of those cases, it's a lot less obvious which side is blame, so the one in front of us is even simpler than those. So why reparations?
| Quote: |
| It would be like thinking it was OK to give the Southern States of the U.S. to loyal Northerners after the American Civil War and telling the Southeners, slaves included, to get lost and find a country of their own. |
Almost like that (that was a civil war, though), or like thinking Mexico should get Texas. So why is it wrong? What is the moral principle?
As for the partition plan, that's not how I understand the Wikipedia article (nor what I was taught at school, but that's most likely more biased than Wikipedia). It distinctly says two states, not two "communities". Also, a "plan" is a misleading name, as the UN motion passed, which is what sparked the 1948 war. So, I'm really not following you on this.
_________________
After years of disappointment with get rich quick schemes, I know I'm gonna get rich with this scheme. And quick! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jack_Ian
Big Endian
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 15, 2010 1:24 pm Post subject: 251 |
|
|
There were two wars.
In the first one, the Civil War of Mandatory Palestine (30 November 1947 – 1 April 1948), the Israeli faction took control of Palestine and renamed it to Israel. This is when the massive displacement of Arabs occurred within Palestine. It's likely that the Arab population had more options outside the borders of Palestine to remain safe until the violence died down, and that the Jewish faction felt they were safer where they were, but it was also apparently a matter of policy that the Jews should not leave the borders during the violence.
| Wikipedia wrote: |
| While the Jewish population had received strict orders requiring them to hold their ground everywhere at all costs, the Arab population was more affected by the general conditions of insecurity to which the country was exposed. Up to 100,000 Arabs, from the urban upper and middle classes in Haifa, Jaffa and Jerusalem, or Jewish-dominated areas, evacuated abroad or to Arab centers eastwards. |
I know that there was only a little over a month between both wars, but they are distinctly different. There was no Israel during the first war, only displaced civilians of Palestine, that moved away from violence expecting to return under the government of whatever faction won.
Then there was, very soon afterwards, The 1948 Arab-Israeli War, beginning 15 May 1948, when Israel was recognised as a State by the U.N. and Israel's Arab neighbours decided to invade.
This was a war of conquest and it would be normal, in these circumstances, that borders would be redefined. In the end though, much of the territory gained was returned in order to make peace, not because of any moral requirement. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
extro...*
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 15, 2010 1:55 pm Post subject: 252 |
|
|
| Pablo wrote: |
There are plenty of people who see Israel (with U.S. support) as the terrorist state rather than the victims. There are two sides to the story, but some of you seem pretty sure that Israel is the side of "good" and everyone else is on the side of "evil". I just wonder how a person becomes so "sure" in the face of limited and conflicting evidence.
I kind of think that Israel is the aggressor and the obstacle to peace. |
At work, so sorry I couldn't watch the videos, and have no idea what they're about. But it's hardly any surprise that many people see Israel as the terrorist state. I don't think, though, that the evidence is all that limited or conflicting, for those who care to look.
Let's just look at one somewhat typical incident: the Muhammad al-Durrah incident. I'm just posting a wikipedia link, but you can use google and find a lot more info. A 12 year old boy, cowering behind his father in fear, was shot by Israeli soldiers. It was captured on video by French news crews, and images of his death were broadcast throughout the Arab world, inflaming more hatred of Israel. Parks were named in his honor, monuments, postage stamps, etc.
So, no surprise that people looking at that would see Israel as the culprit.
Except, as it turns out, the young Palestinian boy was shot by Palestinians for the benefit of the news crews, to perpetuate hatred of Israel.
And that is just one example. Google the term "pallywood" for countless examples of "incidents" staged by Palestinians, for the benefit of the camera, to make Israel look bad. If Israel is guilty of anything like that, they are so damned good at it that there is no evidence - which, of course, is what some people will claim (without evidence) is the case. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jack_Ian
Big Endian
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 15, 2010 2:10 pm Post subject: 253 |
|
|
Eventually, the truth will come out.
While it's still about an hour before the report will be published.
I suspect, in this case that most of the killings (if not all) will be thought of as unlawful and that the civil rights activists did not have weapons at the time they were shot.
There was a whitewash report immediately after this incident, but nobody believed it, especially since it did not agree with credible eye-witness reports.
Hopefully, this time, the facts will be published.
This was not a major tragedy because of the number of victims. There were many others that were far more bloody. What died during Bloody Sunday, was the belief that justice could be achieved by peaceful means. It was this that made it such a tragedy and turned the IRA from an underfunded, unsupported, annoyance, into a terrorist organisation that had wide support both internationally and at home.
Unfortunately, these lessons are never learned and history continues to repeat itself. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pablo
Never Draws a Blank
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 15, 2010 2:41 pm Post subject: 254 |
|
|
| extro...* wrote: |
it's hardly any surprise that many people see Israel as the terrorist state. I don't think, though, that the evidence is all that limited or conflicting, for those who care to look.
|
I withdrew my post before there were any responses...or so I thought.
I think that anyone, with the help of google, can find all the evidence they want to support whatever they are trying to assert. Further, they can find plenty of evidence to debunk the other side's evidence.
One of the videos was a film of Israeli soldiers "confessing" to things they had done and how their consciences were causing them to go public.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=37MFa7ZKQWo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C8ST5m9pREQ&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7mO8CWSam2o&feature=related
I don't believe either side is righteous. I think they are both motivated by politics, money, and power (not the private citizens, but the "leaders"), they both teach hate, and that U.S. money is behind most of it. Consequently, I believe Israel is more in the wrong than anyone else over there. I think Israel is way more interested in the flow of U.S. money than in peace for its people.
_________________
All religions are the same - Guilt....just with different holidays. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Antrax
ESL Student
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 15, 2010 3:09 pm Post subject: 255 |
|
|
| Quote: |
| , the young Palestinian boy was shot by Palestinians for the benefit of the news crews, to perpetuate hatred of Israel. |
That's a terrible thing to say. Also, it's false to the best of my knowledge. He and his father were caught in a cross-fire. The bullets that killed him were Palestinian. They used his death afterwards, but they didn't kill him on purpose.
Everything else extro said is true, and I've alluded to it previously. Many incidents were proven to be staged. Nobody in the world cared, because that stuff never makes the headlines. Another reason for Israel's despair.
Jack Ian, thanks, that distinction was lost on me. Do you feel it's significant, though? Is the principle strictly whether or not the fighting sides technically already have their countries, or are in the process of getting them?
Or, to put it another way: do you consider Jerusalem a legitimate part of Israel? That was conquered long after there was a state of Israel, as part of a war initiated by the Arabs.
_________________
After years of disappointment with get rich quick schemes, I know I'm gonna get rich with this scheme. And quick! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pablo
Never Draws a Blank
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 15, 2010 3:21 pm Post subject: 256 |
|
|
| extro...* wrote: |
Except, as it turns out, the young Palestinian boy was shot by Palestinians for the benefit of the news crews, to perpetuate hatred of Israel. |
So, everything else he says is true. Fact remains, the main point in his post is obscenely false.
This is precisely why we shouldn't be so quick to believe in the righteousness of one side over the other. Extro is just like everyone else. He wants to believe a certain way, so he accepts things that support his view as true, even if they're unfounded.
_________________
All religions are the same - Guilt....just with different holidays. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Antrax
ESL Student
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 15, 2010 3:37 pm Post subject: 257 |
|
|
Huh? He WAS shot by Palestinians, it WAS used to incite hatred as though Israel did it as a part of an ongoing propaganda campaign, and there were many other examples. What I'm saying is that they're not inhuman monsters, they're just cynical bastards. If extro's main point was that we're dealing with a nation of people so psychopathic they don't care about their own children then yes, I see what you're saying. But if his point is the same as mine, that there are plenty of bad guys on that side that deliberately manipulate us enlightened liberals then no, I think that point is still very convincing.
_________________
After years of disappointment with get rich quick schemes, I know I'm gonna get rich with this scheme. And quick! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jack_Ian
Big Endian
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 15, 2010 4:01 pm Post subject: 258 |
|
|
| Antrax wrote: |
| Or, to put it another way: do you consider Jerusalem a legitimate part of Israel? |
The question is whether it's worth trying to keep exclusive control over it given the tension it will cause in the region.
Also there's a big distinction between occupied lands and conquered lands.
Israel would need to declare the lands as within its national borders and these new borders would need to be recognised by the U.N., in order for it to be considered conquered lands. But then that has implications as to which laws apply and who has a right to vote etc., so not all occupied lands will be claimed.
Frankly, I don't know what Israel's claim is exactly, but considering it has tried to establish it as Israel's Capital City, I'm presuming at least some of it is being claimed.
The U.N. however, does not recognise this claim. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pablo
Never Draws a Blank
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 15, 2010 4:13 pm Post subject: 259 |
|
|
| Antrax wrote: |
| Huh? He WAS shot by Palestinians, it WAS used to incite hatred as though Israel did it as a part of an ongoing propaganda campaign, and there were many other examples. |
What extro said was wrong. And the part that was wrong was his central point. To me, that suggests that a certain amount of caution and a certain amount of skepticism is in order when evaluating evidence on Middle East politics. There are very few experts in the U.S. and certainly extro is not one of them.
_________________
All religions are the same - Guilt....just with different holidays. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pablo
Never Draws a Blank
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 15, 2010 4:16 pm Post subject: 260 |
|
|
| Antrax wrote: |
| If extro's main point was that we're dealing with a nation of people so psychopathic they don't care about their own children then yes, I see what you're saying. |
"If"?
_________________
All religions are the same - Guilt....just with different holidays. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Antrax
ESL Student
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 15, 2010 4:23 pm Post subject: 261 |
|
|
Pablo, what do you think his main point was? (I suggested two options)
Jack Ian, the part about UN not recognizing is what I'm asking about. The thing I'm trying to get at from the start is trying to understand what principles guide the world when determining which country's okay and which isn't. It is widely accepted that Israel's actions were not okay with regard to this incident. I'm trying to understand why. That's why I keep trying to give examples for similar situations where the moral verdict is opposite. I'm sure there's some principle at work here, I just don't understand it, and so far I haven't heard one stated, let alone a convincing one. Various ideas were suggested: that the problem is that it happened in international water; that the current blockade is unjust to begin with; that blockade as a rule is unjust to begin with; that Israel is the aggressor in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and thus is automatically wrong until showing good will, etc. I've tried to explore each of these notions, and it's my belief that the person stating them eventually gave up on trying to articulate a consistent moral principle (if I misunderstood and my attempt at finding a historical parallel where the opposite judgement was made was unconvincing, please let me know). So, I'm at a loss.
[edit]
Yeah, "if". I'm not sure what point he was trying to make. I brought it up earlier to support my claim that these "peace activists" instigated a violent confrontation as part of an ongoing strategy of manipulating public opinion via abusing liberal notions and the short attention span of the media. So, more than one point can be made from the same story, and not all are debunked by the exaggeration.
_________________
After years of disappointment with get rich quick schemes, I know I'm gonna get rich with this scheme. And quick! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pablo
Never Draws a Blank
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 15, 2010 4:33 pm Post subject: 262 |
|
|
| Antrax wrote: |
Pablo, what do you think his main point was? (I suggested two options)
|
I think my Post 260 makes that pretty clear.
_________________
All religions are the same - Guilt....just with different holidays. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Antrax
ESL Student
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 15, 2010 4:55 pm Post subject: 263 |
|
|
Yes, I edited my 261 to reflect that.
_________________
After years of disappointment with get rich quick schemes, I know I'm gonna get rich with this scheme. And quick! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pablo
Never Draws a Blank
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 15, 2010 6:06 pm Post subject: 264 |
|
|
To be clear, until otherwise advised, I believe that this:
| Quote: |
we're dealing with a nation of people so psychopathic they don't care about their own children |
is extro's main point.I think support for that point is factually flawed and insufficient, and I think further, that there is significant evidence that the Israeli side is not as peace loving as he believes. I believe a strong case can be made that Israel is just as responsible for the ongoing conflict as their enemies.
_________________
All religions are the same - Guilt....just with different holidays. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Antrax
ESL Student
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 15, 2010 6:32 pm Post subject: 265 |
|
|
This I'd love to hear. As you may have noticed, I can cite many concessions made for peace attempts on the Israeli side.
_________________
After years of disappointment with get rich quick schemes, I know I'm gonna get rich with this scheme. And quick! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pablo
Never Draws a Blank
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 15, 2010 6:44 pm Post subject: 266 |
|
|
| Antrax wrote: |
| This I'd love to hear. As you may have noticed, I can cite many concessions made for peace attempts on the Israeli side. |
Just wondering - did you check out any of the videos in my Post 254?
_________________
All religions are the same - Guilt....just with different holidays. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Antrax
ESL Student
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 15, 2010 6:53 pm Post subject: 267 |
|
|
No. Are they recordings of Palestinian concessions made to advance peace in the region? I'm familiar with the "Breaking the Silence" testimonies. I think most of them are genuine. However, they a) say nothing about the general policy of Israel. One operation does not a policy make, nor necessarily reflect and b) are about something from 2007, which is after 60 years of conflict. Like I said, the mood here is of despair, because many people believe we've tried peace as hard as humanly possible and it just doesn't work, which is why the current strategy is trying to contain them and their rockets.
_________________
After years of disappointment with get rich quick schemes, I know I'm gonna get rich with this scheme. And quick! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
extro...*
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 15, 2010 7:09 pm Post subject: 268 |
|
|
| Quote: |
| That's a terrible thing to say. Also, it's false to the best of my knowledge. He and his father were caught in a cross-fire. The bullets that killed him were Palestinian. |
Can you provide some background on that? Here's one map I've found (below), and it's consistent with all others I've seen, of where everyone was situated when the event happened. The bullet holes in the wall seemed to indicate the shots came from the same direction as the France 2 photographer. Crossfire? Not possible. Terrible thing to say? Your call. Would it not be terrible to say they broadcast videos directed at children, encouraging them to martyr themselves? But it is true, no? Don't fall into Pablo's mistake of denying the truth of something merely because it's terrible to speak of.
See the article here: http://www.theatlantic.com/past/docs/issues/2003/06/fallows.htm
I don't cite that as an authoritative source, but you can find this corroborated elsewhere:
| Quote: |
| In short, the physical evidence of the shooting was in all ways inconsistent with shots coming from the IDF outpost—and in all ways consistent with shots coming from someplace behind the France 2 cameraman ... |
If the boy and his father were hit by bullets fired from behind the cameraman, as the evidence indicates, it wasn't in the crossfire of anything except the gunman firing at a concrete wall. Just look at the bullet holes here:
Then look at the angle the Israeli's would have been shooting from. Do those holes look like they were made by oblique shots, or by shots coming from directly across the road, firing in a direction nowhere remotely toward any Israeli target?
| Pablo wrote: |
| Antrax wrote: |
| Huh? He WAS shot by Palestinians, it WAS used to incite hatred as though Israel did it as a part of an ongoing propaganda campaign, and there were many other examples. |
What extro said was wrong. |
Evidence? Or just what Antrax said, because you accept everything Antrax says? Or perhaps:
| Quote: |
| He wants to believe a certain way, so he accepts things that support his view as true, even if they're unfounded. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pablo
Never Draws a Blank
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 15, 2010 7:13 pm Post subject: 269 |
|
|
| Antrax wrote: |
| This I'd love to hear. |
I only pointed out those videos because you said that in response to this:
| Quote: |
| I think further, that there is significant evidence that the Israeli side is not as peace loving as he believes. I believe a strong case can be made that Israel is just as responsible for the ongoing conflict as their enemies. |
_________________
All religions are the same - Guilt....just with different holidays. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Antrax
ESL Student
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 15, 2010 7:20 pm Post subject: 270 |
|
|
Well, I have to say, my main source is that if it were seriously suspected, I would have definitely heard about it from my media. Also, psychologically it's very different telling kids Jihad and being a Shahid is the way to go, and shooting a kid, and I believe protecting the young is a very basic instinct for human beings. It's also inconsistent with everything else they've done for propaganda so far. Lastly, it wouldn't have been worth the payoff - it's much simpler to just stage a funeral for a child or accuse us when a child dies for whatever reason (both of which have been done numerous times in the past) - they gain nothing by actually murdering one for the cause.
So, that's why it seems unlikely to me.
_________________
After years of disappointment with get rich quick schemes, I know I'm gonna get rich with this scheme. And quick! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Antrax
ESL Student
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 15, 2010 7:30 pm Post subject: 271 |
|
|
I read up on it again. Apparently I remembered wrong facts. I remembered that bullets were extracted from the body and ballistics proved he was killed by Palestinians; However the Hebrew Wikipedia article states no bullets were recovered, and in fact that it was proven conclusively he was never killed, as it was physically impossible (as extro says) to injure him in the manner described. Instead, it seems the incident had been staged, as had many before and after it.
_________________
After years of disappointment with get rich quick schemes, I know I'm gonna get rich with this scheme. And quick! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pablo
Never Draws a Blank
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 15, 2010 7:34 pm Post subject: 272 |
|
|
I have no evidence one way or the other beyond what's been presented here. So, I was going purely on what Antrax said about this case. If Antrax is not sure, then I'm certainly not sure. The only sure one here, I guess, is Extro.
_________________
All religions are the same - Guilt....just with different holidays. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Death Mage
Raving Lunatic
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 15, 2010 7:39 pm Post subject: 273 |
|
|
Antrax, as these the same people who fire mortars and rockets from schools and hospitals in hopes that the retaliation fire kills these specially classed civilians and gives them a reason to try to sway public opinion against the ones they are attacking?
_________________
* These senseless ramblings brought to you by Insanity™. If you just can't figure the dang thing out, it must be Insanity™.
[YOUR AD HERE!] |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
extro...*
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 15, 2010 7:50 pm Post subject: 274 |
|
|
| Antrax wrote: |
| Also, psychologically it's very different telling kids Jihad and being a Shahid is the way to go, and shooting a kid, and I believe protecting the young is a very basic instinct for human beings. |
I don't see the type of person who would actually help strap the bomb on a child as any less capable of shooting a child to make him a martyr and to further the same cause, and we know the former happened regularly. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jack_Ian
Big Endian
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 15, 2010 9:18 pm Post subject: 275 |
|
|
| Antrax wrote: |
| Jack Ian, the part about UN not recognizing is what I'm asking about. The thing I'm trying to get at from the start is trying to understand what principles guide the world when determining which country's okay and which isn't. It is widely accepted that Israel's actions were not okay with regard to this incident. I'm trying to understand why. That's why I keep trying to give examples for similar situations where the moral verdict is opposite. I'm sure there's some principle at work here, I just don't understand it, and so far I haven't heard one stated, let alone a convincing one. Various ideas were suggested: that the problem is that it happened in international water; that the current blockade is unjust to begin with; that blockade as a rule is unjust to begin with; that Israel is the aggressor in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and thus is automatically wrong until showing good will, etc. I've tried to explore each of these notions, and it's my belief that the person stating them eventually gave up on trying to articulate a consistent moral principle (if I misunderstood and my attempt at finding a historical parallel where the opposite judgement was made was unconvincing, please let me know). So, I'm at a loss. |
Imperial conquest belongs in a far gone era.
We are now in an era where border stability is maintained by International pressure. Sometimes, the International community see sense in modifying borders in order to maintain stability in a region.
In the case of Israel, the International community is withholding its agreement on the location of Israel's borders until it becomes part of a final settlement with its Arab neighbours.
When that time comes, stability and peace will be the most important issues and rights of conquest will not be very good bargaining chips.
That's why the policy of settlement and the location of the "Peace Wall" have become such hot topics. In particular, the massive building projects around Jerusalem.
It is felt that Israel is planning to use these during negotiations, far in the future, to cement its claim to these regions and say that shifting Israeli's back outside of occupied lands would represent inhumane hardship.
I don't believe Israel is actively seeking peace any time soon. They are too quick to return to war at the slightest provocation and are only too willing to break ceasefires.
Naturally, they must be seen to at least try, but I do not think the current powers-that-be in Israel are actually willing to make the sacrifices necessary to achieve it. Instead they are setting up their positions to strengthen their hand for future negotiations. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jack_Ian
Big Endian
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 15, 2010 9:45 pm Post subject: 276 |
|
|
Regarding "the Muhammad al-Durrah incident"
I think a likely scenario is that they were both pinned down by Israeli fire and were possibly injured but survived. Later after the footage was seen it was arranged to set the scene as if they were killed and then it was all edited together for broadcast. However that's all pure supposition on my part. If the truth was that they were killed by Israeli fire, I wouldn't be surprised. There does seem to be some weirdness concerning this report though and that's what makes me think it is somehow contrived.
Regarding the bullet holes: Nobody said that they were part of this particular skirmish. From footage I've seen of the area, there are hardly any walls without some bullet holes.
I looked at the footage and at the moment they were supposed to be killed, a large volume of dust was kicked up directly in front of them, as if automatic fire hit the ground. This could have caused lethal ricochets.
As to the truth? Who knows?
Certainly Israeli troops have earned the reputation of being trigger happy. And it's that reputation that lends itself to such PR disasters.
Someone I know, who was stationed in the Lebanon with the U.N. and was positioned close to an Israeli defensive position, told me that about once a week or so, the Israeli's would get spooked about something and would spray automatic fire in a circle around their location. God help anyone within range. Shoot first then ask questions later. His position regularly was fired upon in this manner and complaints through the U.N. command were ignored. "We have the right to defend ourselves" was the basic response. He thought they did it because they were bored and just wanted to shoot their weapons. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pablo
Never Draws a Blank
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 16, 2010 1:58 am Post subject: 277 |
|
|
Deleted
_________________
All religions are the same - Guilt....just with different holidays.
Last edited by Pablo on Wed Jun 16, 2010 2:08 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pablo
Never Draws a Blank
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 16, 2010 2:07 am Post subject: 278 |
|
|
| extro...* wrote: |
Evidence? Or just what Antrax said, because you accept everything Antrax says? Or perhaps:
| Quote: |
| He wants to believe a certain way, so he accepts things that support his view as true, even if they're unfounded. |
|
Evidence
_________________
All religions are the same - Guilt....just with different holidays. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
extro...*
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 16, 2010 4:40 am Post subject: 279 |
|
|
| Pablo wrote: |
| extro...* wrote: |
Evidence? Or just what Antrax said, because you accept everything Antrax says? Or perhaps:
| Quote: |
| He wants to believe a certain way, so he accepts things that support his view as true, even if they're unfounded. |
|
Evidence |
That's funny, because I was about to post the very same video. There are several theories. Two theories involve the boy having been killed (one claims Israeli culpability, the other Palestinian). The boys own father swears the boy is in his grave, and has said he would allow an exhumation. Yes, the other theory is that the entire event was staged, beginning to end, and that the boy never died.
In either case, the reason I brought it up was in response to your statement:
| Quote: |
| There are plenty of people who see Israel (with U.S. support) as the terrorist state rather than the victims. |
It is because of the many staged incidents like this (whether the staging involved the boy being killed or not) that some people see Israel as an aggressor.
And the reason I asked for evidence (which it took you time to dig up) was that you so readily accepted Antrax's word when he said I was mistaken, right after you had said:
| Quote: |
| He wants to believe a certain way, so he accepts things that support his view as true, even if they're unfounded. |
If the boy is alive, countless lives would have been saved by making that known. Many were killed to avenge that incident. He is still portrayed as a martyr in the Arab world.
If you want to know about Palestinian brainwashing of their own children to aspire to martyrdom, here's a good place to start: http://www.pmw.org.il/tv%20part1.html
Now, from the Israeli side, there's stuff like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8yTSEoIMO8Q
See a difference? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
extro...*
Guest
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You can reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
