i'm going to put this in debate, just because i figure there is the possibility of one breaking out. i'm not posing a debate though, just wondering if anyone here can shed some light that i can comprehend.
basically, i don't really get the deal with Palestine and Israel. i've never been in a history class that really addressed it so i've always been confused about all of it. it's frustrating to me to see stuff all over the news and feel like i don't have an opinion one way or the other becuase i don't get what is going on. i've been reading about it, but it's still confusing as hell.
i keep reading stuff that basically just says how they Palestinians got kicked out of their home, and they are pissed and want their land back. well...that doesn't seem that irrational to me. i would too, of course not enough that i'm ok with my kids and future generations dying over it but you know. so i guess lots of the stuff i read, i sorta agree with the Palestinians. then when i say that, people are like "NO, THEY ARE WRONG, ISRAEL IS OUR ALLY, NOT THEM. YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT"
so i guess i wanna know what i'm talking about. why do we favor Israel in this mess? am i just completely missing something in not understanding why Isreal is right and the Palestinians are wrong?
Full Version: israel/palestine questions
Palestine: A Short History
The area known as Palestine was originally set up by the British as the "British Mandate of Palestine" around 1920, and consisted of an area of land that once belonged to the now-defunct Ottoman Empire. The area bordered Egypy, Arabia (which no longer exists as a cohesive entity), Iraq, and Syria. It was basically an area setup for both Arabs and Jews to co-exist, since both of them had historical and religious ties to the area. The Mandate was organized by the now-defunct League of Nations. Immediately, there was opposition to the organization by the Jews, Arabs, and the United States.
Through the 20s and 30s, a number of Jews and Palestinian Arabs immigrated to the area. Initially, both groups co-existed more or less peacefully, but due to the growing rise of anti-Semitism in Europe (particularly from Germany), Jewish immigration rose markedly. This sparked occasional violence, mostly by Arabs against the Jewish population. By the time of World War II, there were revolts in the region by both the Arabs and the Jews.
The Mandate expired around the end of World War II, and Britain drew up plans for both an Arab and Jewish state (Jerusalem, an important city to both groups, would be under international control). This plan was met by resistance, particularly from the Arab League, a group of Arab states. However, in 1948, Israel declared itself an independent state; it was recognized by both the US and the USSR, but naturally the surrounding Arab countries did not recognize its independence. I'm going to summarize here, but basically, Israel was attacked by a number of Arab states seeking to take control of the land they would have received as part of the partitioning plan. Israel won the conflict, and in doing so, occupied not only the territory assigned to it, but the territory assigned to the Arabs as well. Since then there have been a number of related wars that have resulted in the acquisition of land for the Israelis, some of which has since been ceded back to various Arab states.
The conflict in this region is complicated, and I'm giving just a brief history. If you want more in-depth info, start with the Wikipedia articles on Palestine, the British Mandate on Palestine, and the Arab-Israeli conflict.
The Recent Conflict
The recent fighting was sparked by rocket attacks by Hamas on Israeli settlements. This situation is a bit complicated, but I'll try to summarize.
Basically, in order to assert its territorial claims, Israeli encourages the building of Jewish settlements in occupied and disputed regions, often displacing Arab populations in the process. Naturally this results in a lot of violence. In 2002, the Arab militant group Hamas began building homemade rockets (unguided missiles) and launching them at these settlements. Very few Israelis are actually killed in these rocket attacks, but they're more a psychological weapon than anything -- even if the chances of dying are slim, no one wants to live under the constant threat of rocket attacks.
After most rocket attacks, Israeli responds with military force. Israeli is much better at killing Arabs than vice-versa, particularly because Israeli is not against, e.g, bombing an entire apartment complex in order to kill one Arab leader. This often results in civilian deaths, but the exact numbers are a bit hazy, because Israeli doesn't allow reporters into conflict zones (particularly the Gaza Strip, which is the site of the most recent violence).
Until around 2006, the major Palestinian political party was Fatah, which also operates a paramilitary arm, but is a much more moderate party. Hamas, however, won representation in a landslide around 2006, and has been the dominant party ever since. Hamas is particularly brutal and violent. Naturally Israel was not happy with this result, and stepped up attacks against the Palestinians.
Furthermore, lately Hamas has gotten brazen and has launched rockets deeper into Israeli territory.
Why Do We Support Israel?
Because the Jews control everything. No, seriously. The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) is a major lobbying group in the US, and practically dictates foreign policy in regards to Israel. AIPAC is so powerful that no US politician has the balls to stand up to them. There are a lot more Jews in the US than Arabs, too.
Plus there's that whole Holocaust "thing". Since World War II, the Jewish leaders of Israeli have used the Holocaust to justify a number of actions, including the continuing conflict with the Palestinians. The Holocaust was terrible, no doubt, but isn't it ironic that the Israelis basically use it to justify the persecution of Palestinians?
So Who is Really the Bad Guy?
In my opinion, both sides are to blame.
Hamas is designated as a terror organization by the US, but this is largely because Hamas disagrees with US policy, and if you disagree with US policy, you're a terrorist. There is no doubt that Hamas does engage in terror, though; they regularly kill and maim Israeli civilians. Hamas even terrorizes its own citizens: it's known for kidnapping, torturing, and murdering members of other Palestinian political parties, particularly Fatah.
Israel, however, is no less a terrorist. They have no problem targeting Palestinian civilians, either. They've also done pretty terrible things: for example, Israeli often bulldozes the homes of families of Palestinian suicide bombers as retribution for their actions, and as noted above, Israeli routinely levels entire apartment complexes in order to kill one person. Israeli is also known for human rights abuses: they occasionally seal off entire Palestinian regions and prevent food, medicine, and other aid from reaching the citizens, all in the name of "fighting terror" (sound familiar?).
The real victims here are the average citizen. Israeli's military activities are unpopular to many Israelis, just as most Americans disagree with the war in Iraq. Likewise, most Palestinian Arabs are decent people who deplore the violence caused by their own people.
Hamas and the Israeli government have both taken advantage of their citizens, using them as pawns in a political game, as most governments do.
Anyway, that's the gist of the situation. There are a lot of nuances and details which I have chosen to skip over, but I'll happily supply more information as the discussion progresses.
The area known as Palestine was originally set up by the British as the "British Mandate of Palestine" around 1920, and consisted of an area of land that once belonged to the now-defunct Ottoman Empire. The area bordered Egypy, Arabia (which no longer exists as a cohesive entity), Iraq, and Syria. It was basically an area setup for both Arabs and Jews to co-exist, since both of them had historical and religious ties to the area. The Mandate was organized by the now-defunct League of Nations. Immediately, there was opposition to the organization by the Jews, Arabs, and the United States.
Through the 20s and 30s, a number of Jews and Palestinian Arabs immigrated to the area. Initially, both groups co-existed more or less peacefully, but due to the growing rise of anti-Semitism in Europe (particularly from Germany), Jewish immigration rose markedly. This sparked occasional violence, mostly by Arabs against the Jewish population. By the time of World War II, there were revolts in the region by both the Arabs and the Jews.
The Mandate expired around the end of World War II, and Britain drew up plans for both an Arab and Jewish state (Jerusalem, an important city to both groups, would be under international control). This plan was met by resistance, particularly from the Arab League, a group of Arab states. However, in 1948, Israel declared itself an independent state; it was recognized by both the US and the USSR, but naturally the surrounding Arab countries did not recognize its independence. I'm going to summarize here, but basically, Israel was attacked by a number of Arab states seeking to take control of the land they would have received as part of the partitioning plan. Israel won the conflict, and in doing so, occupied not only the territory assigned to it, but the territory assigned to the Arabs as well. Since then there have been a number of related wars that have resulted in the acquisition of land for the Israelis, some of which has since been ceded back to various Arab states.
The conflict in this region is complicated, and I'm giving just a brief history. If you want more in-depth info, start with the Wikipedia articles on Palestine, the British Mandate on Palestine, and the Arab-Israeli conflict.
The Recent Conflict
The recent fighting was sparked by rocket attacks by Hamas on Israeli settlements. This situation is a bit complicated, but I'll try to summarize.
Basically, in order to assert its territorial claims, Israeli encourages the building of Jewish settlements in occupied and disputed regions, often displacing Arab populations in the process. Naturally this results in a lot of violence. In 2002, the Arab militant group Hamas began building homemade rockets (unguided missiles) and launching them at these settlements. Very few Israelis are actually killed in these rocket attacks, but they're more a psychological weapon than anything -- even if the chances of dying are slim, no one wants to live under the constant threat of rocket attacks.
After most rocket attacks, Israeli responds with military force. Israeli is much better at killing Arabs than vice-versa, particularly because Israeli is not against, e.g, bombing an entire apartment complex in order to kill one Arab leader. This often results in civilian deaths, but the exact numbers are a bit hazy, because Israeli doesn't allow reporters into conflict zones (particularly the Gaza Strip, which is the site of the most recent violence).
Until around 2006, the major Palestinian political party was Fatah, which also operates a paramilitary arm, but is a much more moderate party. Hamas, however, won representation in a landslide around 2006, and has been the dominant party ever since. Hamas is particularly brutal and violent. Naturally Israel was not happy with this result, and stepped up attacks against the Palestinians.
Furthermore, lately Hamas has gotten brazen and has launched rockets deeper into Israeli territory.
Why Do We Support Israel?
Because the Jews control everything. No, seriously. The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) is a major lobbying group in the US, and practically dictates foreign policy in regards to Israel. AIPAC is so powerful that no US politician has the balls to stand up to them. There are a lot more Jews in the US than Arabs, too.
Plus there's that whole Holocaust "thing". Since World War II, the Jewish leaders of Israeli have used the Holocaust to justify a number of actions, including the continuing conflict with the Palestinians. The Holocaust was terrible, no doubt, but isn't it ironic that the Israelis basically use it to justify the persecution of Palestinians?
So Who is Really the Bad Guy?
In my opinion, both sides are to blame.
Hamas is designated as a terror organization by the US, but this is largely because Hamas disagrees with US policy, and if you disagree with US policy, you're a terrorist. There is no doubt that Hamas does engage in terror, though; they regularly kill and maim Israeli civilians. Hamas even terrorizes its own citizens: it's known for kidnapping, torturing, and murdering members of other Palestinian political parties, particularly Fatah.
Israel, however, is no less a terrorist. They have no problem targeting Palestinian civilians, either. They've also done pretty terrible things: for example, Israeli often bulldozes the homes of families of Palestinian suicide bombers as retribution for their actions, and as noted above, Israeli routinely levels entire apartment complexes in order to kill one person. Israeli is also known for human rights abuses: they occasionally seal off entire Palestinian regions and prevent food, medicine, and other aid from reaching the citizens, all in the name of "fighting terror" (sound familiar?).
The real victims here are the average citizen. Israeli's military activities are unpopular to many Israelis, just as most Americans disagree with the war in Iraq. Likewise, most Palestinian Arabs are decent people who deplore the violence caused by their own people.
Hamas and the Israeli government have both taken advantage of their citizens, using them as pawns in a political game, as most governments do.
Anyway, that's the gist of the situation. There are a lot of nuances and details which I have chosen to skip over, but I'll happily supply more information as the discussion progresses.
QUOTE(mipadi @ Jan 4 2009, 08:47 PM) 
Plus there's that whole Holocaust "thing". Since World War II, the Jewish leaders of Israeli have used the Holocaust to justify a number of actions, including the continuing conflict with the Palestinians. The Holocaust was terrible, no doubt, but isn't it ironic that the Israelis basically use it to justify the persecution of Palestinians?
That's what gets me about the whole thing. So hypocritical.
I feel like this: The United States should just mind their damn business. President Clinton worked hard for 8 years to broker some sort of peace between the two nations, only for bush to come a long and f*ck it up. I side with Palestine, but Israel has a point as well. My feeling is that the oppression of the Palestinian people, is what makes them act out in such ways that are detrimental to their progress.
I'm not a big buff on the Israeli/Palestine conflict, but we briefly discussed it in one of my classes.
So.. this is just from my knowledge and research.
The History:
At one point in time, there was no conflict occurring in the land of Palestine, which used to be occupied solely by Palestinians. However, time passed, and by 1948 two groups of people, the Israelis and the Palestinians, had began to battle over the land and their culture. Both the Israelis and Palestinians inhabit the same land and yet live among each other with complete disrespect and contempt. The main contributing factors to the conflict in Israel are; the land, which is considered holy by both groups, and the lack of respect by each group for each other and their culture.
According to history, during the 19th century, Palestinian Arabs occupied the land and lived in harmony. However, this changed around 1947 when United Nations allowed the Israelis to engage in a conquest for the Palestinian land. This action was strange, considering that the Israelis only made up about 30 percent of the population and owned fewer than seven percent of the land. Despite their diminutive stature, between 1947 and 1949, war broke out ending in the Israeli forces conquering 78 percent of Palestine, destroying 500 towns and villages. The Israelis called this conflict The War of Independence, while the Palestinians dubbed it The Catastrophe. As a result of the war, around three quarters of a million Palestinians were put into refugee camps and Israelis began drawing up a new map with new cities under Hebrew names. The Israelis began their efforts to erase all of Palestine, stretching so far as to deny the existence of the Palestinian population. Records show “Golda Meir once saying: ‘There is no such thing as a Palestinian.’” Later, during 1967 after the six day war, Israeli forces initiated a surprise attack on Egypt. This attack resulted in the Israelis conquering the remaining 22 percent of Palestine, known as the West Bank and Gaza Strip. However, there in an international law which states that a party is unable to acquire land by war. Therefore, this land remains as occupied territory, not bound to Israel. These issues of the past have compounded themselves and continue to present trouble today. Currently, Palestinians face two serious problems. First, the refugees who were detained years ago from the war are unable to return to their homeland, which is now a “Jewish State.” Second, the Israel’s military privately owns Israeli Settlements in parts of West Bank and Gaza Strip, the same land that the Oslo peace accords of 1993 granted Palestinian State.
The conflict:
The land, and its cultural significance, is the root of all conflict between the Palestinians and Israelis. The Palestinians feel that since they were the first people on the land, the land must be theirs, while the Israelis believe that God gave them the land and it rightfully belongs to them. Thus, both parties face a massive dilemma as they struggle for ownership of the land. This animosity continues to strengthen as the inhabitants are forced to work and live within boundaries.
Another result of the battle for land was the Intifada, otherwise known as the Palestinian Uprising, which was born in the refugee camps. The heroes were the Palestinian youth using only stones as their weapons. Palestinian refugee camps are considered very dangerous and it is unwise for an Israeli to even come near one. The land conflict turned the children of both countries into murderers and victims of murder.
I mean... that doesn't even put a dent into the issue, but it is some main points.
I think a big part of the problem is that both sides are not willing to accept each other. Both the Israelis and the Palestinians quarrel with each other over land, existence, culture, and intelligence. However, if both groups push their ignorance aside and try to get along, it would not be as hard as they believe. Accusing a party of lack of culture or intelligence is not a logical allegation considering that both of them are very cultivated and articulate. It is also ridiculous to dislike each other over existence considering that they should be able to live together in a diverse world just as every other country does. Lastly, no matter who occupies the land, they are both going to be living there. It seems that neither race is going to give up this battle, and until they take care of the matter, the only other thing that can be done is learning to live with each other or using a two state solution.
By the way; if you are looking for a good movie about the topic... I found the movie Promises really helpful. It was interesting because it is a documentary about how the Palestinian and Israeli feel about what is going on and their take on things.
So.. this is just from my knowledge and research.
The History:
At one point in time, there was no conflict occurring in the land of Palestine, which used to be occupied solely by Palestinians. However, time passed, and by 1948 two groups of people, the Israelis and the Palestinians, had began to battle over the land and their culture. Both the Israelis and Palestinians inhabit the same land and yet live among each other with complete disrespect and contempt. The main contributing factors to the conflict in Israel are; the land, which is considered holy by both groups, and the lack of respect by each group for each other and their culture.
According to history, during the 19th century, Palestinian Arabs occupied the land and lived in harmony. However, this changed around 1947 when United Nations allowed the Israelis to engage in a conquest for the Palestinian land. This action was strange, considering that the Israelis only made up about 30 percent of the population and owned fewer than seven percent of the land. Despite their diminutive stature, between 1947 and 1949, war broke out ending in the Israeli forces conquering 78 percent of Palestine, destroying 500 towns and villages. The Israelis called this conflict The War of Independence, while the Palestinians dubbed it The Catastrophe. As a result of the war, around three quarters of a million Palestinians were put into refugee camps and Israelis began drawing up a new map with new cities under Hebrew names. The Israelis began their efforts to erase all of Palestine, stretching so far as to deny the existence of the Palestinian population. Records show “Golda Meir once saying: ‘There is no such thing as a Palestinian.’” Later, during 1967 after the six day war, Israeli forces initiated a surprise attack on Egypt. This attack resulted in the Israelis conquering the remaining 22 percent of Palestine, known as the West Bank and Gaza Strip. However, there in an international law which states that a party is unable to acquire land by war. Therefore, this land remains as occupied territory, not bound to Israel. These issues of the past have compounded themselves and continue to present trouble today. Currently, Palestinians face two serious problems. First, the refugees who were detained years ago from the war are unable to return to their homeland, which is now a “Jewish State.” Second, the Israel’s military privately owns Israeli Settlements in parts of West Bank and Gaza Strip, the same land that the Oslo peace accords of 1993 granted Palestinian State.
The conflict:
The land, and its cultural significance, is the root of all conflict between the Palestinians and Israelis. The Palestinians feel that since they were the first people on the land, the land must be theirs, while the Israelis believe that God gave them the land and it rightfully belongs to them. Thus, both parties face a massive dilemma as they struggle for ownership of the land. This animosity continues to strengthen as the inhabitants are forced to work and live within boundaries.
Another result of the battle for land was the Intifada, otherwise known as the Palestinian Uprising, which was born in the refugee camps. The heroes were the Palestinian youth using only stones as their weapons. Palestinian refugee camps are considered very dangerous and it is unwise for an Israeli to even come near one. The land conflict turned the children of both countries into murderers and victims of murder.
I mean... that doesn't even put a dent into the issue, but it is some main points.
I think a big part of the problem is that both sides are not willing to accept each other. Both the Israelis and the Palestinians quarrel with each other over land, existence, culture, and intelligence. However, if both groups push their ignorance aside and try to get along, it would not be as hard as they believe. Accusing a party of lack of culture or intelligence is not a logical allegation considering that both of them are very cultivated and articulate. It is also ridiculous to dislike each other over existence considering that they should be able to live together in a diverse world just as every other country does. Lastly, no matter who occupies the land, they are both going to be living there. It seems that neither race is going to give up this battle, and until they take care of the matter, the only other thing that can be done is learning to live with each other or using a two state solution.
By the way; if you are looking for a good movie about the topic... I found the movie Promises really helpful. It was interesting because it is a documentary about how the Palestinian and Israeli feel about what is going on and their take on things.
QUOTE(mipadi @ Jan 4 2009, 09:47 PM)
Palestine: A Short History
The Recent Conflict
Why Do We Support Israel?
So Who is Really the Bad Guy?
The Recent Conflict
Why Do We Support Israel?
So Who is Really the Bad Guy?
thanks, a lot. that was a lot easier to understand than the majority of stuff i've read. i'm going to have to think over and read more stuff, and then hopefully i'll have more to add. i hope this thread's discussion will continue
oh yeah, it seems to me like our support of Israel hurts us more than it helps us. aside from the AIPAC being satisfied i guess.
edit:
QUOTE(elbaliava @ Jan 4 2009, 10:25 PM)
By the way; if you are looking for a good movie about the topic... I found the movie Promises really helpful. It was interesting because it is a documentary about how the Palestinian and Israeli feel about what is going on and their take on things.[/size]
i might check this out, thanks.
Erm, while writing that I forgot to add that the movie Promises is about the Israeli and Palestinian children. The children talk about the problems. I think that it is kind of sided since, at such youth, I would figure they mainly speak of what their parents are saying and just mimic that.... But it is still really good information. It got me interested in the topic and I began to understand it more.
I am going to look for the movie too. To me, Israel is just being a big bully in the matter. I really don't think that they needed to react the way they did. It only makes them look worse by not letting humanitarian aid into Gaza.
QUOTE(brooklyneast05 @ Jan 4 2009, 09:32 PM)
oh yeah, it seems to me like our support of Israel hurts us more than it helps us. aside from the AIPAC being satisfied i guess.
Probably. In fact, our support of Israel is at least partially responsible for our problems with Iran, Iraq, and other Middle Eastern nations. But AIPAC is powerful.
Moreover, the American media is powerful, and the American media generally paints Israel in a positive light, and basically describes Palestinians as "evil". Seriously, take a serious look at most AP articles -- you'll regularly see a condemnation of Palestine, and a portrayal of Israel as a victim. Most AP articles basically boil down to "Poor Israel, they were attacked unprovoked by the evil Arabs again, and now they are forced to defend their homeland."
If you're really interested in finding out more, check out Noam Chomsky's writings on the Arab-Israeli conflict. He even co-wrote a great book called Manufacturing Consent that deals with the media influence, too. (Manufacturing Consent deals more with the media than the Arab-Israeli conflict, though.)
QUOTE(mipadi @ Jan 4 2009, 08:47 PM)
Palestine: A Short History
The area known as Palestine was originally set up by the British as the "British Mandate of Palestine" around 1920, and consisted of an area of land that once belonged to the now-defunct Ottoman Empire. The area bordered Egypy, Arabia (which no longer exists as a cohesive entity), Iraq, and Syria. It was basically an area setup for both Arabs and Jews to co-exist, since both of them had historical and religious ties to the area. The Mandate was organized by the now-defunct League of Nations. Immediately, there was opposition to the organization by the Jews, Arabs, and the United States.
Through the 20s and 30s, a number of Jews and Palestinian Arabs immigrated to the area. Initially, both groups co-existed more or less peacefully, but due to the growing rise of anti-Semitism in Europe (particularly from Germany), Jewish immigration rose markedly. This sparked occasional violence, mostly by Arabs against the Jewish population. By the time of World War II, there were revolts in the region by both the Arabs and the Jews.
The Mandate expired around the end of World War II, and Britain drew up plans for both an Arab and Jewish state (Jerusalem, an important city to both groups, would be under international control). This plan was met by resistance, particularly from the Arab League, a group of Arab states. However, in 1948, Israel declared itself an independent state; it was recognized by both the US and the USSR, but naturally the surrounding Arab countries did not recognize its independence. I'm going to summarize here, but basically, Israel was attacked by a number of Arab states seeking to take control of the land they would have received as part of the partitioning plan. Israel won the conflict, and in doing so, occupied not only the territory assigned to it, but the territory assigned to the Arabs as well. Since then there have been a number of related wars that have resulted in the acquisition of land for the Israelis, some of which has since been ceded back to various Arab states.
The conflict in this region is complicated, and I'm giving just a brief history. If you want more in-depth info, start with the Wikipedia articles on Palestine, the British Mandate on Palestine, and the Arab-Israeli conflict.
The Recent Conflict
The recent fighting was sparked by rocket attacks by Hamas on Israeli settlements. This situation is a bit complicated, but I'll try to summarize.
Basically, in order to assert its territorial claims, Israeli encourages the building of Jewish settlements in occupied and disputed regions, often displacing Arab populations in the process. Naturally this results in a lot of violence. In 2002, the Arab militant group Hamas began building homemade rockets (unguided missiles) and launching them at these settlements. Very few Israelis are actually killed in these rocket attacks, but they're more a psychological weapon than anything -- even if the chances of dying are slim, no one wants to live under the constant threat of rocket attacks.
After most rocket attacks, Israeli responds with military force. Israeli is much better at killing Arabs than vice-versa, particularly because Israeli is not against, e.g, bombing an entire apartment complex in order to kill one Arab leader. This often results in civilian deaths, but the exact numbers are a bit hazy, because Israeli doesn't allow reporters into conflict zones (particularly the Gaza Strip, which is the site of the most recent violence).
Until around 2006, the major Palestinian political party was Fatah, which also operates a paramilitary arm, but is a much more moderate party. Hamas, however, won representation in a landslide around 2006, and has been the dominant party ever since. Hamas is particularly brutal and violent. Naturally Israel was not happy with this result, and stepped up attacks against the Palestinians.
Furthermore, lately Hamas has gotten brazen and has launched rockets deeper into Israeli territory.
Why Do We Support Israel?
Because the Jews control everything. No, seriously. The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) is a major lobbying group in the US, and practically dictates foreign policy in regards to Israel. AIPAC is so powerful that no US politician has the balls to stand up to them. There are a lot more Jews in the US than Arabs, too.
Plus there's that whole Holocaust "thing". Since World War II, the Jewish leaders of Israeli have used the Holocaust to justify a number of actions, including the continuing conflict with the Palestinians. The Holocaust was terrible, no doubt, but isn't it ironic that the Israelis basically use it to justify the persecution of Palestinians?
So Who is Really the Bad Guy?
In my opinion, both sides are to blame.
Hamas is designated as a terror organization by the US, but this is largely because Hamas disagrees with US policy, and if you disagree with US policy, you're a terrorist. There is no doubt that Hamas does engage in terror, though; they regularly kill and maim Israeli civilians. Hamas even terrorizes its own citizens: it's known for kidnapping, torturing, and murdering members of other Palestinian political parties, particularly Fatah.
Israel, however, is no less a terrorist. They have no problem targeting Palestinian civilians, either. They've also done pretty terrible things: for example, Israeli often bulldozes the homes of families of Palestinian suicide bombers as retribution for their actions, and as noted above, Israeli routinely levels entire apartment complexes in order to kill one person. Israeli is also known for human rights abuses: they occasionally seal off entire Palestinian regions and prevent food, medicine, and other aid from reaching the citizens, all in the name of "fighting terror" (sound familiar?).
The real victims here are the average citizen. Israeli's military activities are unpopular to many Israelis, just as most Americans disagree with the war in Iraq. Likewise, most Palestinian Arabs are decent people who deplore the violence caused by their own people.
Hamas and the Israeli government have both taken advantage of their citizens, using them as pawns in a political game, as most governments do.
Anyway, that's the gist of the situation. There are a lot of nuances and details which I have chosen to skip over, but I'll happily supply more information as the discussion progresses.
The area known as Palestine was originally set up by the British as the "British Mandate of Palestine" around 1920, and consisted of an area of land that once belonged to the now-defunct Ottoman Empire. The area bordered Egypy, Arabia (which no longer exists as a cohesive entity), Iraq, and Syria. It was basically an area setup for both Arabs and Jews to co-exist, since both of them had historical and religious ties to the area. The Mandate was organized by the now-defunct League of Nations. Immediately, there was opposition to the organization by the Jews, Arabs, and the United States.
Through the 20s and 30s, a number of Jews and Palestinian Arabs immigrated to the area. Initially, both groups co-existed more or less peacefully, but due to the growing rise of anti-Semitism in Europe (particularly from Germany), Jewish immigration rose markedly. This sparked occasional violence, mostly by Arabs against the Jewish population. By the time of World War II, there were revolts in the region by both the Arabs and the Jews.
The Mandate expired around the end of World War II, and Britain drew up plans for both an Arab and Jewish state (Jerusalem, an important city to both groups, would be under international control). This plan was met by resistance, particularly from the Arab League, a group of Arab states. However, in 1948, Israel declared itself an independent state; it was recognized by both the US and the USSR, but naturally the surrounding Arab countries did not recognize its independence. I'm going to summarize here, but basically, Israel was attacked by a number of Arab states seeking to take control of the land they would have received as part of the partitioning plan. Israel won the conflict, and in doing so, occupied not only the territory assigned to it, but the territory assigned to the Arabs as well. Since then there have been a number of related wars that have resulted in the acquisition of land for the Israelis, some of which has since been ceded back to various Arab states.
The conflict in this region is complicated, and I'm giving just a brief history. If you want more in-depth info, start with the Wikipedia articles on Palestine, the British Mandate on Palestine, and the Arab-Israeli conflict.
The Recent Conflict
The recent fighting was sparked by rocket attacks by Hamas on Israeli settlements. This situation is a bit complicated, but I'll try to summarize.
Basically, in order to assert its territorial claims, Israeli encourages the building of Jewish settlements in occupied and disputed regions, often displacing Arab populations in the process. Naturally this results in a lot of violence. In 2002, the Arab militant group Hamas began building homemade rockets (unguided missiles) and launching them at these settlements. Very few Israelis are actually killed in these rocket attacks, but they're more a psychological weapon than anything -- even if the chances of dying are slim, no one wants to live under the constant threat of rocket attacks.
After most rocket attacks, Israeli responds with military force. Israeli is much better at killing Arabs than vice-versa, particularly because Israeli is not against, e.g, bombing an entire apartment complex in order to kill one Arab leader. This often results in civilian deaths, but the exact numbers are a bit hazy, because Israeli doesn't allow reporters into conflict zones (particularly the Gaza Strip, which is the site of the most recent violence).
Until around 2006, the major Palestinian political party was Fatah, which also operates a paramilitary arm, but is a much more moderate party. Hamas, however, won representation in a landslide around 2006, and has been the dominant party ever since. Hamas is particularly brutal and violent. Naturally Israel was not happy with this result, and stepped up attacks against the Palestinians.
Furthermore, lately Hamas has gotten brazen and has launched rockets deeper into Israeli territory.
Why Do We Support Israel?
Because the Jews control everything. No, seriously. The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) is a major lobbying group in the US, and practically dictates foreign policy in regards to Israel. AIPAC is so powerful that no US politician has the balls to stand up to them. There are a lot more Jews in the US than Arabs, too.
Plus there's that whole Holocaust "thing". Since World War II, the Jewish leaders of Israeli have used the Holocaust to justify a number of actions, including the continuing conflict with the Palestinians. The Holocaust was terrible, no doubt, but isn't it ironic that the Israelis basically use it to justify the persecution of Palestinians?
So Who is Really the Bad Guy?
In my opinion, both sides are to blame.
Hamas is designated as a terror organization by the US, but this is largely because Hamas disagrees with US policy, and if you disagree with US policy, you're a terrorist. There is no doubt that Hamas does engage in terror, though; they regularly kill and maim Israeli civilians. Hamas even terrorizes its own citizens: it's known for kidnapping, torturing, and murdering members of other Palestinian political parties, particularly Fatah.
Israel, however, is no less a terrorist. They have no problem targeting Palestinian civilians, either. They've also done pretty terrible things: for example, Israeli often bulldozes the homes of families of Palestinian suicide bombers as retribution for their actions, and as noted above, Israeli routinely levels entire apartment complexes in order to kill one person. Israeli is also known for human rights abuses: they occasionally seal off entire Palestinian regions and prevent food, medicine, and other aid from reaching the citizens, all in the name of "fighting terror" (sound familiar?).
The real victims here are the average citizen. Israeli's military activities are unpopular to many Israelis, just as most Americans disagree with the war in Iraq. Likewise, most Palestinian Arabs are decent people who deplore the violence caused by their own people.
Hamas and the Israeli government have both taken advantage of their citizens, using them as pawns in a political game, as most governments do.
Anyway, that's the gist of the situation. There are a lot of nuances and details which I have chosen to skip over, but I'll happily supply more information as the discussion progresses.
This is probably the most helpful/informative thing I've read in awhile.
Anyways, there was a demonstration in my city that I was invited to attend a couple of days ago that supposedly was a rally for peace in Gaza, but my mother and stepfather felt uncomfortable in the situation. When asked which side it supported I first said it was probably pro-Israel, but once I found it was actually pro-Palestinian I was very much not allowed to attend.
It bothers me how biased even my family is towards the Palestinians. I remember a couple years ago when the one leader died (shit, I can't recall his name) I was quite upset; my mother thought I was crazy.
I don't know, it's probably just because my step-dad's a Jew that I wasn't allowed to go.
IM JEWISH! (No, i never read any of the posts)
QUOTE(JosephCohen123 @ Jan 7 2009, 09:02 PM)
IM JEWISH! (No, i never read any of the posts)
so what
The only way to define what's been going on these past 20 days is genocide.
Innocent Palestinian civilans (key word: innocent) are being murdered. And for what? Living in a country that is rightfully theirs.
"Israel" shouldn't even exist as a state, the British were the ones who sent the Jews to live in a land that wasn't even theirs to give.
Zionists are claiming something that simply doesn't belong to them.
It's not the Jews that many people are angry at, it's the Zionists.
Innocent Palestinian civilans (key word: innocent) are being murdered. And for what? Living in a country that is rightfully theirs.
"Israel" shouldn't even exist as a state, the British were the ones who sent the Jews to live in a land that wasn't even theirs to give.
Zionists are claiming something that simply doesn't belong to them.
It's not the Jews that many people are angry at, it's the Zionists.
Like innocent Israeli's haven't been killed either? Puhlease. I hate when people assume it's all Israel. They are finally doing something about the terrorism that Hamas brings to them, non-stop. I've personally spoken to many Israeli's, all soldiers (current and already served) and NONE of them want this war to go on any longer. None of them enjoy killing others, especially civillians but they aren't going to sit around while Hamas gets off on killing them and having public attacks that target civilians. That is the difference between Hamas and Israel. They go for innocent people, as much damage as possible. Israel targets militia, which happens to be hidden in civilian populated areas. ON PURPOSE. Hamas doesn't care if they lose innocent people, that is why they choose bases in schools and public areas.
This is such a difficult topic for ANYONE to argue if they aren't Israeli or Palestinian so I wish ya'll would stop talking out of your asses and believe everything Fox news brings you.
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=47301551750
This is such a difficult topic for ANYONE to argue if they aren't Israeli or Palestinian so I wish ya'll would stop talking out of your asses and believe everything Fox news brings you.
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=47301551750
In my opinion, Israel is totally justified in what they are doing. Palestine is always saying that they want to wipe out all of the Jews on the planet, posting posters and teaching their children that it is glorious to be a suicide bomber, even dressing their children up in suicide bombers outfits. That's just disgusting. Then, one fine day, Palestine decides to start to start shooting some missiles at Israel. Israel even gives them a few days grace period until Israel will start shooting back at them. I mean, what are they supposed to do, stand by and watch while Palestine tries to wipe them off the face of the earth? And to be honest, Israel is being very careful not to harm innocent civilians. But when a Palestinian bomber surrounds himself with women and children ALL THE TIME, there has to be some consequences. And to surround yourself with women and children so you won't get shot, to me that is absolute cowardice. To me, Palestine is acting just like a small dog who keeps on bugging a bigger dog, until the bigger dog has decided it has had quite enough of being harassed by the smaller dog, and decides to make it understand that it just wants to be left alone. And then, the smaller dog runs away, whimpering and cowering against it's owner, who then beats up the bigger dog.
I have asked my mom about this issue, because I am also trying to understand it. I got this video in an email from my next door neighbor. Maybe it will help you. Once I connected the things my mom told me and the video I had a clearer picture but Im still going to look into it further. Im not sure exactly how accurate or reliable this video is tho.
http://fun.mivzakon.co.il/flash/video/2664/2664.html
http://fun.mivzakon.co.il/flash/video/2664/2664.html
^in the intro part of the vid theres a guy standing in the crowd that I know.
Today my dad who is in isreal was on his way to a meeting with some imortant isrealies and the place they were meeting at was hit by some missiles 30 mins before they got there. Im glad my dad is ok.
Today my dad who is in isreal was on his way to a meeting with some imortant isrealies and the place they were meeting at was hit by some missiles 30 mins before they got there. Im glad my dad is ok.
QUOTE(mipadi @ Jan 4 2009, 08:47 PM)
Palestine: A Short History
The Recent Conflict
The recent fighting was sparked by rocket attacks by Hamas on Israeli settlements.
The Recent Conflict
The recent fighting was sparked by rocket attacks by Hamas on Israeli settlements.
Really? I thought this was propaganda because the washington post and new york times and dick cheney are all jew, I thought the conflict erupted because Barack Obama is coming into power
and Israel wanted to start conflict before Obama had a chance to do anything. Or at least, that was what I thought
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7835981.stm
So much for the 'Cease Fire.' Firing rockets in retaliation certainly doesn't make Israel look like a guilty party after they call for a 'Cease Fire.'
So much for the 'Cease Fire.' Firing rockets in retaliation certainly doesn't make Israel look like a guilty party after they call for a 'Cease Fire.'
QUOTE(WarMachine @ Jan 18 2009, 03:32 AM)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7835981.stm
So much for the 'Cease Fire.' Firing rockets in retaliation certainly doesn't make Israel look like a guilty party after they call for a 'Cease Fire.'
So much for the 'Cease Fire.' Firing rockets in retaliation certainly doesn't make Israel look like a guilty party after they call for a 'Cease Fire.'
Really though! Sometimes you just have to wonder why they even try to have a cease fire anyway when you know it's going to be broken like five seconds later.
people never seem to realize that without a legitimate military, it's very hard to fight a war:
whereas israel has armored tanks (provided by world governments), palestine has nothing.
whereas israel has armored tanks (provided by world governments), palestine has nothing.
QUOTE(NoSex @ Jan 18 2009, 04:11 PM)
people never seem to realize that without a legitimate military, it's very hard to fight a war:
whereas israel has armored tanks (provided by world governments), palestine has nothing.
whereas israel has armored tanks (provided by world governments), palestine has nothing.
That is a valid point, but I also feel as though Hamas should live up to it's part of the bargain as well. You can't go forwards unless you go backwards first.
QUOTE(DoubleJ @ Jan 18 2009, 03:31 PM)
That is a valid point, but I also feel as though Hamas should live up to it's part of the bargain as well. You can't go forwards unless you go backwards first.
neither parties truly want to go forward; that's my summation of the true climate of the area.
israel has the holy land (pretty much), and insofar as they maintain political dominance & world sympathies, they will forever hold the "holy land." the palestinians want the same exact thing, they just know they won't get it... because, they simply do not have world sympathy. in fact, the entire world is against them... &, don't confuse it... that's the heart of western world's problem with the middle east. of course, they don't hate us for our freedom. they hate us because we deny aid, we aid, exclusively, their enemy, and ignore the war crimes committed by their enemies (both against them & ourselves).
if you ever wanted an explanation for the events of sept. 11, you won't have to look too much further than the sole american support of the state of israel.
QUOTE(NoSex @ Jan 18 2009, 04:39 PM)
neither parties truly want to go forward; that's my summation of the true climate of the area.
israel has the holy land (pretty much), and insofar as they maintain political dominance & world sympathies, they will forever hold the "holy land." the palestinians want the same exact thing, they just know they won't get it... because, they simply do not have world sympathy. in fact, the entire world is against them... &, don't confuse it... that's the heart of western world's problem with the middle east. of course, they don't hate us for our freedom. they hate us because we deny aid, we aid, exclusively, their enemy, and ignore the war crimes committed by their enemies (both against them & ourselves).
if you ever wanted an explanation for the events of sept. 11, you won't have to look too much further than the sole american support of the state of israel.
israel has the holy land (pretty much), and insofar as they maintain political dominance & world sympathies, they will forever hold the "holy land." the palestinians want the same exact thing, they just know they won't get it... because, they simply do not have world sympathy. in fact, the entire world is against them... &, don't confuse it... that's the heart of western world's problem with the middle east. of course, they don't hate us for our freedom. they hate us because we deny aid, we aid, exclusively, their enemy, and ignore the war crimes committed by their enemies (both against them & ourselves).
if you ever wanted an explanation for the events of sept. 11, you won't have to look too much further than the sole american support of the state of israel.
I have always maintained that one of the reasons for 9-11 was Americas silly support of Israel. I feel as though the US should just stay out of Israels business, and let them deal with it the way that they must. To me the problem is that the media always makes it seem as though Americans must feel sympathetic of Israel, and support them, because they are our "Only Middle Eastern Ally." That statement is simply not true.
It would take a certain degree of moral ineptitude to suggest that the slaughter in Manhattan would have been spared if only the United States had severed its ties with Israel. The cadres of jihad make it obvious that their quarrel is with secularism in principality, not just with Zionism. If you've studied the Qur'an and the Hadith in their native tongues, as I have, you would know that the incentive for opposition to anything above religious fascism is intolerable to Allah. Ayaan Hirsi Ali can tell you all about it. Or did the AIS kill civilians in Algeria because they had a disagreement with their government's international relationships, too?
As for the assault on Gaza, it could not have come at a more unfortunate time, so coincidentally before the impending February Israeli election and the month where new elections for the Palestinian Authority have to be called by President Abbas.
As for the assault on Gaza, it could not have come at a more unfortunate time, so coincidentally before the impending February Israeli election and the month where new elections for the Palestinian Authority have to be called by President Abbas.
QUOTE(Reidar @ Jan 18 2009, 08:55 PM)
It would take a certain degree of moral ineptitude to suggest that the slaughter in Manhattan would have been spared if only the United States had severed its ties with Israel.
<--- amoralist.
QUOTE(Reidar @ Jan 18 2009, 08:55 PM)
The cadres of jihad make it obvious that their quarrel is with secularism in principality, not just with Zionism.
like everyone in the entire world has a problem with secularism... but if the secularists were giving them bombs to fight jews, honestly, i think they could turn the other cheek cause... it's not like a vast majority of the jihad fanaticism isn't political. the people pulling the strings are far more concerned about politics than they are any number of virgins in the sky.
QUOTE(NoSex @ Jan 18 2009, 11:00 PM)
<--- amoralist.
Morality is an innate trait, the conscious form of altruism seen at the level of genes, evolved as a way to facilitate cooperation among groups. It is inescapable in its inherent application. By stating moral impartiality, you are making a moral decision.
QUOTE
like everyone in the entire world has a problem with secularism... but if the secularists were giving them bombs to fight jews, honestly, i think they could turn the other cheek cause... it's not like a vast majority of the jihad fanaticism isn't political. the people pulling the strings are far more concerned about politics than they are any number of virgins in the sky.
This is tautological because their politics are not apportioned from their faith. There would be no other incentive to drive their politics if it weren't for the trespassing of holy lands and ideologies. The American Empire, as it assuredly is, cannot coexist peacefully with the aspirations of Islamic imperialism.
And if that was all it took to quell their anxieties so they could "turn the other cheek" - an even footing against their religious (which leads to the geopolitical elements, for these territorial disputes are defined first and foremost by ideological incompatibility) nemesis, granted by said adversary's willing ally in order to even the playing field - then jihad would be much more isolated, focused, and direct than it is and has been. What did the slain Buddhist monks of southern Thailand do to invoke the wrath of insurgents? Were they, too, in cohorts with the Jews?
QUOTE(Reidar @ Jan 18 2009, 11:00 PM)
Morality is an innate trait, the conscious form of altruism seen at the level of genes, evolved as a way to facilitate cooperation among groups. It is inescapable in its inherent application. By stating moral impartiality, you are making a moral decision.
oh please. if our "moral character" is purely genetic (which is an argument i sympathize & agree with almost entirely), than our so-called "moral character" would fail to resemble anything, philosophically, moral. morality, if not a choice, if not characterized by normative language, if not metaphysical, fails to be anything substantial or universally binding. you said i would demonstrate a "moral ineptitude," such a deficiency could only exist if morality was an objective quality independent of our own personal wills & sentiment.
in short, you first comment denied relativism while your "rebuttal" affirmed it.
QUOTE(Reidar @ Jan 18 2009, 11:00 PM)
This is tautological because their politics are not apportioned from their faith. There would be no other incentive to drive their politics if it weren't for the trespassing of holy lands and ideologies.
uhmm. no? imperialism has many benefits and many incentives. although the warriors of the crusades were told they were fighting for their lord god... that doesn't necessitate that their lords designed them to fight for that sole reason alone, or for that reason at all. might as well say that since the soldiers in iraq were told & motivated to fight by fears of terrorism, than that there exists no other plausible explanation for the primary cause of the fighting - an order from up high.
you are oversimplifying the situation like a two year old. if we can agree that religion is socially constructed, by denying middle eastern religion its socio-political roots, and by isolating all motivation to purely spiritual explanations, you're completely missing the foundation of the islamic mentality. notice that islam, in america, and in many other places all over the world, is completely & perfectly peaceful in practice. since religion is pliable to society & especially for those that wield it for political ends, we must interpret religious behavior on a larger socio-political scale. you're making sweeping generalizations and for it, completely missing the point.
QUOTE(Reidar @ Jan 18 2009, 11:00 PM)
And if that was all it took to quell their anxieties so they could "turn the other cheek" - an even footing against their religious (which leads to the geopolitical elements, for these territorial disputes are defined first and foremost by ideological incompatibility) nemesis, granted by said adversary's willing ally in order to even the playing field - then jihad would be much more isolated, focused, and direct than it is and has been. What did the slain Buddhist monks of southern Thailand do to invoke the wrath of insurgents? Were they, too, in cohorts with the Jews?
consider the CIA's involvement with al qaeda and operation cyclone in afghanistan during the soviet war. the islamic extremists didn't seem to have an issue with U.S. aid then...? maybe you're just not looking at the whole picture kid.
sure, there are fanatical extremists, that devote themselves entirely, but, still, most of these persons are informed by leaders who, often & arguably, have larger political aspirations. further, there are, many more islamics who are perfectly peaceful. this is, arguably, still a result of their enviroment. just as christians several a century and a half past could read the same exact passages & figure the bible supports the enslavement of black people.
RELIGION IS SOCIALLY CONTROLLED. SO, INVESTIGATE THE SOCIETY, NOT THE TEXT, BECAUSE THE SOCIETY SUPERSEDES THE TEXT, ALWAYS, & BEYOND APPEARANCES.
I just found this out.
Isrealies actually call palestinian leaders telling them that they are going to bomb their homes and to get out! And one man was warned that his home was going to be bombed and to get out but he told all his wives and kids to gather and they were all bombed but he left just so he could say that the isrealies killed his family.
Isrealies actually call palestinian leaders telling them that they are going to bomb their homes and to get out! And one man was warned that his home was going to be bombed and to get out but he told all his wives and kids to gather and they were all bombed but he left just so he could say that the isrealies killed his family.
QUOTE(JosephCohen123 @ Jan 19 2009, 09:21 PM)
I just found this out.
Isrealies actually call palestinian leaders telling them that they are going to bomb their homes and to get out! And one man was warned that his home was going to be bombed and to get out but he told all his wives and kids to gather and they were all bombed but he left just so he could say that the isrealies killed his family.
Isrealies actually call palestinian leaders telling them that they are going to bomb their homes and to get out! And one man was warned that his home was going to be bombed and to get out but he told all his wives and kids to gather and they were all bombed but he left just so he could say that the isrealies killed his family.
I dont see how this matters. War is war.
^ The various humanitarian treaties that your country adheres to disagree.
No, you're breaching the analytic by supposing it to not equal what its own definition conscripts it to be. If the qualifier, "moral character", does not entail morality in any sense or context of the word, then it isn't moral character to begin with. And to be inept, morally, is not to subscribe to relativism because the inherence of morality is, once again, an innate universality. Somebody who is inept intellectually is not compromising the scientific physiology of their brain. By the way, comrades and friends, moral character is not genetic. Morals are not imprinted in the nucleotides of the gene, or the totality of the gene complex. The perpetuation of altruistic behavior is, which is why I said that it's the conscious form of simpler and hereditary altruism. Morality as a universal trait is precisely what makes it objectively interwoven with the fabric of our characteristics.
Quite the turnaround here (and I think it odd that you've apparently had arguments with two-year-olds before to have a point of reference). If the incentives are so impossible to pin down, then you had even less ground to claim that "the people pulling the strings are far more concerned about politics than they are any number of virgins in the sky." Certainly not, because "imperialism has many benefits and many incentives", right?
I'm here to your rescue. In reverse order, you're now concurring with me that "their politics are not apportioned from their faith", but under the guise that I've somehow missed noting the influence of one on the other when, in fact, I had to point that out to begin with. And that there exists no other plausible explanation for the primary cause of the fighting? Yes, that we might as well attribute to the "primary" incentive is obvious. Whatever dissenters you're trying to account for don't make up the primary cause, or else they wouldn't be dissenters with their own (apparently unknown, which you paradoxically know) motives to begin with. Imperialism does not have a multitude of enticements. It cannot by definition of what constitutes an "empire" possessing a centralized drive to unite the varying components qualifying it in the first place.
People practice Islam, as well as Christianity, peacefully because they treat the scripture as a word buffet, picking and choosing what to take into practice and what to ignore. Osama bin Laden was not skewing the text of the Qur'an in citing "words of justification" for the attacks on New York, as Ayaan Hirsi Ali can tell you. It is stated without equivocation that dissidents from Islam are punishable by death. It wasn't so "completely and perfectly peaceful" when many mainstream Muslims, some in my own family, called for the fatwa on Salman Rushdie to be carried out for his crime of writing a novel, or when the main offense of Muhammad's depiction in a Danish cartoon was the infidelity of the publishers, not the infringement upon free speech rights. I actually have an unfair prejudice in arguing any of this with someone who hasn't grown up under Islam, hasn't read the Qur'an or the hadith, and doesn't really understand on a first-hand basis many of the relevant factors at play, but I'll grant you some leeway.
The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, and the American support of the mujahideen, not only doesn't account for the strictly defensive posturings I just refuted, but it also speaks nothing about any disconnect between the soldiers and the political motivations of the higher-ups, which is what you need to substantiate. YOU SEE, THEOCRACIES, AND THE CULTS OF THEIR PREMISE, ARE BUILT UPON THE SCRIPTURE AS A FOUNDATI---I'm sorry, I've just realized how much that instantly instills the desire to discount whatever is attempting to, ironically, be emphasized. Rather, it should be pointed out that you're again separating the politics from the religion, and no amount of vagary or speculation along the lines of, "We don't really know their incentives" can render that a valid distinction. Religion is not socially controlled - it is the control.
QUOTE(NoSex @ Jan 19 2009, 12:57 PM)
oh please. if our "moral character" is purely genetic (which is an argument i sympathize & agree with almost entirely), than our so-called "moral character" would fail to resemble anything, philosophically, moral. morality, if not a choice, if not characterized by normative language, if not metaphysical, fails to be anything substantial or universally binding. you said i would demonstrate a "moral ineptitude," such a deficiency could only exist if morality was an objective quality independent of our own personal wills & sentiment.
in short, you first comment denied relativism while your "rebuttal" affirmed it.
in short, you first comment denied relativism while your "rebuttal" affirmed it.
No, you're breaching the analytic by supposing it to not equal what its own definition conscripts it to be. If the qualifier, "moral character", does not entail morality in any sense or context of the word, then it isn't moral character to begin with. And to be inept, morally, is not to subscribe to relativism because the inherence of morality is, once again, an innate universality. Somebody who is inept intellectually is not compromising the scientific physiology of their brain. By the way, comrades and friends, moral character is not genetic. Morals are not imprinted in the nucleotides of the gene, or the totality of the gene complex. The perpetuation of altruistic behavior is, which is why I said that it's the conscious form of simpler and hereditary altruism. Morality as a universal trait is precisely what makes it objectively interwoven with the fabric of our characteristics.
QUOTE
uhmm. no? imperialism has many benefits and many incentives. although the warriors of the crusades were told they were fighting for their lord god... that doesn't necessitate that their lords designed them to fight for that sole reason alone, or for that reason at all. might as well say that since the soldiers in iraq were told & motivated to fight by fears of terrorism, than that there exists no other plausible explanation for the primary cause of the fighting - an order from up high.
you are oversimplifying the situation like a two year old. if we can agree that religion is socially constructed, by denying middle eastern religion its socio-political roots, and by isolating all motivation to purely spiritual explanations, you're completely missing the foundation of the islamic mentality. notice that islam, in america, and in many other places all over the world, is completely & perfectly peaceful in practice. since religion is pliable to society & especially for those that wield it for political ends, we must interpret religious behavior on a larger socio-political scale. you're making sweeping generalizations and for it, completely missing the point.
you are oversimplifying the situation like a two year old. if we can agree that religion is socially constructed, by denying middle eastern religion its socio-political roots, and by isolating all motivation to purely spiritual explanations, you're completely missing the foundation of the islamic mentality. notice that islam, in america, and in many other places all over the world, is completely & perfectly peaceful in practice. since religion is pliable to society & especially for those that wield it for political ends, we must interpret religious behavior on a larger socio-political scale. you're making sweeping generalizations and for it, completely missing the point.
Quite the turnaround here (and I think it odd that you've apparently had arguments with two-year-olds before to have a point of reference). If the incentives are so impossible to pin down, then you had even less ground to claim that "the people pulling the strings are far more concerned about politics than they are any number of virgins in the sky." Certainly not, because "imperialism has many benefits and many incentives", right?
I'm here to your rescue. In reverse order, you're now concurring with me that "their politics are not apportioned from their faith", but under the guise that I've somehow missed noting the influence of one on the other when, in fact, I had to point that out to begin with. And that there exists no other plausible explanation for the primary cause of the fighting? Yes, that we might as well attribute to the "primary" incentive is obvious. Whatever dissenters you're trying to account for don't make up the primary cause, or else they wouldn't be dissenters with their own (apparently unknown, which you paradoxically know) motives to begin with. Imperialism does not have a multitude of enticements. It cannot by definition of what constitutes an "empire" possessing a centralized drive to unite the varying components qualifying it in the first place.
People practice Islam, as well as Christianity, peacefully because they treat the scripture as a word buffet, picking and choosing what to take into practice and what to ignore. Osama bin Laden was not skewing the text of the Qur'an in citing "words of justification" for the attacks on New York, as Ayaan Hirsi Ali can tell you. It is stated without equivocation that dissidents from Islam are punishable by death. It wasn't so "completely and perfectly peaceful" when many mainstream Muslims, some in my own family, called for the fatwa on Salman Rushdie to be carried out for his crime of writing a novel, or when the main offense of Muhammad's depiction in a Danish cartoon was the infidelity of the publishers, not the infringement upon free speech rights. I actually have an unfair prejudice in arguing any of this with someone who hasn't grown up under Islam, hasn't read the Qur'an or the hadith, and doesn't really understand on a first-hand basis many of the relevant factors at play, but I'll grant you some leeway.
QUOTE
consider the CIA's involvement with al qaeda and operation cyclone in afghanistan during the soviet war. the islamic extremists didn't seem to have an issue with U.S. aid then...? maybe you're just not looking at the whole picture kid.
sure, there are fanatical extremists, that devote themselves entirely, but, still, most of these persons are informed by leaders who, often & arguably, have larger political aspirations. further, there are, many more islamics who are perfectly peaceful. this is, arguably, still a result of their enviroment. just as christians several a century and a half past could read the same exact passages & figure the bible supports the enslavement of black people.
RELIGION IS SOCIALLY CONTROLLED. SO, INVESTIGATE THE SOCIETY, NOT THE TEXT, BECAUSE THE SOCIETY SUPERSEDES THE TEXT, ALWAYS, & BEYOND APPEARANCES.
sure, there are fanatical extremists, that devote themselves entirely, but, still, most of these persons are informed by leaders who, often & arguably, have larger political aspirations. further, there are, many more islamics who are perfectly peaceful. this is, arguably, still a result of their enviroment. just as christians several a century and a half past could read the same exact passages & figure the bible supports the enslavement of black people.
RELIGION IS SOCIALLY CONTROLLED. SO, INVESTIGATE THE SOCIETY, NOT THE TEXT, BECAUSE THE SOCIETY SUPERSEDES THE TEXT, ALWAYS, & BEYOND APPEARANCES.
The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, and the American support of the mujahideen, not only doesn't account for the strictly defensive posturings I just refuted, but it also speaks nothing about any disconnect between the soldiers and the political motivations of the higher-ups, which is what you need to substantiate. YOU SEE, THEOCRACIES, AND THE CULTS OF THEIR PREMISE, ARE BUILT UPON THE SCRIPTURE AS A FOUNDATI---I'm sorry, I've just realized how much that instantly instills the desire to discount whatever is attempting to, ironically, be emphasized. Rather, it should be pointed out that you're again separating the politics from the religion, and no amount of vagary or speculation along the lines of, "We don't really know their incentives" can render that a valid distinction. Religion is not socially controlled - it is the control.
Wipe Israel from the face of this planet. Ya I said it. And you know who else says it?
Watch:
Destroy Zionism, it is the destruction of peace, humanity, and religious unity.
Watch:
Destroy Zionism, it is the destruction of peace, humanity, and religious unity.
Oh and if you think shit's gonna change with Obama, who's related to Bush via bloodline. It isn't... we've been fooled once again. Here's a clue:
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.