israeli aggressors building more housing in East Jerusalem

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Shrapnel12
Ya and women who wear slutty outfits and walk in dark alleys cause rape. People walking in the city with fat wallets cause robbery. Being black causes nazi wannabe racists to hate them.

Words can not describe your comparison.

Oh I'm sorry, did the communism movement give up on that whole violent overthrow of the government thing? My bad.

How did your government take power?

[GePap]

Originally posted by Sirotnikov

I don't think this would have anything to do with solutions.

Solutions should be practical with view of the future. Not rely on the past.

Had palestinian negociators not relied on the past and demanded Israeli declarations of guilt, we'd have a working sustainable peace for 7 years now.

:LOL:

Sorry, but this is funny. First, if peace is important, and Israel is guilty of something, why not admit it? Second, I am very skeptical that a worthwhile agrement on settlements and the refugee issue was actually at haid at Taiba.

I'm honest.

I think that the jewish right to a homeland as greater than the right of the locals to prevent jews from a homeland. I also justify it using historical means (which you often contest).

That comment was not aimed at you.

I think it does nothing to diminish of my commitment to democracy and human rights (which has its limits since i believe in realpolitik).

I also think that the political processes of the time were perfectly legitimate, because that was the standard at the time. I don't think that newly developed ethic convictions should be retro-active. It's like trying people for laws that didn't exist at the time.

Thioese process were standard but NOT seen as legitimate even in their own time. The entire collapse of the system built in Paris just a short time later (and in a spectaculalry bloody way) speaks to how unlegitimate it was viewed even then, because the values I am espousing are over a century old.

As for "realpolitik", is it really what you believe in? Cause a harsh realpolitik view only would hardly have any powers supporting Israel when it lessens their influence over a much larger and resource rich populace.

It is much more enlightened to say that the Palestinians weren't savage and stupid. But sadly, they were, and that's how they got in this predicament.

Right.....

I do deny claims that they are more entitled to this land than Jews. I deny claims that every and all Palestinians have lived here peacefully for centuries, and then someday evil Jews came and started making a mess. The reality was more complex, for both sides.

You say reality is complex, yet you yearn for a simple solution, "2 homelands" that are neatly carved up, as if that were possible. After all, who own what water rights, or flyover rights, and a myriad of other issues.

As for the claim of which group "deserves the land", that very idea is the problem. Neither group deserves anything, land or otherwise.

Perhaps.
But they were also victims of almost non-existant political identity, a piss-pour political leadership and a tendency towards violence where politics was due.

And? That lessens the fact they are victims? being a victim is not based on "merit", it is based on getting victimized.

As far as I am aware of, the early roots of the Zionist movement did not see a single national state, but some sort of a Jewish-Arab federation. Thoughts of this kind were even shared with some local Arab leaders. This quickly proved impossible due to the violent reaction of most though.

Your facts are wrong. Early Zionist thinkers had a variety of different thoughts on the matter. Violent Arab reactions to Zionism began in earnest only after Zionist thought had been around for a few decades, and large numbers of Jewish immigrants had been moving into Palestine, causing certain conflict, just as any mass influct of totally different peoples into an area already inhabited does.

The Palestinians could have had a state in near perfect 1967 borders by now, with eastern Jerusalem as their capital.

Why the 1967 borders? Why not the 1948 proposed borders? Why not different borders altogether?

There is no victimization of Palestinians going on.
Not only did they walked out on a reasonable deal, they also started a violent campaign after it. Israel was perfectly right in clamping them down.

Right, cause even before taiba the expropriation of Palestinian lands, the checkpoints, the holding of mass numbers of prisoners, all that had stopped, right?

I don't deny that the Palestinians were screwed by all involved. Even by Jews.

But I refuse to lay the blame solely on Jews. It was alot of their own making and of their fellow Arabs, of the Brits that messed around.

You are myopic aren't you? Last time I looked, I laid historical blame mostly on Europeans. After all, it is those in power that can act, and it was the Europeans who had the power to act, and therefore they deserve the bulk of the blame.

And I certainly agree that the "Arab brothers" of the Palestinians have doen nothing to improve their lot, and much to make their misery even greater.

Somehow, every time someone admits that the Jews have had a hand in the Palestinians' crappy luck, it is used to delegitimize Israel and call for its destruction. Then some people claim that if not for Zionism everything would be great, there would be no terrorism or war EVAR.

Funny. Where did I call for the destruction of Israel specifically? Now, the end of Zionism I have no problem with, in fact I would cheer it, just as I would cheer the end of Palestinian nationalism, for the simple fact that both movements are expressions of nationalism, which I think, as I have said countless times, an intellectual and moral disaster.

This is nonsense, yet some people believe it with all their hearts.

Thankfully, much more moral nonsese than the nationalistic claptrap you hold on to.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Eli
The Palestinians have had an amazing opportunity. They exist adjacent to, and in close symbiosis with a rich, western, highly technological open society. The potential benefits are enormous, and they far outweigh whatever value can be extracted from a few more percent of land in the Judean Desert or a symbolic ownership of the Temple Mount.

They could've enjoyed amazing growth rates, work and education opportunities, a better access to the west than almost any other developing nation. But they squandered all of this on the altar of idiotic national pride, forgetting that while Israel might lose 1-2% of it's GDP growth rate for a couple of years until the wall is built, they get a actual GDP drop of tens of percents.

Really? How?

Just living next to a rich country does not make you rich (ask Mexicans).

Would Palestinian workers have had free access to israeli markets (including the job market and educational markets) and vice versa? Because that is what it would take. And if that is the reality, why would israel give up 1-2% GDP growth long term for something as symbolic as a the Wailing wall?

Oh, and what about the refugees?

[Sirotnikov]

Originally posted by Kidicious
Ok whatever. I know how much to value what you say.

It was a cynical remark

I challenge you to find me applying the label terrorism to anything other than violent acts aimed at killing civilians.

I even refer to proper anti-IDF actions as guerilla, like they properly are.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Sirotnikov

It was a cynical remark

I challenge you to find me applying the label terrorism to anything other than violent acts aimed at killing civilians.

I even refer to proper anti-IDF actions as guerilla, like they properly are.

What are you talking about? Wrong thread?

[Sirotnikov]

Originally posted by GePap
:LOL:
Sorry, but this is funny. First, if peace is important, and Israel is guilty of something, why not admit it? Second, I am very skeptical that a worthwhile agrement on settlements and the refugee issue was actually at haid at Taiba.

Peace is important, but Israel admitting something would in no way promote peace or the end of the conflict.

Second, as I said, I don't think Israel is guilty of something.

That comment was not aimed at you.

So I take it that what you said regarding respecting my honest opinion holds.

Thioese process were standard but NOT seen as legitimate even in their own time. The entire collapse of the system built in Paris just a short time later (and in a spectaculalry bloody way) speaks to how unlegitimate it was viewed even then, because the values I am espousing are over a century old.

Yes, everyone knows that indigenous populations were always given equal rights in 1917

As for "realpolitik", is it really what you believe in? Cause a harsh realpolitik view only would hardly have any powers supporting Israel when it lessens their influence over a much larger and resource rich populace.

'Cause you know, if I say I believe in realpolitik, it probably means that I take it at its fullest possible meaning with no limitations. It also means I think that everyone and everything should act according to it 100%

You have a serious incapability to understand that someone might have a complex, non-perfect world view, conjured out of several different competing sets of beliefs, some ethical and some practical.

Your world view is completely contained and (supposedly) not conflicting.

My is a bit more complex than that.

It is much more enlightened to say that the Palestinians weren't savage and stupid. But sadly, they were, and that's how they got in this predicament.

Right.....

Sorry, it's true.

You say reality is complex, yet you yearn for a simple solution, "2 homelands" that are neatly carved up, as if that were possible. After all, who own what water rights, or flyover rights, and a myriad of other issues.

That is very much possible.

I know for a fact that the practical issues such as water or flyover, have never seriously hindered the talks.

It has always failed on declarative grounds:
- Disagreements over the label of the settlement in Jerusalem (the actual division of the town was basically agreed upon).
- Disagreements over the declarative statement that the pals demanded where Israel should accept responsibility for the refugees
- Disagreement over the declarative statement that the Israelis demanded, where the pals should declare the conflict over, and their claims settled.

As for the claim of which group "deserves the land", that very idea is the problem. Neither group deserves anything, land or otherwise.

I completely and utterly disagree, as you must know by now, since there's no way you'll convince me that the nation-state system is not the best practical political solution.

Perhaps.
But they were also victims of almost non-existant political identity, a piss-pour political leadership and a tendency towards violence where politics was due.

And? That lessens the fact they are victims? being a victim is not based on "merit", it is based on getting victimized.

Doesn't lessen their victimhood.
Much lessens what ever role the Zionists played.

As far as I am aware of, the early roots of the Zionist movement did not see a single national state, but some sort of a Jewish-Arab federation. Thoughts of this kind were even shared with some local Arab leaders. This quickly proved impossible due to the violent reaction of most though.

Your facts are wrong. Early Zionist thinkers had a variety of different thoughts on the matter. Violent Arab reactions to Zionism began in earnest only after Zionist thought had been around for a few decades, and large numbers of Jewish immigrants had been moving into Palestine, causing certain conflict, just as any mass influct of totally different peoples into an area already inhabited does.
[/q]

It is your facts that are wrong.
Prior to the first revolts of 1920, there was no Jewish armed force, nor Jewish provocation.

The change in Zionist thought coincides with the beginning of the Arab violent revolt.

And I refuse to accept your moral justification of "certain conflict" caused by immigrants motion into Palestine.

Not to mention that upto that point, Jews mostly settled in uninhibited parts of Israel, and the political Jewish bodies responsible for creating state institutions were almost non-existant.

Why the 1967 borders? Why not the 1948 proposed borders? Why not different borders altogether?

If you're going that way, then any conversation with you is futile.

Why not 1922 borders then, when all the Palestinians move into trans-Jordan, and the rest of the land is used, as was declared, for the Jewish homeland. After all, it was you that claimed that land is really not important. Why do you only apply that to the Israeli side? Let the pals have the higher ground Move to Jordan

Right, cause even before taiba the expropriation of Palestinian lands, the checkpoints, the holding of mass numbers of prisoners, all that had stopped, right?

They were at a reasonable minimum, with little movement restrictions, close relations with Israelis and movement in and out of Israel.

Who ever got to sit in prison deserves what he got, and that is not at all relevant. But I do suggest you lookup the number of prisoners in 1999, and see how much lower they were.

You are myopic aren't you? Last time I looked, I laid historical blame mostly on Europeans. After all, it is those in power that can act, and it was the Europeans who had the power to act, and therefore they deserve the bulk of the blame.

And I certainly agree that the "Arab brothers" of the Palestinians have doen nothing to improve their lot, and much to make their misery even greater.

Great, then on some grounds we're not far apart.

Funny. Where did I call for the destruction of Israel specifically? Now, the end of Zionism I have no problem with, in fact I would cheer it, just as I would cheer the end of Palestinian nationalism, for the simple fact that both movements are expressions of nationalism, which I think, as I have said countless times, an intellectual and moral disaster.

You haven't called for the destruction of Israel specifically.
Let's not pretend that many posters haven't.

And if we ignore the ramblings of people on the internets, the destruction of Israel is regularly called for by wide circles of Palestinian politicians and wide Left circles.
Any declaration that Israel might make, would no doubt be happily used by people to try and bring about the demise of Israel in the future.

Thankfully, much more moral nonsese than the nationalistic claptrap you hold on to.

You're well aware I'm totally unimpressed by your scorn of nationalism, so I see no point in you raising that in further discussions. It does not score points in our discussion, nor does it do much to convince me of anything.

[Sirotnikov]

Originally posted by Kidicious


What are you talking about? Wrong thread?

This thread, previous page, This post

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Sirotnikov



This thread, previous page, This post

I was talking about the settlers throwing rocks.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Sirotnikov

Peace is important, but Israel admitting something would in no way promote peace or the end of the conflict.

Actually, confesions of guilt are a very good way to move forward.

Yes, everyone knows that indigenous populations were always given equal rights in 1917

Jesus...
You claimed that what was done in 1919 was legitimate. It wasn't. The fact something is commonly, or was commonly done, does not grant legitimacy.

'Cause you know, if I say I believe in realpolitik, it probably means that I take it at its fullest possible meaning with no limitations. It also means I think that everyone and everything should act according to it 100%

You have a serious incapability to understand that someone might have a complex, non-perfect world view, conjured out of several different competing sets of beliefs, some ethical and some practical.

Except that when you try to mix antithetical or contradictory values you end up with a world view that is essentially flawed.

Your world view is completely contained and (supposedly) not conflicting.

My is a bit more complex than that.

Complexity is sometimes a sign of bad design.

That is very much possible.

I know for a fact that the practical issues such as water or flyover, have never seriously hindered the talks.

It has always failed on declarative grounds:
- Disagreements over the label of the settlement in Jerusalem (the actual division of the town was basically agreed upon).
- Disagreements over the declarative statement that the pals demanded where Israel should accept responsibility for the refugees
- Disagreement over the declarative statement that the Israelis demanded, where the pals should declare the conflict over, and their claims settled.

So basically you don't get far enough to even really discuss the bread and butter issues.

I completely and utterly disagree, as you must know by now, since there's no way you'll convince me that the nation-state system is not the best practical political solution.

Ah, a closed mind, how great.

It is your facts that are wrong.
Prior to the first revolts of 1920, there was no Jewish armed force, nor Jewish provocation.

Excuse me, where the hell did I mention any "armed" force? Are you particulalry awar of what has happened countless times when mass numbers of different people migrate to some already inhabited area?

If huge numbers of Chinese, say, a million, suddenyl moved into Israel, setting up their own neighborhoods, own schools, own businesses, speaking chinese and not hebrew, opening up different religious instituions, hell, starting giant pig farms, you honestly think there would be no problems with the locals? That the locals would just sit there?

And I refuse to accept your moral justification of "certain conflict" caused by immigrants motion into Palestine.

Ah, so not even an attempt at argument. Nicely walled of mind.

Not to mention that upto that point, Jews mostly settled in uninhibited parts of Israel, and the political Jewish bodies responsible for creating state institutions were almost non-existant.

Uninhabited, right....they were all the the desert - wait, that has bedouins.

You haven't called for the destruction of Israel specifically.
Let's not pretend that many posters haven't.

I don't speak for other posters, nor do they speak for me. I assume no one else speaks for you either.

You're well aware I'm totally unimpressed by your scorn of nationalism, so I see no point in you raising that in further discussions. It does not score points in our discussion, nor does it do much to convince me of anything.

What discussion? discussion would presuppose one did not have a close mind, as you have already claimed you have.

I have come to my opinion on nationalism based on reading quite a lot of pro-nationalist, and of course thinkers who opposed nationalism. Its a decision based on a set of values and that ideals fit those values.

[Sirotnikov]

Actually, confesions of guilt are a very good way to move forward.

not in politics, where they are dwelled upon to extract further gain.

You claimed that what was done in 1919 was legitimate. It wasn't. The fact something is commonly, or was commonly done, does not grant legitimacy.

actually - yes it does.

Except that when you try to mix antithetical or contradictory values you end up with a world view that is essentially flawed.

Actually, when you match and mix you reach a better understanding of complex realities, and a system applicable in more varied cases.

And whose to say what world view is essentially flawed Your subjectivity knows no boundries, and yet you fail to recognize it completely.

Complexity is sometimes a sign of bad design.

It is a sign of maturity.
It is common for 20 y/o romantics to view the world in simple terms.

So basically you don't get far enough to even really discuss the bread and butter issues.

*sigh*

No, the bread and butter issues are usually solved, with the declarative issues being problematic. It is much easier to reach a compromise over land / water / borders. It is much harder to reach the proper rethoric that would satisfy both people's needs.

This conflict is much more about pathos than anything else.

Ah, a closed mind, how great.

that's kinda funny coming from a guy who insists that anything that doesn't fit his personal values is inherently wrong.

Excuse me, where the hell did I mention any
If huge numbers of Chinese, say, a million, suddenyl moved into Israel, setting up their own neighborhoods, own schools, own businesses, speaking chinese and not hebrew, opening up different religious instituions, hell, starting giant pig farms, you honestly think there would be no problems with the locals? That the locals would just sit there?

Yes, that is totally comparable.

Obviously the riots in 1920 and 1929 were due to a million Jews suddenly arriving in Palestine.

Btw, your example has already occured in Israel once, where between 1989-1992 1 million russian Jews arrived in Israel.

They opened their own schools, stores (and even pig farms, to the horror of orthodox jews). They totally and forever changed the cultural, ethnical and religious balance of Israel. And yes it drew a bad reaction from several close-minded primitive xenophobic elements.

I'm not surprised at the reaction. I just don't find it legitimate or justifiable.

Ah, so not even an attempt at argument. Nicely walled of mind.

I have no interest in trying to justify a xenophobic reaction.

Yes, a bunch of white folks settling in a predominantly black neighborhood is bound to raise eyebrows. But any violent move against that is illegal and immoral.

Uninhabited, right....they were all the the desert - wait, that has bedouins.

You're welcome to demonstrate instances of avidly Palestinian towns suddenly becoming populated with lots Jews, or Palestinian settlements razed in favor of Jewish ones, in the time frame of 1880- 1920.

Until you do that, I'll continue to claim that during the early stages of Alyah, Jews settled mostly in previously unpopulated areas, with little or no reason for conflict with local Palestinian population.

I don't speak for other posters, nor do they speak for me. I assume no one else speaks for you either.

If you haven't noticed, this is a public forum, and I discuss the Israeli issue with all posters - not just yourself.

What discussion? discussion would presuppose one did not have a close mind, as you have already claimed you have.

People in glass houses etc.

I have come to my opinion on nationalism based on reading quite a lot of pro-nationalist, and of course thinkers who opposed nationalism. Its a decision based on a set of values and that ideals fit those values.

And I have come to my opinion on nationalism based on reading political philosophy, history, and my own judgement of history.

Most basically it is based on the concept of the state of nature as a "war against all" (Hobbes) as the basic reason we form increasingly larger societies (family, city, state) to defend our-selves and our interests.

But I do not wish to discuss that or exchange views on whether or not a nation state is the better solution.

And it seems foolish for you to deny that when talking about the Israeli Palestinian conflict, since this is the entire reason for the conflict, and if you say that nation-states are illegitimate, it makes the entire discussion of who's right / how to solve it, completely vain.

[Kuciwalker]

It is common for 20 y/o romantics to view the world in simple terms.

Hey!

[Sirotnikov]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker

It is common for 20 y/o romantics to view the world in simple terms.

Hey!

I'm 23 myself.

And you are not a romantic anyways.
Where's my flowers, biatch?

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Sirotnikov
And you are not a romantic anyways.
Where's my flowers, biatch?

I don't swing that way

[Sirotnikov]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


I don't swing that way

toot

[Shrapnel12]

Originally posted by Kidicious



Words can not describe your comparison.

If you missed my point, hopefully this will be clearer:

We all do things to make people hate us, but that doesn't make us morally culpable. Technically the Jews caused all their misery just by being alive.