We may use cookies to help customize your experience, including performing
analytics and serving ads.
Learn More
Forums → WEPR → You support Israel? I DO
| 879 | 90764 |
I just feel the morals and ethics of the middle east aren't right compared to any western country.
- 879 Replies
we withdraw our support in israel and let them handle themselves, it is NOT our job to protect them
It is obvious that you are no strategic genius. Giving up Israel would be to give up a strategical ally in a mainly anti-US area. An apology to the Arabs won't cut it.
(just in case anyone replies to this and calls me anti semetic; i am not anti semetic, i just believe that israel was a mistake and that countries should not be founded for a RELIGIOUS (not a political) group
Why would I call you anti-Semitic? That is the main reason why I called punisher's comment anti-Semitic, because it equated anti-Israeli feelings with anti-Semitic feelings. You can disagree all you want with Israel, without being anti-Semitic.
the jews have land in the USA, Canada, UK, China (probably) religion does not mean country.
While that is nice, those pieces of land owned by Jews in these countries are not independent nations free to make their own laws.
country i can vouch that they are tolerant and welcoming. there are a few nut cases
Sure, the main populous might be joyful and hand out candy to people in the streets. These places could be Candyland for all I care. However if the government is hostile, it doesn't matter what kind of people live there. The Arab Spring, while useful in giving people a voice, has failed to topple the Iranian government, and so far, the Syrian one.
israel should not of been taken from the locals and given to the jews,"
Israel didn't, the UN did. I support the fact that Israel had a right to exist, based on Jewish majority areas in 1948, and there's no denying that they had a right to assert independence as the Palestinians did.
they are hostile because we allied with israel!
They are hostile for a variety of reasons, and Israel is but one of them. After the 1979 revolution, Iran hated the USA because it supported Imperial Iran, and because the clerics declared the USA as a scourge of God, which are the main reasons why.
we apologize sincerely to the palestinians and all the members of the arab league, we withdraw our support in israel and let them handle themselves, it is NOT our job to protect them.
The USA will never do that, it has to a)Secure oil supplies via friendly ME states, b) Has a strategic interest in the area since Russia is only slightly North and c) The more friendly ME states there are, the better in this war on terror.
That is the main reason why I called punisher's comment anti-Semitic, because it equated anti-Israeli feelings with anti-Semitic feelings. You can disagree all you want with Israel, without being anti-Semitic.
His comments there are in no way anti-Semitic. They might be ignorant, but they didn't result in any slander towards the Jews. Confusing Israel and Jew or having an idea that they are one and the same is NOT anti-Semitic, don't be so defensive.
It would be nice if you replied to my posts on the previous page.
It would be nice if you replied to my posts on the previous page.
I'm getting a little tired of your demanding that I answer previous posts. If I get to them, I get to them, ok?
they will be almost on par with the Nazis who aimed for an Aryan state, without the genocide hopefully.
It is offensive that you dare attempt to equate the Nazis with Israelis. For one difference, Israel doesn't persecute people for having a religion, and does not exactly persecute the Palestinians. It is not persecution if a civilian gets caught in crossfire between a militant and a soldier. If you want to complain about civilian deaths, write a letter to the US government protesting the over 110,000 civilian deaths in Iraq.
But that doesn't involve Israel, so it's okay, right? Again, double standard.
A little hypocritical to adopt a holier than thou attitude then? So Israel can bomb suspected nuclear targets and stop others having the bomb, but it can possess the biggest arsenal in the region and the Arabs can take their word that Israel will not use them?
Yes, because Israel hasn't threatened any of the Arab countries with military force other than striking at nuclear programs! Israel has never issued statements calling for the destruction of one of her neighbors, or even remotely threatened these countries with invasion.
If they expect the Arab nations not to embark on nuclear technology, they have to give theirs up too
Ummm, no. Nuclear weapons are a great detterent for Israel's security.
I have also shown that the Arab nations pursued war more for their own selfish agendas rather than for the sake of a Palestinian state, effectively splitting the issue, the peace treaties for the Arab nations should not be mixed with the peace treaties with the PLO.
Except they are linked. If Israel gives up land, and then that land given up detracts from their ability to defend themselves, than peace with other Arabs is linked to peace with Palestinians.
Just to clarify for the sake of debate, Iran is NOT an Arab nation.
For the sake of THIS debate, it is, because when I use the term "arab" I mean the countries in the Arabian Peninsula, Iran, and Jordan, Syria, etc.
It is entirely reasonable for me to infer that you hence feel that Arab Israelis are somehow less worthwhile than their Jewish coutnerparts if that's the case.
No. For me to support your theory would be for me to support apartheid. I do not support discrimination.
Arab Israelis also give birth to kids, so why are they criticized for having a higher birth rate than their Jewish counterparts? Why are they then not seen as contributing to the general population but instead lampooned as breeding like rabbits?
Again, I am going to say that because you are Jewish, you do not have a full grasp on the...value of the country. For Israel to remain Israel, it MUST have a Jewish majority. If Vatican City had a Catholic minority, it would be unheard of. Israel must maintain its Jewish identity, as it is a symbol of two thousand years of hope.
When they become Israeli residents, I'm going to assume the government is not totalitarian enough to claim that the Muslim population cannot have children, whilst the Jewish Israelis can just to artificially maintain the Jewish nature of a state.
Which is why I oppose the Right of Return in the first place! When and if the Pals get their own country, right of return should be off the table. There would be no need for it. If the Pals take the Right of Return off the table, than perhaps the Israeli government might not demand compensation or a Right of Return for the Jews who were kicked out of Muslim countries. It is a two way street, and you cannot have your cake and eat it too.
It is offensive that you dare attempt to equate the Nazis with Israelis. For one difference, Israel doesn't persecute people for having a religion, and does not exactly persecute the Palestinians. It is not persecution if a civilian gets caught in crossfire between a militant and a soldier. If you want to complain about civilian deaths, write a letter to the US government protesting the over 110,000 civilian deaths in Iraq.
I stated that if Israel keeps aiming for a Jewish state, then they are the same as the Nazi who aimed for an Aryan state. Both are based on race/culture and if all the Israelis claim like you that Israel has got to have a Jewish flavour, I don't see how the two differ. Also, note that I wasn't talking about the Palestinians in this case. I was talking about the Arab Israelis, those who already live under Israel. So, sort out your understanding of what I wrote before complaining.
Yes, because Israel hasn't threatened any of the Arab countries with military force other than striking at nuclear programs! Israel has never issued statements calling for the destruction of one of her neighbors, or even remotely threatened these countries with invasion.
Correct, Israel has not threatened them. They simply took any targets they please, without even ascertaining whether they were meant for peaceful purposes or not. Furthermore, Iran for example has not stated that it wants to develop nukes to destroy Israel.
Ummm, no. Nuclear weapons are a great detterent for Israel's security.
And erm no, nuclear weapons from the Arab view is NOT a deterrent, but a blatant potential threat to their nations. This again, is a huge doublestandard both on yours and Israel's part. As you often like to hypothesis, as seen from your wild claim that Syrians will launch all their missiles at Israel if they implode, then I too can hypothesise that Israel will not forever be so passive, which might have some weight given that said religious and more anti-Arab Jews are on the ascendent.
Except they are linked. If Israel gives up land, and then that land given up detracts from their ability to defend themselves, than peace with other Arabs is linked to peace with Palestinians.
They were well able to defend themselves without the Golan Heights and the Sinai. It is extremely hypocritical and bullying, to claim that for one's own safety, safety which can be obtained by peace treaties, and through the UN, one has to evict millions of innocent Palestinians and claim that somehow the Israelis have a greater right to such protection.
For the sake of THIS debate, it is, because when I use the term "arab" I mean the countries in the Arabian Peninsula, Iran, and Jordan, Syria, etc.
Good to clarify then, but unfortunately too, Iran is not in the Arabian Penisula.
Again, I am going to say that because you are Jewish, you do not have a full grasp on the...value of the country. For Israel to remain Israel, it MUST have a Jewish majority. If Vatican City had a Catholic minority, it would be unheard of. Israel must maintain its Jewish identity, as it is a symbol of two thousand years of hope.
Israel is as you supposedly said, secular state as what they have proclaimed dozens of times. If they are not, but are Jewish, come clean and let the world see how hypocritical they are. They claim they are accepting of people, and for peace, but if their true motives in the end are just to maintain the power of an increasingly decreasing and soon to be minority, then my comparision with the Nazi is not unjustified. Both aim to keep the power of the select few and on the basis of a race.
When and if the Pals get their own country, right of return should be off the table
Nope. Just because they would have their own nation, doesn't mean all of them would move there. Some would still like to return to their ancestral homes in Israel today. They HAVE a right to do so, and to prevent someone from returning to their homeland (How would the Jews have liked it if the UN or Brits prevented them from doing so in 1948?), is simply bullying, and there is no use to deny that it IS bullying.
And yes, I am not Jewish. That doesn't mean I don't understand the blood and pain they went through. But Palestinians too have gone through such blood and pain. With the declining Jewish birthrate overall, I would like to see in the next few decades if the Israeli government would increasingly try to maintain an ARTIFICIAL Jewish character to the state, and claim that it is FAIR, to deny that the Jews are no longer the majority. The Declaration of Independence in Israel declares Israel a Jewish and Democratic state, and that is a document that reeks of utter discrimination. It states that at no matter what cost, the Jewish character of the state must not be violated; we shall see how the people in charge deal with it when the demographic time bomb explodes.
As Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan said, Zionism began âas nothing more than the assertion that the Jews were a people and had the same rights to nationhood that other such people were then asserting.â
Unfortuantely, their nationhood was based on the flimsy reason that it was the historical homeland of the Jews. It was also based on the fact that the Jews had clung on to a few areas in the Palestine, but were swelled up by very recent refugees from all over the world.
Very well. I can then shift boatloads of Scandinavians onto Iceland, claim it as the homeland of the Vikings before, then in a decade after the Scandinaian population is high enough, claim the right to establish such a Scandinavian state.
In most countries the majority culture enjoys the right to shape the countryâs public character â" and democratic countries nevertheless protect minoritiesâ full political and civic rights.
So....when the Jews are no longer the majority, will they then gracefully let the Arabs determine the character of the state, or are they going to cling onto a fading distant dream? The article clearly forgets such an all too real scenario.
Belonging to a people not just a religion fills our identity. It roots us in the sweep of history, binds us to a community, connects us to a rich values conversation, ties us to national moments, making us a part of something bigger than our individual selves. In a world where for most Westerners the physical basicsâ" food, clothing, shelter â" are covered but where we often feel emotionally, ideologically, existentially starved, naked, exposed â" we are lucky to have this peoplehood treasure trove. I am not arrogant enough to claim that Jewish stories, ethics, ideas, or ideals are the best; nor am I foolish enough to renounce these wonderful, useful, meaningful frameworks that deepen my life and my family life â" and belong to us.
If you like peoplehood, you should love statehood. âThe essence of the Zionist argument is that to express a national identity to its fullest, territory is basic,â Professor Ruth Gavison teaches, âyou need a majority culture not just a minority culture where you are in constant conversation with the host culture.â Especially for non-religious Jews, but then again, especially for religious Jews, having a national Jewish culture enhances, enriches, encourages, and ennobles Jewish identity.
Take these paragraphs, erase the words of Judaism, Jews, Zionism, and replace it with Palestinian, or Aboroginal, or Gypsy, or Roma. You essentially get the SAME argument everyone who is stateless use. It doesn't make Israel's anymore SUPERIOR. What the author uses is a very typical and bland argument that isn't special. A state must also comprise land, and without such a land they shouldn't even think about statehood. When the UN partitioned the Palestine, they should have already been grateful and not seized more land, defensive or not. Just as the Jews use such an argument, thousands of cultures without a state, and more importantly, the Palestinians can FLING the same argument back at Israel.
The whole article in essence, rests on a weak and flippant reason of rootedness, that somehow, never mentioning the reason and explanation, why the Palestinians can be shoved off their own land, to be given to the Jews for a state. In a nutshell, laughable.
While that is nice and all, I don't exactly think that a WWII battle is applicable to a 70 CE battle.
Why not? War hasn't changed much, other than weapons and tactics. Many people throughout history have chosen to fight rather than to surrender or flee. Is a 480BC battle more applicable then? They chose to fight to the last instead of surrendering or turning back. A man in that battle was told by Leonidas that he could go home because his eyes were infected and he was blind. He chose to return to the battle and fight.
They chose to fight to the last instead of surrendering or turning back
Ok, so it is closer to the Battle of Jerusalem. However you are attempting to apply one culture's values, to another.
When the UN partitioned the Palestine, they should have already been grateful and not seized more land, defensive or not.
Are you kidding me? By saying this, you practically justify every Arab attack on Israel. Pray tell, if they did not seize the land, what would prevent the Arabs from coming back time after time to destroy Israel!? That would be akin to watching your puppy pee on your rug, and then giving it a treat. Without scolding the dog (taking land), it doesn't learn. What sanctions would Israel have been able to place on the Arab countries? What possible punishments could have been levied? None whatsoever. So they took the only commodity they could have. Land.
However you are attempting to apply one culture's values, to another.
What did they value if they were not willing to die defending it?
What did they value if they were not willing to die defending it?
They WERE willing to die for it. However, the Israelites weren't known for taking stupid risks. What you are trying to do is basically apply Japanese culture versus American culture. Two very different regions, two very different sets of values.
However, the Israelites weren't known for taking stupid risks.
So the smart risk was suicide?
So the smart risk was suicide?
Compared with death after extensive torture, yes, it was.
Compared with death after extensive torture, yes, it was.
U r right, every nation have different culture and values but for every culture, a surrender is a surrender and bra\\very is bravery.A kamakazee is as brave as a russian who gives his life for his country.
You must be logged in to post a reply!