Israel

[Larry Pubes]

I've been talking with a good friend of mine and he made a good point.

 

Our oppinions obviously differ. I would venture to say that you are as guilty as I of being unwavering in your oppinion. Therefore I dont think that anything good can come of our conversation no matter how civilized.

 

I guess I'm done with this thread if anyone has any questions to my oppinion they can go a few pages back.

 

If you care to read more on the situation two books i recogmend are alan dershowitzs- the case for israel and myths and facts: a guide to the arab israel conflict by mitchell bard.

 

 

holy shit, wtf mar...your credibility is going down the shitter pretty fast here. i'm willing and ready to debate the points i brought up to you, in a civilized manner, as i have done so far. so far you've said that i called you names(bullshit), called my facts 'pseudo-intellectual crap'(huh?), tried to give me conditions that i had already met, and told me you'd be 'open-minded' to discussion(so far...bullshit). you keep asking me for facts and i took some time out to grab some real basic ones. now as i ask you to refute them, you're backing out after flippantly saying this: "And bring on the argument. For some reason I dont get tired of this...". since you're so incredibly biased and arrogant on this issue (and being a main contributor of late), i'm merely giving this thread some symmetry to your propaganda. get at me with what i asked you or step off this thread.

[Smart]

I guess I'm done with this thread if anyone has any questions to my oppinion they can go a few pages back.

....

[Larry Pubes]

fuck that, respond to my specific points.

[MAR]

check your pm's. Im done with this thread and try not to take things out of context.

[Dawood]

Mar, I know where youre coming from , man. Sometimes I come here and see a 4 paragraph 200 word essay that someone typed out responding to me and I'm like...I got no time for this right now. I enjoy a progressive debate, but sometimes it gets a little out of hand. (not that I think it did here) But someone criticised me of only responding to what I wanted to respond to and i'm like.... "yeah!?" You can't look out the window everytime you hear a dog barking outside. Our opinions often differ. It's ok, not everyone is going to agree. It's just like that.

To be honest , 12oz. is such a big waste of time. I hate coming here, but it's so entertaining.

[Larry Pubes]

without taking anything out of context, every thing you said in your pm, mar, can be applied to your views on the palestinians, and that's the central problem with your argument. try and apply the same morality you expect palestinians to observe towards israelis and we can start having a real discussion(at which point i'll happily provide facts on the bullshit that emanates from the occupied territories as well). i apologise for coming off strong, but demanding specific facts from me and then bullshitting your way out of dealing with them is frustrating and contrary to your own demands for others to provide facts, and your own wishes to discuss the issue with some open-mindedness.

[Larry Pubes]

Our opinions often differ. It's ok' date=' not everyone is going to agree. It's just like that.[/quote']

 

i'm hearing you on fm. however, we should be careful to make a distinction between opinions and facts when we're talking about live situations where thousands of people are being killed, no?

[Larry Pubes]

I answered you questions and you ignored them and asked a new question...and then attacked my credibilty by saying my argument was weak without even addressing my points. How is that a debate?

 

If you want to argue:

Leave the criticing out, People can make thier own desisions.

Address my points, this is a debate not a questionaire.

Use proper grammer, its really hard for me to read a post when there is only one long paragraph.

These are my rules. If you agree I will consider continuing our conversation.

 

~MAR

 

i'm sorry, but pm's aren't pm's anymore.

this is the most frustratingly ridiculous 'debate' i've had on 12oz in the 6years i've been coming here. show me where you answered my points with any factual basis behind it. i provided you with facts and i'll give you the sources. you've provided me with one sentence opinion rebuttals. you gave me 1 source, which i pointed out is just as biased as you are, and you have yet to get me anything remotely resembling an objective, sourced fact. and what the hell is with these rules? as is clearly posted above, i addressed your points already with sourced facts, now provide some factual counter argument to the facts you asked me to provide you, or your assertion there is no occupation, or that the IDF kills militants only has zero credibility. i mean you could at least have the courtesy to respond in kind...and i'd think for someone who comes off as very educated on the issue, one would think you'd have little trouble crushing my argument, no? btw, my grammar is good enough, and my paragraphs are perfectly legible.

[Smart]

Armed Hamas and Fatah groups have clashed over the past week in Gaza. As Mr. Rajab and the wounded were driven to the Gaza hospital, agents fired from the windows to clear the streets, and some members of the new Hamas militia fired toward the convoy, apparently believing themselves under attack.

 

I thought the idiocy inherent in 'communicating with gunfire' was apparent to all but...

[MAR]

i'm sorry, but pm's aren't pm's anymore.

this is the most frustratingly ridiculous 'debate' i've had on 12oz in the 6years i've been coming here. show me where you answered my points with any factual basis behind it. i provided you with facts and i'll give you the sources. you've provided me with one sentence opinion rebuttals. you gave me 1 source, which i pointed out is just as biased as you are, and you have yet to get me anything remotely resembling an objective, sourced fact. and what the hell is with these rules? as is clearly posted above, i addressed your points already with sourced facts, now provide some factual counter argument to the facts you asked me to provide you, or your assertion there is no occupation, or that the IDF kills militants only has zero credibility. i mean you could at least have the courtesy to respond in kind...and i'd think for someone who comes off as very educated on the issue, one would think you'd have little trouble crushing my argument, no? btw, my grammar is good enough, and my paragraphs are perfectly legible.

 

Fuck you. I write you a pm because i dont want it to be public. PM-Private Message.

 

Anyhow Im done with this thread im not going to let you sucker me into an arguement. I dont feel the need to justify my oppinions any longer and frankly dont want to. Im not scared of you, I just dont see a point. and no you have not adressed a single point other than to say it was weak. but it doesnt matter anymore.

 

Have a nice life, call yourself a winner if it makes you feel better, this is my last post in this thread.

 

MAR/Leaving well enough alone.

[Larry Pubes]

all i asked you to do was to 'justify' your 'opinions' with facts of your own, as you insisted of me. pretty simple i thought, but apparently you're above facts and would rather mumble up a straight forward request for you to back your opinions up like you expect everyone else to do. fuck me indeed.

[Larry Pubes]

and no you have not adressed a single point other than to say it was weak. but it doesnt matter anymore.

 

alright, i swear i'll leave you alone after i highlight your bullshit one last time, since i'm not letting it stand that i did not address 'a single point'.

from the start..

 

pubes: if the average american can't get to israel or palestine to make a judgement, then the avg. american should look at the extensive, official record and come to a clear understanding of how the avg. american's tax dollars continue being spent supporting a violent, brutal occupation.

 

your reply:

MAR: Know this: There is no occupation.

 

pubes: there's no occupation....right..and i'm connie chung..

 

your reply:

MAR: If you think there is an "occupation" then prove it with facts.

 

pubes: ...anybody who thinks suicide bombers are justified in their actions are lunatics..agreed? so why is this same logic not applied to israel's actions(you know, apache gunships firing missiles at apartment complexes and other lovely shit)? and i beg you, please try not to argue that it is 'defense'.

 

your reply:

MAR:

easy, because they are attacking militants not civillians.

 

And bring on the argument. For some reason I dont get tired of this...

 

now this is where i start addressing you point by point..

 

pubes: the lopsided casualty figures....uhh......can you explain to me how human rights watch flubbed their figures when they reported that since sept 2000 israel has killed nearly 3000 palestinians, of which more than 600 were children? to be fair though, the palestinians in the same period killed nearly 900 israeli's and that "most of those killed on both sides were civilians"..

i guess they are all militants though, huh..?

here is the exact quote from a 2005 overview report of israel and OPT by human rights watch, 5th paragraph down (http://hrw.org/english/docs/2006/01/18/isrlpa12224.htm): "Since the beginning of the current intifada in September 2000, Israel has killed nearly three thousand Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza, including more than six hundred children. During the same period, Palestinian fighters have killed more than nine hundred Israelis inside Israel and in the OPT. Most of those killed on both sides were civilians."

to corroborate these numbers, here are some numbers from an israeli human rights group, published by the bbc which reflects the same numbers human rights watch published: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4294502.stm

 

your reply to me addressing this factually?:

MAR: well its kinda hard to get accurate figures on palestinian deaths because they are known for inflating them. Can you get all the names of those killed? Because i can.

As you may well know palestinians enlist the help of young children in thier terrorist efforts, so its inevitable that some would be killed. As always, sadly, their are casulaties of war. You ever see tears of the sun or black hawk down? similar to that.

 

so i asked you for your facts on these numbers and you gave me a totally biased, pro-israel brotherhood site.

MAR: In 2005 alone 2990 attacks where launched against israeli targets 337 of those where with kasam rockets.

http://www.onefamilyfund.org/ go to terror attacks and then terrorism today. there should be a list of each attack and person killed.

 

FACTS PLEASE.

 

now onto where i addressed the 'no occcupation' comments you made:

pubes: this assertion there is no occupation...

israel imposes it's will on practically every aspect of the palestinians life..

for instance, israel maintains effective control over gaza by regulating movement in and out of the strip as well as the airspace, sea space, public utilities and population registry...

they also happen to control freedom of movement, sometimes severely, in the west bank and east jerusalem which contributes quite nicely to fun stuff like unemployment, food insecurity, pretty dire poverty and access to basic services like health care and education.

 

your flippant ass reply:

MAR: they own the land they make the rules. Its a war you cant expect it to be all chill, "yeh do whatever..."

 

go back to the human rights watch report i provided a link to above, and go to the sixth paragraph where i gleaned the above factual evidence against your 'opinion' there is 'no occupation'.

i'm still waiting for a coherent, logical and factual response to this.

as for the 'applicability of the term "occupied"'(from wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli-occupied_territories#Applicability_of_the_term_.22occupied.22): "The United Nations Security Council (in Resolution 446, Resolution 465 and Resolution 484, among others), the High Contracting Parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention[4], and the International Committee of the Red Cross[5], have each resolved that the territories discussed in this article are occupied and that the Fourth Geneva Convention provisions regarding occupied territories apply. In its decision on the separation barrier, the International Court of Justice ruled that the West Bank, Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem are occupied.[6]"

 

now, tell me again how i didn't 'address a single point'.

[Dawood]

i'm hearing you on fm. however' date=' we should be careful to make a distinction between opinions and facts when we're talking about live situations where thousands of people are being killed, no?[/quote']

 

 

No doubt, but some people arent willing to have an open minded conversation and they aren't looking for a solution to the problem. To some people there isn't any problems and everything is coochie crunch with a simple explanation so that's where I stand on this issue. it can't be fixed here, that's for sure.

[Larry Pubes]

No doubt' date=' but some people arent willing to have an open minded conversation and they aren't looking for a solution to the problem.[/quote']

 

well then posting in a political discussion forum wouldn't make much sense would it?

[2342]

Muslims and Jews: Common Ground

By Robert Eisen

 

Tuesday, May 9, 2006; Page A23

 

It's been often noted that a key reason for the intractability of the conflict between Jews and Muslims in the Middle East is that both sides operate with a mutually exclusive set of assumptions about the history of the dispute.

 

Jews view the state of Israel as the triumph of a dispossessed people who waited 2,000 years for a return to their homeland. If violence has accompanied that return, it is solely because of Arab intransigence; Jews were willing to settle peacefully among their Arab neighbors, but the latter were hostile to a sovereign Jewish entity in the Middle East and declared war against it from its inception.

 

 

 

Muslims view the state of Israel as the most egregious example of Western colonialism and imperialism, a foreign body inserted into the Middle East for the purpose of furthering Western domination. Any violence is solely the fault of the Jews and their Western allies. The Jews were able to take possession of the land by violently displacing its inhabitants, and they have succeeded in holding on to it with the help of Western military support.

 

What has been lost is the fact that both Jews and Muslims have a great deal in common in the way they perceive their respective histories. Each community has an understanding of its history that is much broader than that defined by this conflict, and we gain much insight into the nature of the dispute by comprehending those larger frameworks.

 

First the Jewish side. To understand modern Jews and their attachment to Israel, one has to remember that the Jewish people have been around for 3,000 years and that for the majority of that time they have been ruled by foreign powers that have often persecuted them. In biblical times Jews were dominated by a series of empires, and their kingdom was destroyed twice. In the Middle Ages they lived in Christian lands and were frequently subjected to violence.

 

In Muslim countries, Jews were treated much better -- as a protected minority. But they were never equal to Muslims, and medieval Jewish literature often expresses feelings of humiliation because of Jews' lack of power in Muslim lands. And even there, Jews sometimes experienced violence.

 

The ultimate violence, of course, came in 20th-century Europe with the Holocaust. Jews created the state of Israel in the belief that they would finally be able to live in security and dignity. It is a project that has succeeded only in part. Certainly, Jews now have sovereignty in their ancient homeland, as well as a powerful army. But Israel is surrounded by tens of millions of Muslims, many of whom oppose its existence. One must keep in mind that there are only 14 million Jews in the world, and almost half of them live in Israel.

 

One might argue, then, that the creation of Israel has actually made the Jews less secure. The fear now is not just violence but annihilation. Much of this helps explain why Israelis deal so harshly with their Palestinian adversaries. Jews are sensitive to every provocation that threatens Israel because of their history of vulnerability. They will perceive Palestinians as a threat as long as they commit acts of violence against Israelis and refuse to recognize Israel's legitimacy -- even if Palestinians don't have an army. Every Palestinian teenager lifting a stone to throw at an Israeli soldier will be viewed by Jews, in light of their bloody history, as a threat. I should emphasize that what matters here is Jewish perceptions of reality, not necessarily the reality itself, because it is perceptions that cause people to act regardless of what the reality is.

 

Turning to the Muslim side, we see a strikingly similar pattern. Muslim identity in the modern period has also been shaped by the bitter experience of foreign domination and humiliation. For the past 200 years, the Muslim world has been victimized by Western colonialism and imperialism. Many Muslim countries eventually have won their independence, but the power of oil has kept the West deeply involved in the Middle East. The advent of the state of Israel has been understood by the Muslim world as a symptom of the continuing Western attempt to dominate it.

 

Just as with the Jews, Muslims have turned to violence because they see it as the only way to defend themselves. In the absence of military power, some Muslims have resorted to terrorism as the only avenue to independence. Here, too, perceptions have made it difficult to differentiate between different types of threats. American peacemakers who travel to Iraq are being killed alongside American soldiers. Again, it is the perceptions that count, not necessarily the reality.

 

Getting each side to acknowledge the perceptions of the other, let alone sympathize with them, is no easy task. Some Muslims I have spoken to balk at the notion that Jews or Israelis feel vulnerable and argue that any suggestion to this effect is manipulative and designed to evoke sympathy: After all, Israel has a powerful army and Jews are highly influential everywhere in the world. Some of my Jewish friends are equally discomfited by my analysis. They object to any equation of Jewish suffering with Muslim suffering, because the Muslim world has never experienced the kind of persecution the Jews have.

 

What both sides miss here is the critical point that, again, what count are perceptions. Each side genuinely feels its vulnerability and humiliation and sees the other side as more powerful, and that is all that matters. After all, it is those perceptions that motivate each side to kill. Yet there may be hope for dialogue on the basis of these perceptions. I have shared the arguments outlined here between Jews and Muslims, and some have been intrigued by the parallel between their histories -- particularly Shiite Muslims, whose sense of humiliation at the hands of West has been compounded by the humiliation they have experienced from the Sunni Muslim majority throughout their history. In this regard they share a great deal with Jews.

 

Another point: The ones who respond most positively to my thinking are Muslim clerics. In my experience with interreligious dialogue in the past few years, it has become clear to me that clergy are far better than the politicians at baring their souls and sharing their emotions when talking with their enemies. They are therefore more likely to discuss the fears and insecurities motivating their respective communities to violence.

 

What this suggests to me is that it's time the clergy be given a more central role in the peace process between Jews and Muslims. For decades politicians on both sides have argued over where to draw borders but have brought us no closer to peace.

 

The clergy have been excluded from such negotiations because of the perception that religion is the problem, not the solution. Yet so much of the conflict between Jews and Muslims has been tied to religion that it's hard to imagine a settlement without the clerics. Perhaps with their help, Jews and Muslims can address the real issues between them so that a new relationship can emerge.

 

The writer is a professor of religion and Jewish studies at GeorgeWashingtonUniversity and for the past several years has been extensively involved in interreligious dialogue between Muslims and Jews.

 

Thoughts?

[Dawood]

In my humble opinion. The only reason there is no peace in that region is because the Jews have wrongfully seized the land of the muslims and the Islamic laws are not being established. If the muslims were over the Jews with regards to leadership (the way it should be) There would be much more safety and security in those lands for both Jews, christians and Muslims. There will never be peace when until balance is restored and the Jews are either forced out of the muslims property and they live peacefully under an Islamic shariah.

It may sound harsh to non-muslims or one sided, but I'm just saying. I'm not palestinian, I don't know much about that region, but I do know muslims, and I know for a fact that Muslims will not back down. There can be peace treaties with the Jews, no doubt, but eventually, the Muslims there will gather their stregnth and force the Jews out. Then , the peace treaties can be upheld, truthfully. In the Quran, Allah says

 

‘‘Fight against those who do not believe in Allaah and the Last Day, nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allaah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge Islaam, the religion of truth, from amongst the People of the Book (i.e. the Jews and Christians), until they pay the jizyah with willing submission and feel themselves subdued.’’

 

then he says

 

‘‘But if they incline to peace, then you also incline to it, and put your trust in Allaah. Indeed He is the all-Hearer, the all-Knower.’’

 

and he also says the meaning of.

 

Do not let your hatred of a people sway you to injustice against them.

 

So, just because there is emnity and hatred between the jews and muslims does not mean that there can't be peace between the two groups. There can be peace , but again in my humble opinion there can't be justice or peace until the Jews are subdued and Islam is used as the criteria we judge by.

[villain]

That's a good article. I think it is important that the issues be put into context, rather than this endless cycle of violence. Both Jews and Muslims have very real fears, and it's true that perception colors our reality. It's also a good point about having religious leaders guiding the dialog. Religious leaders are less likely to have ulterior motives than politicians who may resort to demagoguery to retain their position. If the religious leadership can change popular sentiment among their people that would give politicians some ground to stand on as far as implementing a feasible peace process.

 

As long as people are ruled by fear, and act on those fears (whether or not they are real, they are made real by the psychic energy invested into those complexes) there can be no sustainable peace. Excellent article.... seeking real solutions. So many people have opinions trying to justify one side or another (not only on here but in the media as well) but that fails what is really needed, and that's common ground. Compromise, empathy, understanding, brotherhood.

[villain]

Dawood, I don't think it's right to have to live under anyone elses rules regardless of what the Koran says (no disrespect). Using the same type of logic Christians engaged in the crusades, the inquisition, colonization, slavery and genocide.... all in the name of the lord. The truth is that there are many truths. Noone has a monopoly on truth. This would most likely lead to "my god can beat up your god" type arguments. Religion is very idiosyncratic. People have different beliefs because we are different. What we need is less fundamentalism, literalism, factionalism and all these other ism schisms and instead an embracing of underlying, universal, human principles, which we do indeed share.

[Dawood]

you live under someone else's rules right now and so do I.

 

Go to the constitution and tell me it had nothing to do with christianity or the bible. I don't have much time tonight, but, I'm sure we'll continue.

[Qawee]

i dont agree with the constitution either.

What about the christian palestinians?

Sharia is backwards, middle ages my dude.

The solution is a democratic and secular palestine, with working class Jews and working class Palestinians in control of the government.

The PLO, Hamas, and the Israeli government do not have the interests of the working class Jews or Palestinians at heart.

[coffeedependency]

Palestinian Leader Plans a Vote on Accepting Israel

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/world/AP-Palestinians-Hamas-Talks.html?hp&ex=1148616000&en=074061a1389690c5&ei=5094&partner=homepage

[Larry Pubes]

forget israel, we should be worried about fatah and hamas sparking a civil war.

[CACashRefund]

fuck that, let them off eachother

[2342]

It has become as routine for terrorists to rationalize their insanity on the basis of "Islamic fundamentalism," as it once was for aspiring dictators to blame their violent ambitions on Karl Marx. Some Americans may even believe this religious excuse for random violence, which causes understandable anxiety among the nation's many Islamic friends at home and abroad (such as Turkey and Jordan).

 

Terrorists who cite Islam as an excuse for terrorist acts against Jews and Christians are not fundamentalists but heretics. To see why, read the Holy Qur'an. Consider the following passages, which are followed by parenthetical references to the Shakir translation:

 

First of all, the Qur'an demands respect of all monotheistic religions: "Those who are Jews, and the Christians whoever believes in Allah [God] and the last day is good, they shall have their reward from their Lord" (II:62).

 

The Qur'an likewise speaks favorably of the "churches and synagogues and mosques in which Allah's name is much remembered."(XXII:40)

 

Second, all prophets are to be respected -- including Abraham, Moses, Jesus and Mohammed:

 

"We do not make any distinction between them." (II:136) "We [Muslims] make no difference between any of His apostles." (II:285) "Every one was of the good." (VI:85) "The Messiah, son of Mary is but an apostle" (V:73), yet God "put in the hearts of those who follow him kindness and mercy." (LVII:27) The Torah "in which there was guidance and light" is considered part "of the Book of Allah" (V:70), and so are the Bible and Koran (IX: 111).

 

At times, the Qur'an even counsels religious tolerance: "There is no compulsion in religion." (II:256) "You shall have your religion and I shall have my religion." (CIX: 6) "Be not unduly immoderate in your religion." (V:73)

 

The Qur'an never excuses a Holy War or Jihad against fellow monotheists -- Christians or Jews -- but only against those who worship idols (idolaters) or many gods (polytheists).

 

Even in the case of idolaters, the Koran honors peace agreements. "Slay the idolaters wherever you find them except those of the idolaters with which you have made an agreement." (IX:4-5)

 

"If they break their oaths after their agreement and [openly] revile your religion, then fight." (IX:12).

 

"Fight with them until there is no persecution [of Islam] but if they desist, then there should be no hostility except against the oppressors."(II:193) "And if they incline to peace, then incline to it and trust in Allah." (VIII:61)

 

Such language is not of the meek "turn the other cheek" variety, but neither does it imply that sneak attacks are holy, that war is preferable to peace, or that Christians or Jews are religious enemies.

 

When we speak of "fundamentalist" Christians and "orthodox" Jews, we mean those who follow quite strictly the teachings of the New Testament or Torah. If "Islamic fundamentalist" likewise means strict adherence to the Qur'an, then the phrase cannot be properly applied to those who attempt to terrorize Christians and Jews.

 

The Qur'an demands respect of all monotheistic religions (Judaism, Christianity and Islam), and does not condone war against any of them, much less cowardly acts of terrorism.

 

Dictators and aspiring dictators are angry with the United States for limiting their lust for power and land. They may try to cloak their ambitions and their brutality in religious garb, but they are lying. Religion cannot justify atrocities against the United States any more than it justifies thuggery in Northern Ireland.

 

Murder is murder. There is nothing religious about it.

 

http://www.cato.org/dailys/09-18-01.html

[fermentor666]

It's true and I wholeheartedly agree, but the US of A is doing a whole lotta killing of innocents in the name of God, too. "God will show us the way, God bless our troops, With God by our sides, etc".

[Dawood]

Sharia is backwards, middle ages my dude.

.

 

 

you may think shariah is backwards because youve only looked at it through the goggles of the western media. People think that the taliban was an example of shariah, but it wasn't.

[Smart]

you live under someone else's rules right now and so do I.

 

Well... I'm not gonna live under your 5 rules.

[Dawood]

Well... I'm not gonna live under your 5 rules.

 

 

only 5 rules? that's it?

[2342]

Dawood- could you please define shari‘a law?

[Dawood]

The Shari'ah is the Islaamic Law, in particular, what is stated in the texts of the Qur.aan and Sunnah (legal ways and traditions of the prophet Muhammad).