IDF have told The Times they expect to invade Gaza this weekend.

Your sister is hawt..has this been discussed yet?

Smetty: Thanks for the clarification earlier- just wanted to throw some ideas out there (that were read over the internet, of course) with the hope of them being challenged/corrected by someone knowledgable. Didn't mean to piss you off haha. TIL

lest we forget

israel=failed state

"palestine"= a concentration camp / sewer created by israel

  On 11/23/2012 at 5:14 AM, Awepittance said:

  On 11/23/2012 at 12:30 AM, RadarJammer said:

  On 11/23/2012 at 12:23 AM, eugene said:

bro, you can't really start your item with "in israel every citizen of military age is forced to serve time in the idf" and claim sufficient knowledge of the topic of israel in general, because it is common knowledge that a significant percentage of citizens of israel of military age are not forced to serve time in the idf, as simple as that.

i can pick at countless of factual errors in her reporting about israel, and the mediaroots podcasts are even worse. but this one was so blunt that it should cost her any credibility.

 

don't throw the baby out with the bathwater

 

while still not providing even an iota of convincing evidence that she committed a factual error, as other members said 'splitting hairs'. But i'm amused that Eugene even bothered listening to one of my podcasts, pretty cool even if he's face palming for the whole 1 hour and 30 minutes .

 

but watch out bros, She's interviewing Jimmy Carter this weekend, hopefully with ample Israel/Palestine questions

you really don't have any intuition when it concerns this stuff, do you ?

what evidence would be convincing to you that muslim and christian arabs and many religious jews are not drafted ? you can ask any israeli arab on facebook for example, whether he/she received a letter from idf regarding the draft or not.

  On 11/23/2012 at 6:25 AM, yikes said:

israel=failed state

not really:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HDI_index

I don't see you disputing the other bit, lol.

  On 11/23/2012 at 11:35 AM, Iain C said:

I don't see you disputing the other bit, lol.

http://hdr.undp.org/en/data/map/

palestinian's hdi is the same as egypt's and higher than syria's for example, it's slightly higher than the arab league average.

It's called "Occupied Palestinian Territory", btw.

  On 11/23/2012 at 11:57 AM, eugene said:

  On 11/23/2012 at 11:35 AM, Iain C said:

I don't see you disputing the other bit, lol.

http://hdr.undp.org/en/data/map/

 

palestinian's hdi is the same as egypt's and higher than syria's for example, it's slightly higher than the arab league average.

yeah it's a great [place to raise a family

it's like living in disneyland!!!

there are are about 30-35 countries (/~200) in the whole world that are okay for raising family.

in any case opt is hardly a sewer or a concentration camp according to the hdi stats.

Eugene, when it comes to Palestinians and Palestina you seem to prefer those numbers and stats, or the international position over the actual position and point-of-view of the Palestinians themselves. Seeing you're a social anthropologist (right?), I can imagine you're still on the liberal-progressive side of the political spectrum with respect to the other people in Israel.

Do you at least understand our concerns when it comes to Israel taking the Palestinian point-of-view serious in any way?

I'm sure you can understand those stats and the international position means little to the people living in the occupied territory. And I'm sure the stats and the international opinion on the treatment of Jews in the early thirties in Germany of the previous century were not bad as well. (I believe Jews were especially well intergrated in German society at the time).

first of all i try to establish a more or less solid ground on which you can even start arguing something for/against israel/palestinians, we haven't reached this state yet as long as you see stuff like "palestine is a concentration camp", "all citizens of israel are drafted when they hit 18", "israel is an apartheid state/are worse than nazis" and so on. those international stats have validity in the eyes of many people unlike strictly israeli/palestinian sources, so yeah, maybe they are meaningless to palestinians but they should give a more proper picture about what's actually going on.

re: palestinians' point of view, there are at least 4 large groups of palestinians to begin with: palestinians living is israel proper, pals living in west bank, pals living in gaza and pals living outside israel, mostly in neighboring arab countries. i assure you all of these groups have very different opinions on what's going on. so where do you want to start ?

re: my occupation/education/political affiliation, im nothing yet, my b.a is sociology and anthropology+asian studies, in my current m.a studies im focusing on technology and society. i don't really know what "progressive" means, i mostly find myself identifying with meretz party (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meretz) and i'll probably vote for them in the nearing elections.

the 'state" was founded in violence and will never be at peace because of this.

the israeli sense of entitlement is disgusting and obviously will never work as long as they keep their neighbors living in filth and poverty,a secure concentration camp it is.

would you want to live there and face the multi billion dollar onslaught of the united states' best weaponry/surveillance ?

Read up on history yikes, Israel/Jews didn't start the violence.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1920_Nebi_Musa_riots

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1921_Palestine_riots

  On 11/23/2012 at 2:46 PM, eugene said:

first of all i try to establish a more or less solid ground on which you can even start arguing something for/against israel/palestinians,

A more or less solid ground should respect both sides of the issue. Can't say the Balfour Declaration did, or can you? It was a one-sided agreement, ignoring previous agreements.

  On 11/23/2012 at 4:17 PM, compson said:

Read up on history yikes, Israel/Jews didn't start the violence.

 

http://en.wikipedia....Nebi_Musa_riots

http://en.wikipedia....Palestine_riots

Not sure why you quote those articles. For starters, I can't see where yikes claims Israel/Jews started the violence. Furthermore, the violence was even predictable back then, seeing the info from one of the wiki's you linked to:

  Quote

The principle of self-determination affirmed by the League of Nations was not to be applied to Palestine, given the foreseeable rejection by the people of Zionism, which the British sponsored. These post-WW1 arrangements both for Palestine and other Arab societies led to a 'radicalization' of the Arab world.

And ironically, the Jaffa riots started as a fight between two Jewish groups? What? That's the first sentence of the second wiki you linked to? What were you trying to prove exactly?

Let's just agree the problems started in the period after WW1 and call it quits. It's even better to put the blame on the Brits for allowing such a mess the grow under their watch.

  On 11/23/2012 at 5:37 PM, goDel said:

It's even better to put the blame on the Brits for allowing such a mess the grow under their watch.

That's undoubtedly a large part of it, and it's hardly the biggest cock-up we managed during our batshit colonial years. The partition of India springs to mind, for example...

I think my grandfather was actually a policeman in Palestine for a while actually. I'm not sure cause I was never close to that side of my family.

  On 11/23/2012 at 5:37 PM, goDel said:

  On 11/23/2012 at 2:46 PM, eugene said:

first of all i try to establish a more or less solid ground on which you can even start arguing something for/against israel/palestinians,

A more or less solid ground should respect both sides of the issue. Can't say the Balfour Declaration did, or can you? It was a one-sided agreement, ignoring previous agreements.

by solid ground i mean factual solid ground, it's no secret that baflour declaration is pro-zionist, so no argument here. the brits would zigzag a lot though and would turn away jewish immigrants in very tough times.

i don't think it ignored previous agreements though: "...it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine" and it doesn't talk of specific borders for the jewish state

Well, let me just say that there was and is no solid ground for the past and thus the current situation. It was already a mess before the declaration of the Jewish state. I'd rather put the focus on this fact than al the other facts. No matter how good some current stats are, the lack of that initial solid ground is still there. And issues won't be resolved without taking that lack into account.

The whole discussion about who is to blame is uninteresting, imo. Currently it's about initiative and intentions. It's obvious both sides don't trust each other. And both have their justified reasons. But the fact remains that it is still called the "Occupied Palestinian Territory". Therefore, it's the occupier who has the initiative and should make clear what it's intentions are (by actions!! ... settlements in the West Bank, anyone?).

Actually, I don't see what the problem is AT ALL.

  On 11/23/2012 at 5:37 PM, goDel said:

  On 11/23/2012 at 2:46 PM, eugene said:

first of all i try to establish a more or less solid ground on which you can even start arguing something for/against israel/palestinians,

 

A more or less solid ground should respect both sides of the issue. Can't say the Balfour Declaration did, or can you? It was a one-sided agreement, ignoring previous agreements.

 

 

  On 11/23/2012 at 4:17 PM, compson said:

Read up on history yikes, Israel/Jews didn't start the violence.

 

http://en.wikipedia....Nebi_Musa_riots

http://en.wikipedia....Palestine_riots

 

Not sure why you quote those articles. For starters, I can't see where yikes claims Israel/Jews started the violence. Furthermore, the violence was even predictable back then, seeing the info from one of the wiki's you linked to:

 

  Quote

The principle of self-determination affirmed by the League of Nations was not to be applied to Palestine, given the foreseeable rejection by the people of Zionism, which the British sponsored. These post-WW1 arrangements both for Palestine and other Arab societies led to a 'radicalization' of the Arab world.

 

And ironically, the Jaffa riots started as a fight between two Jewish groups? What? That's the first sentence of the second wiki you linked to? What were you trying to prove exactly?

 

Let's just agree the problems started in the period after WW1 and call it quits. It's even better to put the blame on the Brits for allowing such a mess the grow under their watch.

"the 'state" was founded in violence and will never be at peace because of this."

Not necessarily founded in violence as implied by yikes.

"Speeches by Arab religious leaders during the festival, in which traditionally large numbers of Muslims gathered for a religious procession, led to a serious outbreak of violent assaults on the city's Jews." (1920)

A year later:

"Police attempted to disperse the about 50 communist protestors, and Muslims and Christians intervened to help the police against the Jews..... Hearing of the fighting and believing that Arabs were being attacked, the Arabs of Jaffa went on the offensive. Dozens of British, Arab, and Jewish witnesses all reported that Arab men bearing clubs, knives, swords, and some pistols broke into Jewish buildings and murdered their inhabitants, while women followed to loot. They attacked Jewish pedestrians and destroyed Jewish homes and stores. They beat and killed Jews in their homes, including children, and in some cases split open the victims' skulls."

And after Israel was founded the Jews were again attacked by the Arabs by completely unprovoked attacks.

Point being is that the offensive all started with the Arabs not wanting Jews in the region. Which I think is important to the context of the situation now, because often people describe the situation as if the Jews started the violence.

  On 11/23/2012 at 7:22 PM, goDel said:

Well, let me just say that there was and is no solid ground for the past and thus the current situation. It was already a mess before the declaration of the Jewish state. I'd rather put the focus on this fact than al the other facts. No matter how good some current stats are, the lack of that initial solid ground is still there. And issues won't be resolved without taking that lack into account.

 

The whole discussion about who is to blame is uninteresting, imo. Currently it's about initiative and intentions. It's obvious both sides don't trust each other. And both have their justified reasons. But the fact remains that it is still called the "Occupied Palestinian Territory". Therefore, it's the occupier who has the initiative and should make clear what it's intentions are (by actions!! ... settlements in the West Bank, anyone?).

 

Actually, I don't see what the problem is AT ALL.

i think you lost me when i was talking of "solid ground", i meant factual solid ground regarding the discussion of the conflict in this thread (or any other place of discussion), meaning, not slipping into half-assed theories/narratives that are based on poor research.

"both sides don't trust each other" is a massive understatement, you have no idea how deep it goes, but i also think that israel should make the first step.

No it actually isn't. You say it like it's important who made the first hit. Point is that it isn't. The situation was pretty bad before the declaration of the Jewish state with both antisemitism and anti-arab sentiments running wild.

And even though the Brits knew the situation was problematic, they supported the declaration anyways. The sick thing is, all parties knew they were getting themselves into.

Also, following your logic, the African-Americans are to blame for the '67 riots in Detroit as well.

If I keep on trolling you, and you bite the bait, is the blame on you?

  On 11/23/2012 at 7:55 PM, goDel said:

No it actually isn't. You say it like it's important who made the first hit. Point is that it isn't. The situation was pretty bad before the declaration of the Jewish state with both antisemitism and anti-arab sentiments running wild.

 

And even though the Brits knew the situation was problematic, they supported the declaration anyways. The sick thing is, all parties knew they were getting themselves into.

 

Also, following your logic, the African-Americans are to blame for the '67 riots in Detroit as well.

 

If I keep on trolling you, and you bite the bait, is the blame on you?

Well one side was willing to live with the other and the Arabs attempted to kill them off before and after Israel was declared a state. So yeah, the violence started there. If the Arabs hadn't gone on an offensive the region would not be in this back and forth situation. It's pretty relevant because that is where the trust between the two was broken. Which is what this conflict boils down to.

After Israel was declared a state the Arabs left the region because they anticipated an attack on the Jews. They weren't kicked out.

  On 11/23/2012 at 7:55 PM, eugene said:

  On 11/23/2012 at 7:22 PM, goDel said:

Well, let me just say that there was and is no solid ground for the past and thus the current situation. It was already a mess before the declaration of the Jewish state. I'd rather put the focus on this fact than al the other facts. No matter how good some current stats are, the lack of that initial solid ground is still there. And issues won't be resolved without taking that lack into account.

 

The whole discussion about who is to blame is uninteresting, imo. Currently it's about initiative and intentions. It's obvious both sides don't trust each other. And both have their justified reasons. But the fact remains that it is still called the "Occupied Palestinian Territory". Therefore, it's the occupier who has the initiative and should make clear what it's intentions are (by actions!! ... settlements in the West Bank, anyone?).

 

Actually, I don't see what the problem is AT ALL.

i think you lost me when i was talking of "solid ground", i meant factual solid ground regarding the discussion of the conflict in this thread (or any other place of discussion), meaning, not slipping into half-assed theories/narratives that are based on poor research.

 

"both sides don't trust each other" is a massive understatement, you have no idea how deep it goes, but i also think that israel should make the first step.

I think I know pretty well what you meant. And I believe you still have know idea what I'm talking about. But please keep sticking to the facts you want to stick to. I've told you in many ways why I think those are irrelevant. I even told you the whole point about who is to blame, or whose side to pick is irrelevant as well (which was the whole reason you brought these solid facts into the discussion). By sticking to your solid ground, you sidestep the discussion.

And thanks for telling me I have no idea how deep the distrust goes, even though I said it was obvious there is distrust from both sides. What's your point really? Dismiss my point of view, but confirm and agree with it anyways? I hope you feel you scored the final point in this discussion.

  On 11/23/2012 at 8:00 PM, compson said:

  On 11/23/2012 at 7:55 PM, goDel said:

No it actually isn't. You say it like it's important who made the first hit. Point is that it isn't. The situation was pretty bad before the declaration of the Jewish state with both antisemitism and anti-arab sentiments running wild.

 

And even though the Brits knew the situation was problematic, they supported the declaration anyways. The sick thing is, all parties knew they were getting themselves into.

 

Also, following your logic, the African-Americans are to blame for the '67 riots in Detroit as well.

 

If I keep on trolling you, and you bite the bait, is the blame on you?

 

Well one side was willing to live with the other and the Arabs attempted to kill them off before and after Israel was declared a state. So yeah, the violence started there. If the Arabs hadn't gone on an offensive the region would not be in this back and forth situation. It's pretty relevant because that is where the trust between the two was broken. Which is what this conflict boils down to.

 

After Israel was declared a state the Arabs left the region because they anticipated an attack on the Jews. They weren't kicked out.

So you choose a starting point, the riots, and forget about anything happening before, during and after? Sure, the Palestinians are idiots who just happened to feel like rioting as if they were some Vancouver hooligans after some lost game. Are you going to tell me the shooting of Franz Ferdinand caused the entire WW1 as well?