Israel? Palestine? Neither? Your thoughts...

[liquideasy]

I'm sure a thread like this has been around before (forgive me if it was), but I wanna get some thoughts about the subject. I spent some time in Israel, and I'd like to know how others feel about the subject...or if you feel at all.

[Praetor]

I'm assuming you're asking which side one supports? If so, neither. Both have done terrible things to the other and both are acting like fucking babies.

[liquideasy]

I'm not really asking which side you guys are on, more like your opinions on the subject. Does the subject affect you in some way etc.

[perceptrons]

I'm against our backing of Israel.

[whataclush]

i consider israel a terrorist state.

[saysmydoctor]

Israel ranks up there with China concerning human rights and is pretty much a US-sanctioned terrorist organization.

[My Broken Fever]

The point is though, that we sort of put them there to begin with, so it's hard to stop supporting them. Personally I'm neutral, both sides have done horrible things. I just hope Israel gets a slightly less hawkish government (the parties in the left are far more willing to open negotiations), and that Hamas subsides. And that all the hysterical rabbis, priests and imams stop enflaming the conflict over Jerusalem. But I guess that's unlikely.

[saysmydoctor]

It's pretty easy to stop supporting a country who openly kills/targets civilians.

[My Broken Fever]

It's pretty easy to stop supporting a country who openly kills/targets civilians.
Palestine does the exact same. But realistically I don't see the U.S. ever stop backing Israel, partly because of the hugely powerful jewish lobby you have, and partly because Israel is one of the few relatively stable footholds in the Middle East of the West.

Personally, I still sort of support Israel, and I admit that's probably because of the trauma Europe has over World War 2. But I also really get the feeling that most of the population really doesn't want the war, but it's still there because of the hawks in the government, and very powerful and even more hawkish rabbis. So giving up support entirely doesn't seem... fair.

[roche]

Honestly, most of the conflict in that area has been started by Israel with the weapons and support the US gives them. But this side is rarely seen because lets face it our news sources are extremely biased towards Palestine. Neither side is especially innocent in the conflict there but let's stop blindly backing everything Israel does.

[saysmydoctor]

Palestine does the exact same. But realistically I don't see the U.S. ever stop backing Israel, partly because of the hugely powerful jewish lobby you have, and partly because Israel is one of the few relatively stable footholds in the Middle East of the West.

Personally, I still sort of support Israel, and I admit that's probably because of the trauma Europe has over World War 2. But I also really get the feeling that most of the population really doesn't want the war, but it's still there because of the hawks in the government, and very powerful and even more hawkish rabbis. So giving up support entirely doesn't seem... fair.
I understand the rationale behind why the Palestinians are doing it. Their rights are being completely squashed, they have high unemployment because the Israelis have built a wall that keeps them all out when only a minority are the ones actually causing the problem. They want their own state. Think that's utterly reasonable considering that was the intent of the partition in the first place and it's Israel who has stopped that from occurring.

[My Broken Fever]

I understand the rationale behind why the Palestinians are doing it. Their rights are being completely squashed, they have high unemployment because the Israelis have built a wall that keeps them all out when only a minority are the ones actually causing the problem. They want their own state. Think that's utterly reasonable considering that was the intent of the partition in the first place and it's Israel who has stopped that from occurring.
I just don't think it's that black and white, I can understand a large part of the rationale of the Israeli too. If I lived there, and someone would want to harm my family, I'd be the first to start building a wall around that threat and defending my home in every way possible.

Now you could argue that it wasn't right for them to go to then-Palestine in the first place, but it was us that gave them the land in the first place. What is going on there is our mistake, and we can't just pull our hands off Israel, we put it there. I just think it's very easy for us to judge on this, but things aren't that simple if your friends and families get blown up.

[saysmydoctor]

I think it's pretty black and white.

A people are being oppressed and stopped from having a state they were mandated to have 1948. That in and of itself gives them all the rationale in the world to go blow themselves up in a market and I guarantee you that if I was one of them, I would take up arms against Israel. There is no reason whatsoever that a two state agreement can't reached. There is no reason they should provoking the situation by building settlements and then expanding them in Palestinians areas.

It's sad to say this, but blowing up buses, markets, it may be cruel, it may be inhumane, it may be savage, it gets the point across though. Which is why I said or at least had meant to say, I don't condone it....but I understand it.

[My Broken Fever]

I think it's pretty black and white.

A people are being oppressed and stopped from having a state they were mandated to have 1948. That in and of itself gives them all the rationale in the world to go blow themselves up in a market and I guarantee you that if I was one of them, I would take up arms against Israel. There is no reason whatsoever that a two state agreement can't reached. There is no reason they should provoking the situation by building settlements and then expanding them in Palestinians areas.

It's sad to say this, but blowing up buses, markets, it may be cruel, it may be inhumane, it may be savage, it gets the point across though. Which is why I said or at least had meant to say, I don't condone it....but I understand it.
Israel didn't reject the idea about the states that the UN proposed, that were the Palestinians and the Arab world. They started violence at that point (although the violence goes back long before that, I know) leading to the civil war in '47-'48 and on the 14th of may in 1948 all the neighboring attacked Israel as well. If they had accepted the UN resolution (which was a lot fairer, and put Jerusalem down as an international city, backed by the UN), it might have saved a lot of violence.

[saysmydoctor]

You are talking about the early Zionists, who utilized similar tactics as the Palestinians do now? I agree with you in that standpoint, but two wrongs definitely don't make a right. I am for Jerusalem being an international city.

[My Broken Fever]

You are talking about the early Zionists, who utilized similar tactics as the Palestinians do now? I agree with you in that standpoint, but two wrongs definitely don't make a right. I am for Jerusalem being an international city. Agreed. I just believe blame is absolutely 50/50 as far as the current violence goes. Israel is agitating (or rather the rather anti-palestinian-state colonists) the Palestinians, but at the same time the Palestinians are firing missiles towards Israel.

Although I'm the first to admit my bias in favour of Israel, due to the fact that most of my experience of the country comes from my trips to Jerusalem where I stayed with (Israeli) family friends. I just always get this idea that it's only this small group of mainly religious extremists that keep this conflict alive, and that both parties suffer under that.

[Love As Arson]

I support a secular one-state solution. As for the UN mandate, why should they have accepted it, particularly since it involved establishing a racist state? What's more, the reason there has been an impediment to peace is the rejectionist stances of both the US and Israel; the former enjoys an imperial hub, while the latter enjoys the billions of dollars that is given to them to maintain dominance. This is why the first part of our process must be to make the US realize that its support of Israel will be costly, either through divestment movements or our political demands.

[Love As Arson]

Agreed. I just believe blame is absolutely 50/50 as far as the current violence goes. Israel is agitating (or rather the rather anti-palestinian-state colonists) the Palestinians, but at the same time the Palestinians are firing missiles towards Israel.
The violence of the oppressed is not the same as the violence of the oppressor. I certainly wouldn't castigate a slave who murdered his master's family.

[saysmydoctor]

Do you really think a secular one state solution would work?

[My Broken Fever]

I support a secular one-state solution. As for the UN mandate, why should they have accepted it, particularly since it involved establishing a racist state? What's more, the reason there has been an impediment to peace is the rejectionist stances of both the US and Israel; the former enjoys an imperial hub, while the latter enjoys the billions of dollars that is given to them to maintain dominance. This is why the first part of our process must be to make the US realize that its support of Israel will be costly, either through divestment movements or our political demands.
I just doubt that will ever happen. with the pressure of the Jewish lobby, the arms deals that are done and that strategical importance, there just seem to be far too many people benefiting from it to suddenly turn around and care about the fate of the Palestinians (yes, maybe that is cynical). And I don't think that democracy is stronger than those powers.

I'm not saying that we shouldn't try to get that far, any attempt at achieving it is better than sitting still. I just don't see how it will happen.

And well... a secular state in Israel seems to me to be very wishful thinking. The entire country is a melting-pot of origins and sacred places for religions. Any secular government (Jewish or Muslim, or a mix of those) will ultimately have parties formed in the name of a specific religion, backed by influential holy men. Unless we find a hotfix against extremist religion, I can't imagine it happening.

[My Broken Fever]

The violence of the oppressed is not the same as the violence of the oppressor. I certainly wouldn't castigate a slave who murdered his master's family. I think that is a huge oversimplification. Unless you want to claim that each member of the Israeli state is actively and willingly participating in the oppression, which simply isn't the case. Using your analogy it would be like the slave killing another random family that has nothing to with the fact he is a slave, and claim it as just.

[Love As Arson]

I just doubt that will ever happen. with the pressure of the Jewish lobby, the arms deals that are done and that strategical importance, there just seem to be far too many people benefiting from it to suddenly turn around and care about the fate of the Palestinians (yes, maybe that is cynical). And I don't think that democracy is stronger than those powers.

I'm not saying that we shouldn't try to get that far, any attempt at achieving it is better than sitting still. I just don't see how it will happen.

And well... a secular state in Israel seems to me to be very wishful thinking. The entire country is a melting-pot of origins and sacred places for religions. Any secular government (Jewish or Muslim, or a mix of those) will ultimately have parties formed in the name of a specific religion, backed by influential holy men. Unless we find a hotfix against extremist religion, I can't imagine it happening.
That is why people, as they did during the movements against apartheid, need to make it an expensive position to continue the status quo.

Do you really think a secular one state solution would work?
Yes, although a intermediary period would be an acceptable concession in order to sort it out. I think it would be far better, in terms of democracy and the promotion of equality, to have a government which is accountable to both Palestinians and Israelis, one which isn't manipulated or founded upon second-class citizenship.

[saysmydoctor]

That is why people, as they did during the movements against apartheid, need to make it an expensive position to continue the status quo.


Yes, although a intermediary period would be an acceptable concession in order to sort it out. I think it would be far better, in terms of democracy and the promotion of equality, to have a government which is accountable to both Palestinians and Israelis, one which isn't manipulated or founded upon second-class citizenship.
I agree with the concept in theory but that sounds very hopeful, which I think you acknowledge. Would you acept a two-state solution as a stepping stone to a secular one state?

[My Broken Fever]

Israel isn't there because it used to be a colony, or because there are valuable resources. Israel and Palestine fight over the sandy, dry and rocky country because it is holy to their religion. Making it too costly for say the Jewish lobby to support it (and thus the U.S. to support Israel pretty much) isn't as simple as making it very expensive for them.

This is, in my mind, also the main reason why there won't be a secular state. Even if it existed, there would still be (probably) violent conflict over things like the ground where the Dome of Rock is, sacred to both Jews and Muslims alike.

[Love As Arson]

I think that is a huge oversimplification. Unless you want to claim that each member of the Israeli state is actively and willingly participating in the oppression, which simply isn't the case.
The ratio of Palestinian to Israeli civilian deaths is something like seven to one. I can understand people lashing out violently given that and it demonstrates the lack of moral equivalence between the violent actions of the two people. I will say this about terrorism: Individual terrorism will solve nothing, it is only when a given act furthers the cause of equality that it would become more justified.

[My Broken Fever]

The ratio of Palestinian to Israeli civilian deaths is something like seven to one. I can understand people lashing out violently given that and it demonstrates the lack of moral equivalence between the violent actions of the two people. I will say this about terrorism: Individual terrorism will solve nothing, it is only when a given act furthers the cause of equality that it would become more justified. But collective terrorism does?

EDIT: Going to bed, will respond further tomorrow.

[saysmydoctor]

Yes, of course it does.

[ijbet59]

israel

[Love As Arson]

I agree with the concept in theory but that sounds very hopeful, which I think you acknowledge. Would you acept a two-state solution as a stepping stone to a secular one state?
Yes. That is the intermediary period I was referring to.

Israel isn't there because it used to be a colony, or because there are valuable resources. Israel and Palestine fight over the sandy, dry and rocky country because it is holy to their religion. Making it too costly for say the Jewish lobby to support it (and thus the U.S. to support Israel pretty much) isn't as simple as making it very expensive for them..
There was a relatively peaceful co-existence prior to the establishment of the Israeli state. That isn't to say that there was no violence, but that it was minimal. This is the point of contention, not religious disagreements; they are a lens through which the conflict has taken because both Israel and the US did a great deal to dismantle the secular groups in the Middle East.

This is, in my mind, also the main reason why there won't be a secular state. Even if it existed, there would still be (probably) violent conflict over things like the ground where the Dome of Rock is, sacred to both Jews and Muslims alike.
The resentment arose from material circumstances, namely the creation of a Jewish state, which is akin to a "white state", and the treatment of Palestinians as less than human. If the religious divisions existed, but were mediated by material equality, opportunity and recognition in terms of democracy, then I doubt the violence would exist to the extent it does.

[Love As Arson]

But collective terrorism does?

.
What do you think the bourgeois democratic revolutions of the nineteenth revolutions were? For a more recent example, would we be decrying the movement in Iran if they used strategic violence to undermine the rule of clerics? I highly doubt it.

[SlappedActor]

The violence of the oppressed is not the same as the violence of the oppressor. I certainly wouldn't castigate a slave who murdered his master's family.

You've gotta be fucking kidding me.

[saysmydoctor]

You've gotta be fucking kidding me.
What?

[SlappedActor]

Is this really how fucked up things have gotten? That revenge and terrorism are now viable means of obtaining goals, even if that goal is "freedom" or "equality"? I'm just extrapolating off of his original statement, but what if said family included women and children? Is that still okay?

When it comes to making progress in areas of extreme cultural differences, only one dude really had it right:
http://www.dlhs.co.uk/images/gandhi.jpg

[Love As Arson]

Is this really how fucked up things have gotten? That revenge and terrorism are now viable means of obtaining goals, even if that goal is "freedom" or "equality"? I'm just extrapolating off of his original statement, but what if said family included women and children? Is that still okay?

When it comes to making progress in areas of extreme cultural differences, only one dude really had it right:
http://www.dlhs.co.uk/images/gandhi.jpg

George Orwell, in an essay on Gandhi, argued that this, too, was Gandhi’s role in the Indian independence movement:

Strictly speaking, as a Nationalist, he was an enemy [of the British], but since in every crisis he would exert himself to prevent violence–which, from the British point of view, meant preventing any effective action whatever–he could be regarded as "our man." In private this was sometimes cynically admitted. The attitude of the Indian millionaires was similar. Gandhi called upon them to repent, and naturally they preferred him to the Socialists and Communists who, given the chance, would actually have taken their money away.9

Pacifism accepts the bourgeois idea of "norms" of behavior expressed by Clinton in his Columbine speech, only they would like him to abide by it. The way to end war is to convince all mankind to follow certain moral imperatives, certain norms of human behavior that stand above history and society: Be nice to strangers, love they neighbor, thou shalt not kill, and so on. So, for example, the Hague Agenda for Peace and Justice for the 21st Century declares, "Society now has the means to cure disease and eliminate poverty and starvation. The 20th century has also seen the creation of a set of universal norms which, if implemented, would go a long way toward making war unnecessary and impossible."10 Surely the endless horror of war in the 20th century would have convinced the writers of this declaration that these norms are worth less than the paper they are written on. These norms, peddled in schoolbooks, the press, and the pulpit, are merely a cover for a society divided by class, riven by war for loot–a society where lying, deception, bribery, and large-scale killing are truly the norm.

http://www.isreview.org/issues/24/pacifism_war.shtml

[saysmydoctor]

So, Dom, would you argue that MLK would fall into a similar category as Gandhi due to his pacifist approach or am I comparing apples and oranges?

[Love As Arson]

So, Dom, would you argue that MLK would fall into a similar category as Gandhi due to his pacifist approach or am I comparing apples and oranges?
I think the situation is a little different, considering that the civil rights movement was originally a demand for reform; however, I agreed more with Malcolm X. It is interesting to note that the love affair white liberals had with MLK ended once his views became more radical:

By 1967, King had also become the country's most prominent opponent of the Vietnam War, and a staunch critic of overall U.S. foreign policy, which he deemed militaristic. In his "Beyond Vietnam" speech delivered at New York's Riverside Church on April 4, 1967 — a year to the day before he was murdered — King called the United States "the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today."

From Vietnam to South Africa to Latin America, King said, the U.S. was "on the wrong side of a world revolution." King questioned "our alliance with the landed gentry of Latin America," and asked why the U.S. was suppressing revolutions "of the shirtless and barefoot people" in the Third World, instead of supporting them.

In foreign policy, King also offered an economic critique, complaining about "capitalists of the West investing huge sums of money in Asia, Africa and South America, only to take the profits out with no concern for the social betterment of the countries."

You haven't heard the "Beyond Vietnam" speech on network news retrospectives, but national media heard it loud and clear back in 1967 — and loudly denounced it. Life magazine called it "demagogic slander that sounded like a script for Radio Hanoi." The Washington Post patronized that "King has diminished his usefulness to his cause, his country, his people."

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2269

[open mind]

israel routinely disgusts me with thier actions.

i'd support a one state solution but i'd also like a 2 state one.

israel will never accept a one state solution because it would defeat the entire purpose of israels existence.

edit:while it doesn't bother me much on a personal level nutty christians should note that nearly all christians have been pushed out of the holy land as a result of the support israel.

[My Broken Fever]

What do you think the bourgeois democratic revolutions of the nineteenth revolutions were? For a more recent example, would we be decrying the movement in Iran if they used strategic violence to undermine the rule of clerics? I highly doubt it. How can you compare this to the revolutions against the aristocracy? One group in the case of Israel isn't a tiny fracture of a population, it is the entire population. You're basically saying that terrorizing an entire population of people is a valid and acceptable way of dealing with the situation.

[My Broken Fever]

And if collective terrorism actually starts towards the Israeli, Israel will wipe the Palestinians off the earth. All it will do is give the people who'd love to see exactly that happen an excuse to do it, and whats more; the world will support it.

You also seem to be stuck in the socialist idea that civil wars between classes are necessary and 'progressive', but it's not as simple as that; you cannot consider the Palestinians the oppressed fighting against an oppressor because not all the Israeli are oppressors, a small group of influential politicians and holy men are. You're saying that a full out war against a population is fine because one has it worse than the other.

Nothing is as black and white as it seems, and the article quotes LENIN on oppressor classes. Lenin oppressed 95% of the population with support of less than 5%. That is as much of an aristocracy as anything else. Thinking in extremes never solves anything.

[Love As Arson]

How can you compare this to the revolutions against the aristocracy?
The aristocracy was supported by many in the population.

One group in the case of Israel isn't a tiny fracture of a population, it is the entire population. You're basically saying that terrorizing an entire population of people is a valid and acceptable way of dealing with the situation.
No, I said that I understood the violence and that individual terrorism does not work. By individual terrorism, I am referring to car bombings and so on. A better means of achieving that end is strategic acts of violence against points of interest that would hurt the Israeli power structure. Again, I use Iran as an example: It would not change anything to randomly set off car bombs, but if there were organized acts of violence against the clerics, it would not be seen as amoral but necessary and I think this is my conception of Palestinian struggle.

And if collective terrorism actually starts towards the Israeli, Israel will wipe the Palestinians off the earth. .
That has been Israel's policy regardless of the process the Palestinians have used.



You also seem to be stuck in the socialist idea that civil wars between classes are necessary and 'progressive', but it's not as simple as that.
I never said anything of the sort. I am arguing for specific tactics and considerations in order to achieve an end. Of course, I would prefer an outcome that didn't require violence; however, as you like to point out, this is reality and the Israeli/US alliance will not allow the Palestinians any degree of freedom without a struggle. What you're proposing is an absolute morality, which I have no use for, that calls on victims to accept the norms, while their oppressors openly have no regard for their rights.


you cannot consider the Palestinians the oppressed fighting against an oppressor because not all the Israeli are oppressors
I never said they were. In America, not all Americans were racist, but it would be appropriate to say that the state was/is and that is what I refer to when I say that Israel is an oppressor.


a small group of influential politicians and holy men are.
This is simplistic. It completely disregards history and the connections between Israel and US imperialism.



You're saying that a full out war against a population is fine because one has it worse than the other.
Where did I say this?


Nothing is as black and white as it seems
I agree. That is why I despise paicfist responses, which call on Palestinians to simply accept all assaults because it may make them look bad.

and the article quotes LENIN on oppressor classes. Lenin oppressed 95% of the population with support of less than 5%. That is as much of an aristocracy as anything else.
I recommend reading Leninism Under Lenin.

Thinking in extremes never solves anything.
Wasn't it you that said nothing it black and white? If this is the case, then how can you say that extremes never solve anything? Ideas which were once considered extreme are now the norm.

[My Broken Fever]

I must've misunderstood your post then. I just don't understand the comparison you make with Iran, it's like comparing apples to pears. What you're saying is that organized violence would solve anything, and I have to completely disagree. The struggle in Iran is against the ruling elite, whereas organized violence in Israel would mean that the civilians suffer, not the leadership. This isn't a war of a people against their own oppressive government, it will only turn into a bloodier war against the population. It will also most likely radicalize the normal Israeli against the Palestinians, and the world will agree. Leading to even more bloodshed.

I personally don't see how violence would solve the issue, or further it in any way; violence rarely solves anything. But I also don't quite understand what you think will happen if indeed organized violence was used, that the Israeli will realize their mistake and go "Oh well, you attack our power structure, we're sorry, we'll stop attacking you now."? It seems more likely to me that they will strike back and destroy any possibility to ever let something like that happen.

[Love As Arson]

What you're saying is that organized violence would solve anything, and I have to completely disagree.
Yes, as a part of a strategic effort to emancipate a group of people, I think violence will have to be used; it would not be the wish of the people, but power rarely concedes without a fight.

the struggle in Iran is against the ruling elite, whereas organized violence in Israel would mean that the civilians suffer, not the leadership.
Which civilians? If you're referring to the Palestinians, any struggle is going incur casualties. The Iranian students didn't escape unscathed and I think we can say that this fact doesn't mean their fight wasn't worth fighting. To refer to an earlier point, I refer to the Iranian effort because it is the most recent incident of notoriety and I think it illustrates my point about violence.

This isn't a war of a people against their own oppressive government, it will only turn into a bloodier war against the population. It will also most likely radicalize the normal Israeli against the Palestinians, and the world will agree. Leading to even more bloodshed.
Which world? The policy-makers certainly, but the rest of the world has largely agreed that Israel is abusing human rights. The point you fail to miss is I am not talking about violence as the sole means, but as an inevitable fact of fighting for particular demands. There is first a need to create a political programme for these demands.


I personally don't see how violence would solve the issue, or further it in any way; violence rarely solves anything.
Yes, that is the axiom usually given in these situations,unless it is the ruling country is the one using it.



But I also don't quite understand what you think will happen if indeed organized violence was used, that the Israeli will realize their mistake and go "Oh well, you attack our power structure, we're sorry, we'll stop attacking you now."? It seems more likely to me that they will strike back and destroy any possibility to ever let something like that happen.
I am not talking about violence as the primary tool to achieve political ends, but as a tool in a larger political movement, which may require it or respond in kind to it.

[My Broken Fever]

I just think that a political movement that seeks a solution to the problem, will be discredited completely by the violence. And besides that I just don't believe more violence defeats violence (maybe that is overly idealistic and maybe I am a pacifist for that).

[whataclush]

tZY3eKPVjbY

[jawstheme]

They are both wrong, but Israel has the benefit of our sympathy.

[jawstheme]

I think it's pretty black and white.

A people are being oppressed and stopped from having a state they were mandated to have 1948. That in and of itself gives them all the rationale in the world to go blow themselves up in a market and I guarantee you that if I was one of them, I would take up arms against Israel. There is no reason whatsoever that a two state agreement can't reached. There is no reason they should provoking the situation by building settlements and then expanding them in Palestinians areas.

It's sad to say this, but blowing up buses, markets, it may be cruel, it may be inhumane, it may be savage, it gets the point across though. Which is why I said or at least had meant to say, I don't condone it....but I understand it.

Well said.

[saysmydoctor]

Dom, would it be fair to argue that considering the democratic make up of Israel, that targeting civilians, who elect those who make up the governing elite, is a great way to get at the power structure? Or does it reinforce the power structure's policy towards Palestinians?

[Skadrist]

I like Love as Arson, can't say I am as radical as him but damn it he is ace at arguing with latte liberals.

[TheZeroKid]

I'm all for a 2-state solution. They've both done some terrible shit and both are guilty of brainwashing their youth. They gotta leave each other the hell alone, they're both made of human beings and they both follow radical versions on their religions.

[Love As Arson]

Dom, would it be fair to argue that considering the democratic make up of Israel, that targeting civilians, who elect those who make up the governing elite, is a great way to get at the power structure? Or does it reinforce the power structure's policy towards Palestinians?
On the whole, the use of violence must be placed in the context of a greater strategy for Palestinian liberation and I do not think purely civilian attacks will achieve this end. If anything, violence would have to be used to demonstrate that Israel is no longer an effective watchdog for the US, which would mean confrontations with the IDF whenever it decides to engage in collective punishment. Since Israel is highly subsidized from the outside, it would prove to be a crucial blow against the power structure.

[Love As Arson]

Also, great article on the class character of Israel:

http://www.isreview.org/issues/23/class_character_israel.shtml

[phil19]

i think at this point they're both as bad as each other.

[thatwasamoment]

I love Israel.

[Bob Payne]

Palestine.

[boykosaurus]

I'm going to Israel and the West Bank in a few weeks. Even though my studies are concentrated on the Middle East, I've tried really hard to stay away from the issue since it's so political and emotional. I think me visiting there will force me to be more vocal and attentive to the issue though.

The two-state solution will never occur unless both sides make drastic changes, as of now, that solution is in the proverbial shitter. No solution towards Jerusalem will occur (I personally want it to be an international city but that idea is long gone for the parties involved) unless the Palestinians give up on it or the Israeli's can part with its entirety. Basically, Palestine is fucked due to its own corruption and inability to get its act together while Israel (read: select leadership) has clearly exploited this position since the death of Arafat and the split in the PA.

Sweet thread for me to come back to form my hiatus.

[raukura]

israel needs to just slaughter them all yo

[thatwasamoment]

I'm going to Israel and the West Bank in a few weeks. Even though my studies are concentrated on the Middle East, I've tried really hard to stay away from the issue since it's so political and emotional. I think me visiting there will force me to be more vocal and attentive to the issue though.

The two-state solution will never occur unless both sides make drastic changes, as of now, that solution is in the proverbial shitter. No solution towards Jerusalem will occur (I personally want it to be an international city but that idea is long gone for the parties involved) unless the Palestinians give up on it or the Israeli's can part with its entirety. Basically, Palestine is fucked due to its own corruption and inability to get its act together while Israel (read: select leadership) has clearly exploited this position since the death of Arafat and the split in the PA.

Sweet thread for me to come back to form my hiatus.Making aliyah?

[boykosaurus]

israel needs to just slaughter them all yo

You're hilarious

[boykosaurus]

Making aliyah?

Nah, not Jewish (although my family from Ukraine could have been), just always wanted to go to Israel.

[saysmydoctor]

israel needs to just slaughter them all yo
Fuckkkkkk yeahhhhhhhhhh

[thatwasamoment]

Nah, not Jewish (although my family from Ukraine could have been), just always wanted to go to Israel.From your picture, I don't think you'll have any trouble blending in.

It's wild, seeing and doing things you've read about for years. The water shortage will be an inconvenience (that's what upcoming wars will be over) but you'll feel completely safe and have a great time. Though the West Bank is pretty bad, I had a gun pointed at me and was run out of the town.

[Animalhill]

ahem: ארוך חי את ישראל

[GeeBee]

ahem: ארוך חי את ישראל

I knew it would only be a matter of time before your true colors came through.:-d

[Animalhill]

I knew it would only be a matter of time before your true colors came through.:-d
;-) Jews FTW

[boykosaurus]

From your picture, I don't think you'll have any trouble blending in.

It's wild, seeing and doing things you've read about for years. The water shortage will be an inconvenience (that's what upcoming wars will be over) but you'll feel completely safe and have a great time. Though the West Bank is pretty bad, I had a gun pointed at me and was run out of the town.

Yes, I'm pretty excited, especially for Jerusalem. I'm definitely going to try and make it into the West Bank, but we'll see how that goes.

[open mind]

I'm going to Israel and the West Bank in a few weeks. Even though my studies are concentrated on the Middle East, I've tried really hard to stay away from the issue since it's so political and emotional. I think me visiting there will force me to be more vocal and attentive to the issue though.

The two-state solution will never occur unless both sides make drastic changes, as of now, that solution is in the proverbial shitter. No solution towards Jerusalem will occur (I personally want it to be an international city but that idea is long gone for the parties involved) unless the Palestinians give up on it or the Israeli's can part with its entirety. Basically, Palestine is fucked due to its own corruption and inability to get its act together while Israel (read: select leadership) has clearly exploited this position since the death of Arafat and the split in the PA.

Sweet thread for me to come back to form my hiatus.

what "drastic changes" do the palestinians need to make?

[open mind]

israel needs to just slaughter them all yo

much like yourself tennis sucks balls.

[raukura]

hahahahaa right!

[FueledByRock]

ahem: ארוך חי את ישראל
Why?

[Machu505]

Can't we all just hug and make nice?

[GeeBee]

Israel almost seems like a country full of jews. But that's just me.

[LamarVannoy]

ahem: ארוך חי את ישראל
its pretty sad that i learnt hebrew at school for about 10 years and i dont even know what that means. i can read it, but i cant translate it.

[Animalhill]

its pretty sad that i learnt hebrew at school for about 10 years and i dont even know what that means. i can read it, but i cant translate it.
haha it means, "Long Live Israel!"

[Animalhill]

Why?
Why not?

[Mitch]

I can not stand the e-mails my relatives send about Israel.

Here's a couple of excerpts from one, and you'll probably get the picture:

There recently was a death of a 98 year-old lady named Irena. During WWII, Irena, got permission to work in the Warsaw Ghetto, as a Plumbing/Sewer specialist. She had an 'ulterior motive' ... She KNEW what the Nazi's plans were for the Jews, (being German.) Irena smuggled infants out in the bottom of the tool box she carried and she carried in the back of her truck a burlap sack, (for larger kids..) She also had a dog in the back that she trained to bark when the Nazi soldiers let her in and out of the ghetto. The soldiers of course wanted nothing to do with the dog and the barking covered the kids/infants noises.. During her time of doing this, she managed to smuggle out and save 2500 kids/infants. She was caught, and the Nazi's broke both her legs, arms and beat her severely. Irena kept a record of the names of all the kids she smuggled out and kept them in a glass jar, buried under a tree in her back yard. After the war, she tried to locate any parents that may have survived it and reunited the family. Most had been gassed. Those kids she helped got placed into foster family homes or adopted.


Last year Irena was up for the Nobel Peace Prize ... She was not selected.


Al Gore won, for a slide show on Global Warming


It is now more than 60 years after the Second World War in Europe ended This e-mail is being sent as a memorial chain, in memory of the six million Jews, 20 million Russians, 10 million Christians and 1,900 Catholic priests who were murdered, massacred, raped, burned, starved and humiliated with the German and Russian Peoples looking the other way!

Now, more than ever, with Iraq , Iran , and others, claiming the Holocaust to be 'a my th,' it's imperative to make sure the world never forgets, because there are others who would like to do it again.

[Machu505]

Do the murdered homosexuals, Africans, and disabled people not matter anymore?

[Animalhill]

I can not stand the e-mails my relatives send about Israel.

Here's a couple of excerpts from one, and you'll probably get the picture:

[/font][/color][/color][/size][/font]




Why can you not stand them? Because they are from your grandparents or because you are a holocaust denier?

[saysmydoctor]

Has this thread been Godwin'd yet?

[LamarVannoy]

haha it means, "Long Live Israel!"
oh hahaha ok. i understood the 'Yisrael' part at the end but the rest was just a mystery to me lol.

[mattmatumbo]

Israel ranks up there with China concerning human rights and is pretty much a US-sanctioned terrorist organization.

Never thought of it that way, but i agree now that i've seen it explained like this. I've always thought it was a little fucked up that we just "threw" the jews into a sovereign nation and said "too bad."

[Animalhill]

oh hahaha ok. i understood the 'Yisrael' part at the end but the rest was just a mystery to me lol.
haha no worries, I am also very rough with my Hebrew now, so I could of easilyfucked up.

[LamarVannoy]

haha no worries, I am also very rough with my Hebrew now, so I could of easilyfucked up.
i was never that good at speaking/understanding hebrew in the first place (i was always in the remedial class lol). im sure im even worse at it now since i stopped learning it like 4 years ago.

[Animalhill]

i was never that good at speaking/understanding hebrew in the first place (i was always in the remedial class lol). im sure im even worse at it now since i stopped learning it like 4 years ago.
I was ripped out of Hebrew schooling when I was half-way done by my Catholic father ;-)
Out of spite, I attempted to maintain my studies on my own, but Hebrew is not an easy thing to learn with no guidance at an early age.

[LamarVannoy]

I was ripped out of Hebrew schooling when I was half-way done by my Catholic father ;-)
Out of spite, I attempted to maintain my studies on my own, but Hebrew is not an easy thing to learn with no guidance at an early age.
its also not an easy thing to learn when you dont really want to learn it. it was a compulsary subject at school for me from first grade up until 10th and all the hebrew teachers at my school were bitches. they were only hired because they spoke fluent hebrew but they didnt know a thing about teaching it.
sounds like you were pretty eager to learn it though, which is cool. i wish it hadnt been compulsary for me, then i might have decided on my own that i wanted to learn it instead of despising it throughout my school years.

[GeeBee]

Are all Hebrews Jewish? Or is it all Jews are Hebrewish? I'm confused.

[GeeBee]

Has this thread been Godwin'd yet?

Hitler.

[Machu505]

Hitler.
Not Godwin'd until something is compared.

Palestine is Hitler-inspired.

See? Now it's been Godwin'd.

[LamarVannoy]

Are all Hebrews Jewish? Or is it all Jews are Hebrewish? I'm confused.
um...what? hebrew is a language. i dont think theres such thing as being 'hebrewish'.

[GeeBee]

um...what? hebrew is a language. i dont think theres such thing as being 'hebrewish'.

I'm just making a poor attempt at baiting my jewish friends in here.

[namembal]

Are all Hebrews Jewish? Or is it all Jews are Hebrewish? I'm confused.


:clap:

[jawstheme]

I can not stand the e-mails my relatives send about Israel.

Here's a couple of excerpts from one, and you'll probably get the picture:

[/FONT][/COLOR][/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT]





I actually agree with both of your grandparent's e-mails. I think you are trying to say that Israel uses the holocaust to gain sympathy for their country, and to reflect attantion away from their actions and the situation Palestine is in. While I do agree that this does happen, I don't think that was the intention of these e-mails. They seemed pretty legit, the bottom of the second one was a little preachy, but they are both true.

[paper halo]

I actually agree with both of your grandparent's e-mails. I think you are trying to say that Israel uses the holocaust to gain sympathy for their country, and to reflect attantion away from their actions and the situation Palestine is in. While I do agree that this does happen, I don't think that was the intention of these e-mails. They seemed pretty legit, the bottom of the second one was a little preachy, but they are both true.

The first one's pretty pointless.

"He got a nobel prize? HE GOT A MOTHERFUCKING NOBEL PRIZE!?"
"What can be done about this great injustice?"
"Lets start a chain email!"
"Yeah, that'll show the bastard!"

[jawstheme]

The first one's pretty pointless.

"He got a nobel prize? HE GOT A MOTHERFUCKING NOBEL PRIZE!?"
"What can be done about this great injustice?"
"Lets start a chain email!"
"Yeah, that'll show the bastard!"

I thought the first one was pretty cool because I never heard that story before. The second one would have been pointless if not for the other statistics, such as 20 million Russians being killed (holy shit!). I mean it has been beaten into our brains by now that 6 million jews died as a result of WWII. I don't think anyone has forgotten that. There are like 3 major motion pictures made about it every single year.

[GuitarR0cker1]

I am all for a one state solution with a multicultural liberal democracy. I think it could possibly work with lots of tweaking. Israel can't last as a Zionist country with the population of arabs in Israel skyrocketing like it is. If there is ever a movement by Arabs to have high turnout in future elections, there could be some fucking weird coalitions going on.

Basically Israel is an unsustainable state in the long term. As to who I support I'll outline my support in terms of political parties:
Likud-fucking hate them, I want to shit on this party.
Hamas-hate them more than Likud.
Yisrael Beiteinu-I hate this party the worst. Fucking fascist pigs.
Labor-I like them, too bad they basically have no appeal in Israel.
Hadash-Favorite political party in Israel. I <3 these fuckers.
Fatah- They're alright, too much weird islamic/militia stuff going on here for me to like them much.
Kadima- I dislike them but they beat Likud.

Anyways I'd place my bets that there will be an Arab movement in Israel that will arise sometime in the future. If there is a two state solution, Palestine should become more and more secularized over time as well. Once these two things happen I think that catalyst will be in motion for a secular combined state.

[yoyesyeah]

I'm with you. Jerusalem should not be exclusive to Israel. Israel shouldn't exist in the first place.

[asherlee]

Honestly, both are horrible to each other and I cannot support either. However this is a topic I definitely have a hard time with, as most of my family and those I am around the most are Jewish, and always try to persuade me to choose a side (by a side I mean side with Israel). I can't and if the topic comes up, things get very awkward for me.
Both sides bring in civilians into the fighting, and it's ridiculous. Last summer I got to work with quite a few Israelis at camp, and they had a few horror stories, and conflicting emotions on it, especially after their mandatory army time. After hearing from them, I don't see how anyone can say either side is right. They both have their own reasons, sure I understand that, but imo they're going about this entirely wrong.

[Jali]

I kinda wish I could bitchslap both the Israelis and the Palestinians and just tell them both to shut the fuck up. Its a shitty bit of land for craps sake. "Oh but its holy land" Oh STFU! If you believe god created Earth, the whole planet is holy land anyway! Jebends.

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is the power of oversimplification.

[Animalhill]

I'm with you. Jerusalem should not be exclusive to Israel. Israel shouldn't exist in the first place.
How about you back the fuck off before you catch some Jew fury. M-(

[GeeBee]

How about you back the fuck off before you catch some Jew fury. M-(

Anyone who disagrees with ANYTHING this dude says...is a jew-hater. And I swear on my Talmud that if anyone offends him, I'll post pictures of random jewish actors in the nude. Understood?

[Animalhill]

Anyone who disagrees with ANYTHING this dude says...is a jew-hater. And I swear on my Talmud that if anyone offends him, I'll post pictures of random jewish actors in the nude. Understood?
:rotfl:

[boykosaurus]

Just got back from Israel and the West Bank.

The West Bank is fucked.

[boykosaurus]

I am all for a one state solution with a multicultural liberal democracy. I think it could possibly work with lots of tweaking. Israel can't last as a Zionist country with the population of arabs in Israel skyrocketing like it is. If there is ever a movement by Arabs to have high turnout in future elections, there could be some fucking weird coalitions going on.

Basically Israel is an unsustainable state in the long term. As to who I support I'll outline my support in terms of political parties:
Likud-fucking hate them, I want to shit on this party.
Hamas-hate them more than Likud.
Yisrael Beiteinu-I hate this party the worst. Fucking fascist pigs.
Labor-I like them, too bad they basically have no appeal in Israel.
Hadash-Favorite political party in Israel. I <3 these fuckers.
Fatah- They're alright, too much weird islamic/militia stuff going on here for me to like them much.
Kadima- I dislike them but they beat Likud.

Anyways I'd place my bets that there will be an Arab movement in Israel that will arise sometime in the future. If there is a two state solution, Palestine should become more and more secularized over time as well. Once these two things happen I think that catalyst will be in motion for a secular combined state.

I think the Haredim might be able to Israel going.