Not as an explicitly Jewish state. If there are a majority of Jews who vote for Jewish friendly policies that's one thing. The idea of a Jewish or Armenian or Native American state is incompatible with democracy.
Israeli - Palestinian Conflict
- Thread starter Raoul
- Start date
Not as an explicitly Jewish state. If there are a majority of Jews who vote for Jewish friendly policies that's one thing. The idea of a Jewish or Armenian or Native American state is incompatible with democracy.
We did not invent the idea of nation states. We're not a race or just a religion. We are a nation sharing a unique language, tradition and history, and there is no reason in the world we should be singled out as unworthy of a nation state.
What did you think about Bosnia or Kosovo? Crimea? What about the Baltic states? Should Armenia cease to exist too?
What other states are explicitly for one people? Maybe you could name a couple of Muslim states and I would disagree with that too.
We were discussing a scenario where Jewish presence in Israel is at the mercy of a Muslim-majority, and this argument is the best you could come up with? We'll give up our state so people may kill us, thinking they're retaliating something that never happened? What kind of conversation is this?
I'm not really bothered about arguing whether that massacre was right or wrong because it is clearly wrong. I was just saying it wasn't exactly a random occurrence.
You still haven't responded to my point about oppression encouraging violence. Stop with the childish bullshit.
Last edited:
Cease to exist? Why don't you take a step back and try responding to the words I am actually saying.
What are you on about?
This a hundred times, but I keep cautiously away from this thread because admittedly I do not believe anything called "secular Jewish" makes sense (it has the same underlying problems as any other theocracy - if sharia is bad (and it is), this is also bad)
Nail on head.
Hamas was founded on the principle that Israel has no right to exist and must be destroyed. Its actions are consistent with it's founding principle.
Does anyone here seriously expect Hamas to sit down with Israel to work things out?
Does anyone here seriously expect Hamas to sit down with Israel to work things out?
No, but does anyone here seriously think that Israel's responses will ever lead to an environment conducive for discussions? Just like India-Pakistan, it will always be an eye for an eye (Ind-Pak is different because both are nuclear so there can be no major offensives) and never an end solution
Israel's current stance only gauges further support for the likes of Hamas.
Christ on a bike. It's not like Israel's policy started with Hamas. This debate has nothing to do with Hamas. Israel's policy of oppression and killing begat Hamas, not the other way around. Stop with the Hamas bashing, it's not necessary, everybody agrees they are bastards.
I browsed for a short list: "Yugoslavia split into seven separate entities; Czechoslovakia into two; Pakistan broke off from India. Other states in Europe maintain national identities, even religious identities. In England, the religion of the state is Anglican, and if the next king marries a Jew their children won’t be able to inherit the crown. In Denmark, Article 4 of its constitution establishes the religion of the state as Evangelical – Lutheran, which is granted support and assistance from the state, and its King can only be of that religion. In Lichtenstein, the constitution recognizes Catholicism as the religion of the state. And the list can go on and on to many more states."
Israel is not explicitly "for one people" but it was founded to provide a national home for Jews after they were persecuted for millenia. Non-Jews make it to academia, supreme court, parliament etc., and some even serve in the armed forces. Ideally all countries should be independent of religionqethnicity, but if nation states mean stability than given the examples above I know which alternative would be my pick.
I thought the Armenians identify themselves on both ethnic and religious grounds.
It was. There was nothing to ignite that barbaric attack on Jews in Hebron. They've been living there for millenia, and were wiped out by the "indigenous" inhabitants long before you knew what "settlers" were.
Certainly not in the the way state of Israel was formed, no. The atrocities against European Jews during the holocaust were unforgivable. The whole process of the formation of the state and it's 'boundaries' should have been given more consideration before being implemented. Setting up a new country in the middle of it's fiercest rivals was folly in hindsight, and asking for trouble. If only the Israelis had kept their part of the 1950 deal, instead of continually wanting more land and more power in the region. The Israelites themselves are an ethnic group and we're never a country. The new state of Israel could have been set up anywhere. Maybe even in Europe, seeing it was the European Jews that had been mostly affected.
I think it should exist. Should just have existed elsewhere, with a lesser likelihood for conflict and bloodshed. The Israelis only obtained the 3k year dream of the promised land through other nations atrocities, now it seems they themselves are doing the very same. The formation of the state of Israel was far too rushed and poorly implemented imo. We can only blame the UN for that one.
You think an American with a Jewish grandmother is more entitled to displace an indigenous Palestinian family that has lived in the land for generations?
That is more as less accurate. I started to get at this earlier but if the demographics change to the point that Jews are no longer the majority, Israel will either cease to be a Jewish state or it will cease to be a democratic state.
That's just the most obvious issue too. Someone more knowledgeable on the intricacies of Israeli law than I could likely list lesser issues that undermine Israel's claim to be a democracy.
At least Hamas, unlike all the other parties, have the balls to admit their intentions openly.
You have to give them that much.
Stop. Missing. The. Point.
"You still haven't responded to my point about oppression encouraging violence."
Perhaps some Israelis can take a leaf out of their book and admit they want all the land to themselves and for the Palestinian 'beasts' to be expelled.
That isn't a totally unreasonable position to take from someone in your position. But in doing so you forfeit the high ground from which to proclaim yourselves a democracy.
Your words were-
"I don't agree with the idea that Israel or any other state should be controlled by one race or religion. Why does Israel get to have a racist/religious state? Because bad things were done to them?"
I think , correct me if I'm wrong, that you meant to say no one race/religion ought to have a monopoly on a nation if said nation wishes to remain a democracy. Ie. If a nation is carved out of the reasoning that our land is for X (due to any number of reasons) but we are a democracy then ipsos facto it will discriminate against all others. So in effect a land belonging to a homogeneous group is merely a modern day tribal zone and not a democracy. Is that what you meant?
In India you can see a unique model, nearly every state has a dominant language and some have religious majorities that are overall minorities if the whole population is counted. Some states have different racial makeup as well, eg -Northeast Indians look more mongoloid with fair-ish skin than the generic Indian with brown skin. However one is free to move from state to state. Perhaps a similar model on a smaller (and I would imagine it could be more successful )scale can be incorporated if a one nation solution emerges out of this conflict.
Last edited:
By all other parties you mean Israel right?
I dont recall Likud calling for the outright destruction of Muslims...everywhere.
Do you????
I think he means other Palestinan groups.
Then clearly it would clearly have to abandon that particular principle if there is ever going to be peace. That doesn't necessarily have to be as implausible as it sounds, people have sold out their dearly held principles for peace on countless occasions in the past.
The difficult part is creating an environment where such massive compromises are possible and that would surely involve Israel at least as much as Hamas. Once that massive paradigm shift occurs though there may well be a situation where Hamas and Israel can sit down and work things out. Seems very unlikely, granted, but who knows? The focus has to be on that shift first though and, given that Israel is by far the more powerful side in this conflict, surely it isn't illogical to think the onus is on them to be proactive in initiating that change?
Like the women and children?
Organizations other than Hamas, but I haven't heard much about the other groups in ages.
Cheap shot, especially when you've identified Hamas as bastards.
Nope, but you missed the point. It was about not being truthful about one's aims. Israel speaks only of retaliation whereas the reality is Palestine has been on the backfoot for decades.
I know, I was being obtuse. Not helpful I know. Sorry.
Shame, because you're usually so acute.
Dunno if it's my naturally contrary nature but, despite my revulsion at what is happening, I do find myself digging for reasonable opposing opinions to the overwhelming consensus in here (and all over my fecking facebook feed)
I posted one such piece a good few pages back. Here's another one, which does (IMHO) make some fairly compelling points in defence of Israel. The fact that the author concludes by unequivocally condemning Israel for many of it's actions makes the arguments within all the more plausible.
It's the first time I've really got the "but look what happened in Syria" argument. It's not about moral relativity, so much as highlighting the intense scrutiny and criticism that Israel undergoes compared to other nations in which war crimes also occur. A scrutiny that has to be fuelled by an underlying mood of anti-semitism. I can't come up with any other reasonable explanation. Again, this doesn't justify or explain the massacre of civilians but it does higlight the justifiable sense of persecution and paranoia that is partly responsible for the regreattable decisions made by the Israel leaders.
I posted one such piece a good few pages back. Here's another one, which does (IMHO) make some fairly compelling points in defence of Israel. The fact that the author concludes by unequivocally condemning Israel for many of it's actions makes the arguments within all the more plausible.
It's the first time I've really got the "but look what happened in Syria" argument. It's not about moral relativity, so much as highlighting the intense scrutiny and criticism that Israel undergoes compared to other nations in which war crimes also occur. A scrutiny that has to be fuelled by an underlying mood of anti-semitism. I can't come up with any other reasonable explanation. Again, this doesn't justify or explain the massacre of civilians but it does higlight the justifiable sense of persecution and paranoia that is partly responsible for the regreattable decisions made by the Israel leaders.
You are the one that keeps banging on about a historic Jewish Homeland, just pointing out you got your co-ordinates wrong, now pack your bags
Syria has been regarded as a 'rogue' state which has faced sanctions and has generally always been in the aiming scope of Western nations. What's happening there is also a civil war between the government and very well armed Islamist factions backed by a consortium of nations in the Middle East - its a level playing field and a different beast altogether.
Israel is an allegedly civilised state that's a close ally to the US and many European nations, its been regarded as an occupying force for 60 years and has killed 1400 Palestinians - most of which are civilians, while losing a handful of civilians themselves. Its a brutally one-sided affair. Naturally, its going to receive more scrutiny. Regardless, the "they did it too" argument is still a very tenuous one that should never be accepted as justification.
The word you are looking for is captured