Silva
Full Member
It's pretty astonishing.Hellboy has achieved the not-inconsiderable feat of making Fearless appear moderate. Well done.
It's pretty astonishing.Hellboy has achieved the not-inconsiderable feat of making Fearless appear moderate. Well done.
Hellboy has achieved the not-inconsiderable feat of making Fearless appear moderate. Well done.
Does that add anything to the debate either?JustAfan, you have an oyster's intellect, give it up already. You give zilch to the debate, go drink some coke and shut the feck up.
Hellboy has achieved the not-inconsiderable feat of making Fearless appear moderate. Well done.
No, that bit's fine and we're with you. But when you start all the bollocks about what the Quran says or when you compare Israel to Nazi's.So backing a group of people who resist and fight for their dignity and their right to live in THEIR land is the same as backing a group of racialist warmongers who practice colonization and ethnic cleansing ?
Not at all - I think people are just pointing out that your doing quite a bad job of it and even people who broadly agree with you are facepalming when they read your postsSo backing a group of people who resist and fight for their dignity and their right to live in THEIR land is the same as backing a group of racialist warmongers who practice colonization and ethnic cleansing ?
So backing a group of people who resist and fight for their dignity and their right to live in THEIR land is the same as backing a group of racialist warmongers who practice colonization and ethnic cleansing ?
This thread demands a bit of Pat:
you cant simply dismiss using the bible / qu'uran to back up an argument - its very logical to do so in factIs someone actually using the Qu'uran as justification in a political argument? For feck's sake
Not at all - I think people are just pointing out that your doing quite a bad job of it and even people who broadly agree with you are facepalming when they read your posts
Is someone actually using the Qu'uran as justification in a political argument? For feck's sake
Well thanks to these facepalmers and their mentors, the Palestinians situation haven't been worse in history.
And like I said and I'll say it again, again and again : Nazis racialism and the "chooseness" of the Zionist political class that have been killing Palestinians for 66 years are highly similar.
Let's try to solve this problem. If you were in charge, what policy steps would you take to once and for all solve the Israeli-Palestinian situation in a manner that is acceptable to both sides ? Be specific and list why each step would work for both parties.
If you don't mind I'll take a stab at this @Raoul. It's not necessarily a path to a settlement but rather a way to potentially break the current stalemate and reframe the terms of the debate. Apologies in advance for the length of this post.
First of all, while external intervention has a role to play, a settlement cannot be imposed by an external power IMO. One of the lessons of the last decade or so is that foreign intervention in this region tends to create more problems than it solves.
Secondly, the Israelis are not going to be the ones to alter the status quo, since it suits their interests and, despite the plight of places like Sderot, the majority of Israeli Jews are able to live a life in which 'the conflict' is not an everyday reality but rather an irritation which breaks out into something more serious every now and again. A place like Tel Aviv exists in a bubble ('The Bubble' is an Israeli nickname for the city) whereby the reality of the situation only a few km's away can feel like it's playing out in a different continent.
Israel is in a position of military power from which no state ever really concedes anything. It's not exceptional in this respect, and it would be unprecedented for them to withdraw from as strategically important a territory as the West Bank or Golan Heights, especially with the examples of the withdrawals from South Lebanon and Gaza fresh in mind (you can add Sinai to that as well now that the security situation there has deteriorated since 2011).
What this means is that the onus is on the Palestinians to change things on the ground. This might not be morally fair, but it's the reality. Can they do it? Since the late 1960s, they have tried through a combination of hijackings, military operations, suicide attacks, rockets, etc, accompanied by an international propaganda campaign which has succeeded in keeping the world's focus on their plight and winning international sentiment to the cause. The campaign, however, has also drawn the world's condemnation, especially when Israeli civilians have been targeted, and it has not been successful in winning any meaningful concessions from the Israelis. In many ways, it has only served to harden the Israeli stance - Israeli Jews are never more united than when they are under attack.
What is required then is a way for the Palestinians to play upon the divisions within Israeli society the way the Israelis have successful done with their own internal divisions. They need to somehow make Israeli Jews face the choice of what kind of country they want Israel to be. The way to do it is to launch a mass civil rights campaign, a movement which would include Arab citizens of Israel, West Bank Arabs, Gazan Arabs, and the Palestinian diaspora. The campaign would call on Israel to grant the Palestinians Israeli citizenship and accept them as equal citizens within the boundaries of mandate Palestine. The campaign would have to remain peaceful, even in the face of the inevitable Israeli crackdown which would likely produce deaths. This is not because I agree with non-violence as a principle, but simply because violence has not worked so far (I'm aware that Palestinians protest non-violently every day, but the principle has yet to take root among any significant Palestinian political movement).
Repression of such a movement would likely bring an unprecedented type of international pressure to bear on Israel to decide one way or the other whether or not they want to keep the West Bank, particularly if the campaign remained peaceful in the face of deaths. The idea of granting the Palestinians Israeli citizenship would probably find some support among marginal types on both the Israeli far-left and far-right. But probably a vast majority of Israelis would favour withdrawal if it came down to a choice.
For the Palestinians, the benefits would be potentially enormous. Not only would they likely eventually win an Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank, the type of leadership that would emerge from such a movement would probably be far more representative and liberal than those who currently claim to represent the Palestinians.
There are many obstacles to anything like this happening. Obviously the Israeli leadership would attempt to derail it, playing on the divisions between West bankers and Gazans, etc. An even bigger problem would be that both Fatah and Hamas would be viciously opposed to the movement, correctly seeing it as a threat to their own stranglehold over Palestinian politics.
Perhaps a bigger question is whether Palestinian society is currently capable of generating such a movement. There would be many internal and external pressures against it, as the movement would have to involve some kind of 'normalisation' of relations with the Israeli public, something most advocates of the Palestinian cause are opposed to. Furthermore, current trends in the wider Arab and Islamic world don't seem particularly conducive to the successful creation of a civil rights movement.
However, there are some signs that something like this could emerge in the coming years. The 'March to the Borders' campaign of 2011 may well turn out to be a forerunner of the type of protests envisioned (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Israeli_border_demonstration). The BDS movement may have it within itself to move in this direction - one of its problems until now has been its lack of clear, unambiguous goals.
None of this is a guarantee of anything really. But as long as Palestinian politics are dominated by the likes of Fatah and Hamas, the status quo will remain the most attractive option for Israeli Jews and the international powers that count.
If you don't mind I'll take a stab at this @Raoul. It's not necessarily a path to a settlement but rather a way to potentially break the current stalemate and reframe the terms of the debate. Apologies in advance for the length of this post.
First of all, while external intervention has a role to play, a settlement cannot be imposed by an external power IMO. One of the lessons of the last decade or so is that foreign intervention in this region tends to create more problems than it solves.
Secondly, the Israelis are not going to be the ones to alter the status quo, since it suits their interests and, despite the plight of places like Sderot, the majority of Israeli Jews are able to live a life in which 'the conflict' is not an everyday reality but rather an irritation which breaks out into something more serious every now and again. A place like Tel Aviv exists in a bubble ('The Bubble' is an Israeli nickname for the city) whereby the reality of the situation only a few km's away can feel like it's playing out in a different continent.
Israel is in a position of military power from which no state ever really concedes anything. It's not exceptional in this respect, and it would be unprecedented for them to withdraw from as strategically important a territory as the West Bank or Golan Heights, especially with the examples of the withdrawals from South Lebanon and Gaza fresh in mind (you can add Sinai to that as well now that the security situation there has deteriorated since 2011).
What this means is that the onus is on the Palestinians to change things on the ground. This might not be morally fair, but it's the reality. Can they do it? Since the late 1960s, they have tried through a combination of hijackings, military operations, suicide attacks, rockets, etc, accompanied by an international propaganda campaign which has succeeded in keeping the world's focus on their plight and winning international sentiment to the cause. The campaign, however, has also drawn the world's condemnation, especially when Israeli civilians have been targeted, and it has not been successful in winning any meaningful concessions from the Israelis. In many ways, it has only served to harden the Israeli stance - Israeli Jews are never more united than when they are under attack.
What is required then is a way for the Palestinians to play upon the divisions within Israeli society the way the Israelis have successful done with their own internal divisions. They need to somehow make Israeli Jews face the choice of what kind of country they want Israel to be. The way to do it is to launch a mass civil rights campaign, a movement which would include Arab citizens of Israel, West Bank Arabs, Gazan Arabs, and the Palestinian diaspora. The campaign would call on Israel to grant the Palestinians Israeli citizenship and accept them as equal citizens within the boundaries of mandate Palestine. The campaign would have to remain peaceful, even in the face of the inevitable Israeli crackdown which would likely produce deaths. This is not because I agree with non-violence as a principle, but simply because violence has not worked so far (I'm aware that Palestinians protest non-violently every day, but the principle has yet to take root among any significant Palestinian political movement).
Repression of such a movement would likely bring an unprecedented type of international pressure to bear on Israel to decide one way or the other whether or not they want to keep the West Bank, particularly if the campaign remained peaceful in the face of deaths. The idea of granting the Palestinians Israeli citizenship would probably find some support among marginal types on both the Israeli far-left and far-right. But probably a vast majority of Israelis would favour withdrawal if it came down to a choice.
For the Palestinians, the benefits would be potentially enormous. Not only would they likely eventually win an Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank, the type of leadership that would emerge from such a movement would probably be far more representative and liberal than those who currently claim to represent the Palestinians.
There are many obstacles to anything like this happening. Obviously the Israeli leadership would attempt to derail it, playing on the divisions between West bankers and Gazans, etc. An even bigger problem would be that both Fatah and Hamas would be viciously opposed to the movement, correctly seeing it as a threat to their own stranglehold over Palestinian politics.
Perhaps a bigger question is whether Palestinian society is currently capable of generating such a movement. There would be many internal and external pressures against it, as the movement would have to involve some kind of 'normalisation' of relations with the Israeli public, something most advocates of the Palestinian cause are opposed to. Furthermore, current trends in the wider Arab and Islamic world don't seem particularly conducive to the successful creation of a civil rights movement.
However, there are some signs that something like this could emerge in the coming years. The 'March to the Borders' campaign of 2011 may well turn out to be a forerunner of the type of protests envisioned (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Israeli_border_demonstration). The BDS movement may have it within itself to move in this direction - one of its problems until now has been its lack of clear, unambiguous goals.
None of this is a guarantee of anything really. But as long as Palestinian politics are dominated by the likes of Fatah and Hamas, the status quo will remain the most attractive option for Israeli Jews and the international powers that count.
Holyland Red said:With all due respect, the vast majority of Israelis would favour a withdrawal only if this is part of an agreed end to the conflict based on two nation states.
Oh, and the BDS movement has been pretty clear about its goals. I mean its leaders rather than Western youth joining it as if it was a youth movement.
Either solution will require the investment of money to make them work. Who will do so?
The conflict needs more people like you to bend over to Israel after 60+ years of colonization and terror until the last Palestinian dies.
If Israel was anything like Nazi Germany, the last Palestinian would have died in 1955 or so. Then they could have invaded Egypt, Syria and any other nearby state with Palestinian populations and cleaned them all out in a couple of years too!
I guess there is something behind the old German efficiency thing! Honestly, the efficiency is literally the ONLY difference between Israel and Nazi Germany. Right?
you are talking about a pipe dream. This conflict has gone on for 60 years. Today the conditions for lasting peace are far worse than in the past, so there is absolutely no reason to believe that a solution is anywhere near or realistic. This conflict needs a fundamental game changer to come to a solution. The most obvious one would be a shift in USA policy, but thats highly unlikely.
you are talking about a pipe dream...so there is absolutely no reason to believe that a solution is anywhere near or realistic.
Never said that anywhere. It was a response to Fearless's claim that Jews literally own the Holy Land according to Quran, and well it could not be as far from the truth.
I don't care about your black lists. I read the book without knowing anything about the man, and I thought it was a brilliant read.
The people who do damage to the Palestinian cause are those who drop bombs, those you support and love, not Gilad.
Like it or not, there are a lot of similarities between Nazism & Zionism. Being taken seriously, especially by people like you, is actually very low on a priority list.
Hellboy has achieved the not-inconsiderable feat of making Fearless appear moderate. Well done.
I guess it needs both sides to swallow their pride and take the bull by the horns, as what happened with Egypt. The Palestinians agreeing to leave Israel alone if they get their bit of land to live on in peace and the the Israelis agreeing to leave the Palestinians alone on those little bits of land if they are left to live in peace. If they can then co-operate and trade with each other, like normal countries do, then may be there is a chance.
The problem, I suppose, is deciding about the little bit of land.
Also, they hate and mistrust each other, which is a bit of sticking point.
All this thread needs is a visit from Herman for some Biblical context.
No one has mentioned changing European demographics and how these could affect Israel's friend-making prospects. Quite fascinating that.