Ok-will do. Apologies to holyland for that. Will edit accordingly.
Israeli - Palestinian Conflict
- Thread starter Raoul
- Start date
On paper, fair enough. But of course the Jewish and Iranian peoples have gone through quite different historical experiences up til now which might go some way to explaining this, no?
This is your defence? Two examples of Israelis volunteering their organs? You do understand the difference between voluntarily donating your organs, and having them taken without your/your family's consent .i.e. having them stolen?
Another thing-both examples include kidney's i.e. something a person can donate and still stay alive. There's a massive difference between that stealing a dead person's organ, or cornea, or any of the things Zionist doctors have stolen.
Why can't you just admit that you (Israel etc) are wrong in this instance?
I wish you'd just drop this pretense that the Zionists are on the defence from these crazy 'Islamist nutjobs' as you put it. Your arguments lack any substance, there's very little reliable information, and you think posting a link here, or a video there can be extrapolated to every scenario.
What are you referring to specifically here? I don't want to start replying on the wrong tangent.
Hard to get into 'specifics' when we're talking about historical memory. I think it's fair to say the differences are well known - a people who have traditionally felt themselves to be a persecuted minority with no security that wasn't subject to others best wishes, vs. (from Israelis point of view) a people with a long imperial history and position of primacy in the Middle East who have been led since 1979 by a regime with a proclaimed mission to undo the current (Israeli-favourable) status quo in the region.
Setting aside your actual opinion on the nature of the Iranian nuclear program, you honestly can't see why many Israeli Jews view it with concern, never mind supposed Likud/Netanyahu fear-mongering?
Ok on that tangent.
When looking back on this period of time that we're currently in, who will be viewed as the persecuted and who will be viewed as the powerful?
I really want to go in a lot more depth, but I have a flight to catch at 6am, but the Jewish have always been protected against Muslim rules. From the Abbasid emirate in Al Andalus, from Saladin in Quds, from the Ottoman sultans (where Jewish people were often given high positions of power), the Mamluks in Palestine when the Mongol invasion occurred, even the Constitution of Medina was to protect the Jewish tribes of Yathrib as well as the Muslims. If anything, their persecution has come from Europe-apart from the obvious, when Quds was under Roman/Christian rule, Jewish people were banned from the city. It's only when it fell into Muslim hands were they allowed back in. (I didn't want to turn my answer into a religiously based one, but to add some context to what I said and you know all this anyway).
The only reason we're seeing so much discord in the ME now is because of the ramifications of Sykes Picot and Balfour, and the abolishment of the Caliphate.
There's a lot to be said about Persia aswell, but their claim to imperial history ended a long, long time ago. You probably know all of what I've said myself, but the animosity lies in current history. The last 100-150 years have caused more chaos, and resentment, and radical change than any of the preceding 1000. The Iran Israel issue is solely a modern history (last 50 years) problem, and saying its roots lie further back in time is wrong, imo.
Oh and this is not even mentioning the role of powerful Jewish families (Rothschilds, Montefiores) movement for a Zionist cause, and their accumulation of wealth in the last couple of centuries which would suggest that they are in fact the powerful ones.
Sorry if that's a bit of a jumbled mess, am typing from my phone.
I'm talking about perceptions, not necessarily what actually happened (although I disagree with most of your interpretation of the history). To give one example, while there is some truth in what you say vis-a-vis the Jewish experience in Europe compared with their experience in Islamic lands (though it's a lot more complex than you let on), recently many Mizrachi Jews' historical memory of their time amongst the Arabs is extremely bitter, and largely coincides with the broader story of Jewish persecution which has mostly been associated with the experience of European Jews.
Uzz said:
I specifically mentioned a regime 'since 1979'. Obviously under the Pahlavis there were no major problems between Israel and Iran. Btw there were anti-Jewish pogroms in Qajar Iran, maybe more-so than anywhere else in the Middle East. Not that it's anywhere near as relevant as the anti-Israeli (and often anti-Jewish) rhetoric that has emanated from Khomeini and his followers since the revolution.@2cents hence I was asking specifics-but will pick up on your points when I'm back.
http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-31999158
Interesting turn of events if the US and Iran do make a deal.
Interesting turn of events if the US and Iran do make a deal.
Bibi has apologised to Israeli Arabs today. The guy is an idiot, and imo a war criminal. Embarrassing.
The way you phrased the question, it seemed to talk about historical i.e. a long, long way back. Hence, my response. Whether you disagree with what I said is a separate matter. The main point I wanted to highlight is that Muslim and Jews, more often than not (in fact, a lot more often than not) have had peaceful coexistence. I'm not saying there aren't incidences where there has been conflict, but the perception that they don't get along and that this animosity has been for since the beginning of time isn't true. They have lived and prospered in each other's company. In fact, I'd say the majority of their problems have been in the last 150 years, and this has blotted perception.
Again-the way you phrased the question and mentioned the imperial history, I thought you were going back further.
Since the revolution, yes, there has been animosity. But if you really believe Iran would nuclear bomb Israel, probably ruining places the Shia (and Sunni Muslims) hold dear, as well as costing thousands of Jewish and Muslim lives, then you're wrong.
http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/1.648465
White House chief of staff: 50 years of Israeli occupation must end
U.S. cannot pretend Netanyahu didn't say no Palestinian state would be established on his watch, Denis McDonough tells J Street conference in Washington.
White House chief of staff: 50 years of Israeli occupation must end
U.S. cannot pretend Netanyahu didn't say no Palestinian state would be established on his watch, Denis McDonough tells J Street conference in Washington.
yes!! Now let Obama start an example and give back to Mexico all the territory occupied by the yanks, also Portugal wants Olivenca back from Spain and the Kurds.... we need new maps.
I think the Obama administration was referring to the occupation of the West Bank and East Jerusalem, which are presently considered to be Palestinian territory by the international community.
They are quite correct in not letting him off the hook. He prostituted himself to the right wing by race baiting and pandering to the extreme fringe, and should be made sweat a bit now.
Obama is still bitter with losing the Israeli elections? Far from being his worst feck up in the ME. Here's hoping congress stops him from a new entry at #1.
What I still don't understand about the atombomb issue with Iran is the following (I will keep out of the Israel - Palestine conflict for a moment). A while ago I read the following article: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2003/jun/24/usa.science (Archived = https://archive.today/LHIWK)
Long Story short. 1964 the Pentagon hired two physicians without prior experience in the field of atom physics in order to see how big the threat is of other nations having atombombs. Both were in their late 20's. They took 30 months to build an atombomb with public information only with the impact of Hiroshima. One of them described it as "“a straightforward technical problem, but one that involves some rather sophisticated physics”.
So considering this: How exactly does Iran not have an atombomb, yet? It's not like this started just yesterday -> see the following New York Times article from 1992: https://archive.today/dQake
I personally only see 3 options:
1. They already have it since quite a while ago.
2. They don't want it (while eventually having the theoretical plans all set up).
3. Iranian physicians are all down-syndrome patients.
Apart from being a stupid point it's just not nice mate.
That's just dry, German humor. Doesn't sound offensive in Kraut language.
Fair enough, offence withdrawn. I certainly can't write in a second language, I find my own hard enough.
It was subtle, dry and political incorrect humour. Thought you brits can take it. After all. Handicapped people are always out of the equation of being made fun of. That equals of them staying out of what is considered normal. Making fun of them is literally an act of integrating them into a normal society.
In all honesty though. It wasn't my point. I just put that information here to just give people a few thoughts into different directions and eventually cause an open and fair discussion.
I thought everything sounds offensive in Kraut language to other people. Or maybe thats the point that everything sounds offensive so nothing is?
So Obama talks the talk about the two state solution. Can he now walk the walk by not using the veto at the UN?
It's an interesting topic, and depends on how you interpret 'peaceful coexistence'. As a pre-modern structure of relations between different religious groups, the dhimma or millet system (whereby each community governed itself autonomously within the framework of Muslim supremacy and certain legal restrictions) worked quite well in regulating affairs - the lines between the various groups were well defined, everybody knew their place and what it took to get out of line. Of course it varied significantly from place to place and in different eras. But in comparison with the life of Jews in pre-modern Europe, you can certainly say that Jewish life was less precarious under Islamic law.
The flip side is that, after the decline of the Abbasids and Umayyad Spain, there wasn't much scope for Jewish life to really flourish in Islamic lands, and the Jews (and other non-Muslim religious groups, mainly the various Christian sects) were basically what we would regard today as second-class citizens - segregated in their own quarter, and often, depending on the whims of whoever was in charge, forced to explicitly demonstrate their inferior status in society (for example through dress). Many European travelogues set in the Middle East and North Africa during the 18th and 19th centuries are full of descrptions of the lowly place of Jews in the cities and how they were viewed and treated by the majority.
So you have two equally valid interpretations there - on the one hand, the Jews had a better time of it than they did in pre-modern Europe, and even flourished to an extent in the early Islamic centuries. On the other, their status was always subject to the shari'a and how it was applied by whoever ruled, and the possibility of coexisting as equals only rose in the nineteenth century Ottoman Empire, and then under European influence.
Given the current situation, with Israel locked in a state of animosity with its Muslim neighbours, it's not hard to see why the latter view might take precedence with Israeli Jews, and especially the Mizrachis who in many cases (though not all) were forced out of the Arab lands during the 1940s and 50s.
But I agree it would be a really positive development if both sides could somehow come to incorporate the former view into a mutual narrative, without of course whitewashing the negative aspects. I don't expect either Israelis or Palestinians to be able to do that at the moment, but it would be nice if those of us without a direct stake in the conflict could take a step back every now and again to see the bigger picture.
Uzz said:
I think I've said in this very thread that I don't believe Iran would use such a weapon against Israel. That's not what I've been arguing - I've been saying that, given the historical experience of Israeli Jews (within living memory), given the explicit threats from Iran, and given the nature of the nuclear program, I can understand why Israeli Jews are, at the very least, nervous of the idea of an Iranian nuke. To simply dismiss their concerns shows, in my opinion, a refusal or inability to empathise with their experience of quite recent history.
A better way of looking at it is he can use the threat of not using a Veto over Netenyahu's head to smoke out his true position on whether he truly wants a two state solution or whether he's been bullshitting all along.
Good point. It seems clear he doesn't want a two state solution. He's not that type of Israeli. However, he might just decide that it will be better for Israel if he goes along with it.
What's ominous for the right wing Israeli position is that Obama is now a lame duck with two years remaining and is probably not going to hold back on his Israel policy, including using the UN as a weapon. He no longer has to run for office or compete for votes on Israel, so he's free to govern as he wants.
And having Kerry instead of Clinton means he doesn't have a secretary of state who may hold back because of worries about her future electability.
He didn't apologize. He said he regrets it if they were offended. For me that's quite different.
Anyhow, he's just saying whats suits on him a given day.
I wouldn't bet on Kerry though: http://judaism.about.com/od/jewishgenealogy/a/jewpas_kerry.htm
Key to that article is the fact that the experiment assumed that the students would be able to get hold of the raw plutonium or uranium.
My understanding is that the hard part of making an atom bomb is getting together the enriched uranium or plutonium. The uranium requires industrial scale enrichment - the Iranians are using the gas centrifuge method - and I believe it takes a lot of centrifuges a lot of time to make enough highly enriched uranium for a bomb. The manhattan project used massive industrial complexes for enrichment. To make the plutonium for a bomb you need a working nuclear reactor.
I reckon pretty much any country could make an atom bomb once they have the plutonium or uranium to be honest. The gun method doesn't sound hugely complex (not saying I could do it but some bright spark could surely given the right equipment).
While I agree with your point - the problem is that it keeps being repeated that Iran will soon have an atombomb. If the only problem is the Uranium/Plutonium, the rhetoric would be differently. The common accusation is that they are trying to build one and that some of the Uranium they use isn't only for peaceful energy-gaining usage.
And that rhetoric gets clearly shaken at its core by the experiment from 1964.
Oh I agree with your basic point. Iran have been 1-4 years from making a bomb for ages now. I think rather than actually wanting a bomb Iran just want to be close enough to having it that they could if necessary. Their leadership aren't nutters. Israel isn't the only country in that region that they will be worried about.
He doesn't have to apologize for anything. Warning about the potential political influence of an Arab party whose spokesman compared Zionism to ISIS does not require any apology. I tend to agree that the PM should perhaps not deal with this issue on election day.
But then much more worrying for Israel is that the bitter, hate-driven left is willing to form a coalition with Arab anti-Israeli parties, including the Israeli offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood, because they want to topple Bibi. Shameful.
This is not the Iran thread, is it? You guys make a better job than Obama in mixing the two issues.
Damn those evil lefties forcing poor Bibi to be racist against his own will.
Denying the Jewish people the right for an independent state is racist. Warning your voters from complacency isn't.
Well there's a ridiculous straw man if I ever saw one.
Warning your voters from complacency of letting a certain race influence the election too much by *gasp* voting, is racist by the way.
I'd argue that when "a certain race" votes for a party that undermines the existence of the country, and thus the right of its majority's right for self-determination, then warning against complacency is not racist at all.