|
|
Post by Amaranth on Sept 18, 2011 8:20:48 GMT -5
I really, really, REALLY beg to differ on this point. You seem to forget the American continent (and much of the old Empires in fact) was not exactly colonized through agreement and without bloodshed. Even then the mainpage is full of people who gripe about what you might call "petty differences", some of which are still the focus of this conflict. Yeah, where does he get off calling the dispute 'petty'? I mean, it's not like the very ownership of an entire country is up for stake, right? Petty differences indeed. It's not in America. QED. |
|
|
|
Post by brendanrizzo on Sept 18, 2011 9:04:56 GMT -5
Au contraire, it's petty because nationalism, by definition, is petty. I'm not denying that horrible things were done by European settlers in the Americas (both before and after independence) to the peoples already living there. And of course, only an idiot would ignore all those intra-European wars of the past. However, those are completely irrelevant to the topic. The West now, after World War II, has learned not to have violent ethnic strife, but the rest of the world is still caught up in that barbaric and pre-modern view that anyone who is not themselves is TEH ENEMY and they are so racist that they insist on having a country all to themselves. This conflict has been going on for decades. All reasonable conflicts are solved much more quickly than that. So it's clear that it will never ever end. The fundies on both sides will never yield because they believe that God gave them the land and it is all theirs so no "icky foreigners" can be on it. And Gaza is a democracy? Really? Then how do you explain the fact that it's practically become a Muslim theocracy?
I don't believe in the idea of separate countries, so yeah, I think that any war over statehood is petty by default.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mlle Antéchrist on Sept 18, 2011 9:20:37 GMT -5
It's rather difficult to form a stable democracy when you're an occupied territory.
|
|
|
|
Post by Amaranth on Sept 18, 2011 9:22:47 GMT -5
That's french, you muslim sympathiser! |
|
|
|
Post by ltfred on Sept 18, 2011 9:29:34 GMT -5
Au contraire, it's petty because nationalism, by definition, is petty. I disagree that this is a conflict about differing views of anything but land claims. Both sides have land claims over the same spot- one group is poorly armed but has good grounds, the other side is well armed but has spurious grounds. The second group has been simply making might right. Except in Africa, Asia, South America, the American South... I disagree that the Israeli/Palestinian conflict is in large part motivated by irrationality. The conflict hasn't ended because it is not in Israel's interests for it to end. Israel can potentially gain land out of this (that's what they're holding out for; land, water aquifiers), while not having many citizens killed. So there's only gain, no loss. So the conflict continues. Nonsense. These are excuses. One side claims the land based on two thousand years of living there, with both de facto and de jure justification (often in document form). The other side is well-armed and simply wants to take it by force- but puts the thin fig-leaf of alleged religious fundamentalism (that nobody actually believes) as the excuse to a patantly selfish land-grab. Objectively so. The government took power after an election. That makes it a democracy. This isn't (mostly) a war over statehood, it's a war over land. Do only Jews get to build houses on Palestinian land or do Palestinians get to build houses on their land, too? Do Palestinians get to return to the houses they built with their own hands, land which they retain the deeds to, or do the people who openly stole that land get to retain it? Does the Israeli government get to continue to pass laws over the people of palestine without their participation, or will Palestinians get to vote, or will the Israelis NOT get to pass laws over a different country's citizens? |
|
|
|
Post by Armand Tanzarian on Sept 18, 2011 10:05:49 GMT -5
It's rather difficult to form a stable democracy when you're an occupied territory. Actually, Hamas was voted by the people, rather overwhelmingly, in 2006. There's no major contradiction between Hamas' rather extreme views and the practice of democracy when its the people themselves who asked for it. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_legislative_election,_2006 And in any case, how do you propose a one-state solution that doesn't involve mass genocide and devastating war? I'd like to see that happen. |
|
|
|
Post by Amaranth on Sept 18, 2011 10:56:34 GMT -5
Of course, Antichrist said stable democracy, and it's hard to call your link and statement indicative of a stable government when the link itself points out that subsequent elections are postponed due to the conflict with Israel. And that this was the first such election in a decade. So, I guess: -How is that a stable democracy? -How does it not back up exactly what Macadamia Andelusiachrist just said? |
|
|
|
Post by Armand Tanzarian on Sept 18, 2011 11:16:57 GMT -5
Of course, Antichrist said stable democracy, and it's hard to call your link and statement indicative of a stable government when the link itself points out that subsequent elections are postponed due to the conflict with Israel. And that this was the first such election in a decade. So, I guess: -How is that a stable democracy? -How does it not back up exactly what Macadamia Andelusiachrist just said? Sorry. What I said was actually in response to Brandon, in that I'm saying democracy and theocracy are not necessarily mutually exclusive. Me quoting you was my way of saying "in addition to that..." But yeah, stable democracy it is not. But it proves that Palestinians do have the capacity for democracy, even if the result may not be what you'd like. I'll make my point clearer next time. |
|
|
|
Post by Vene on Sept 18, 2011 11:33:11 GMT -5
Of course, Antichrist said stable democracy, and it's hard to call your link and statement indicative of a stable government when the link itself points out that subsequent elections are postponed due to the conflict with Israel. And that this was the first such election in a decade. So, I guess: -How is that a stable democracy? -How does it not back up exactly what Macadamia Andelusiachrist just said? Sorry. What I said was actually in response to Brandon, in that I'm saying democracy and theocracy are not necessarily mutually exclusive. Me quoting you was my way of saying "in addition to that..." But yeah, stable democracy it is not. But it proves that Palestinians do have the capacity for democracy, even if the result may not be what you'd like. I'll make my point clearer next time. It's only a democracy if they shoot brown people. |
|
|
|
Post by SimSim on Sept 18, 2011 11:46:29 GMT -5
They shoot Israelis. Are they brown enough?
|
|
|
|
Post by ironbite on Sept 18, 2011 11:50:48 GMT -5
Also...and I hate to sound petty but Radiation isn't European.
Ironbite-just FYI there brandon.
|
|
|
|
Post by brendanrizzo on Sept 18, 2011 13:57:35 GMT -5
And in any case, how do you propose a one-state solution that doesn't involve mass genocide and devastating war? I'd like to see that happen.[/quote]
The way it works in civilized countries: by not killing each other. Israel stops taking Palestinian land, and Palestine stops terrorism. I don't see why they can't coexist like that.
|
|
|
|
Post by booley on Sept 18, 2011 14:53:29 GMT -5
... The way it works in civilized countries: by not killing each other. Israel stops taking Palestinian land, and Palestine stops terrorism. I don't see why they can't coexist like that. About a third if Israel does work like that. Not every palestinian fled when the Israelis began annexing land during the wars. And those became arab Israelis. OF course just being Israeli on paper doesn't make one equal. There has been increasing drive to make non-jewish Israelis (and even jews who aren't"Jewish" enough) into second class citizens. Arab Israelis face a lot of prejudice. Yes it would be great if we could all just share the land. I dont' see land as anymore then dirt so I am open to it. But that's a minority view, especially in the middle east. The Israelis want the land and they think there's very little to stop them from taking it. The Palestinians want to keep their land and get the rest they had lost back. And they think they have very little left to lose in fighting for it. |
|
|
|
Post by Amaranth on Sept 18, 2011 15:58:56 GMT -5
Also...and I hate to sound petty but Radiation isn't European. Ironbite-just FYI there brandon. I assumed it was a slur. I just dealt with a similar deal on the Escpaist, which was more or less "well you're not an American so NYEAH!" I love the idea of "just don't kill each other." It works so well. Except with two groups with mutually exclusive ideologies. In America, we can't even stop gangs from fighting over turf. Imagine two COUNTRIES. Also, Armand: D'accord. |
|
|
|
Post by ltfred on Sept 18, 2011 17:18:43 GMT -5
They shoot Israelis. Are they brown enough? Interestingly, the sephardi Jews of Israel* complain of persecution. As do, obviously, the indigenous Palestinian population. * Sephardis are darker-skinned, mostly indigenous to Morocco and the Middle East. They're half of the population of Israel, but hold a minority of political positions, and earn less money. And in any case, how do you propose a one-state solution that doesn't involve mass genocide and devastating war? I'd like to see that happen. The way it works in civilized countries: by not killing each other. Israel stops taking Palestinian land, and Palestine stops terrorism. I don't see why they can't coexist like that.[/quote] It would have been easy, say, 30 years ago. There are just two things standing in the way: 1) both sides have historic memory of horrible atrocities and many hate the other side. Palestinian and Israeli civilians have idly murdered each other without instruction from their leaders. This is, perhaps, solvable however. 2) the Israelis want a 'state of the Jews'- a country with a majority population that is Jewish. For whatever reason, they want an ethnically pure (or at least majority-pure) homeland. |
|
