|
To a slightly more pertinent and depressing subject (not that the tragic tales of underaged sex slaves exploited by the rich and powerful are not depressing), Electronic Intifada has a piece that interviews and documents the stories of families of who've lost multiple family members in the latest Israeli offensive on Gaza:quote:
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2015 13:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 12:36 |
|
|
Triple post time! New poll: http://www.haaretz.com/news/israel-election-2015/1.639235 "Zionist Camp" (livni/avoda) - 26 (+2) Likud - 23 (+1) Jewish Home - 15 (-2) Joint Arab List - 12 (+1) Yesh Atid - 9 Kulanu - 8 Yisrael Beitenu - 7 Shas - 7 United Torah Judaism - 7 Meretz - 6 Still pretty tough to see a center-left coalition displacing Netanyahu, in further 'cynical politicians are useless' news Herzog and Livni have made numerous statements in the past few days which many analysts interpret as indicating a willingness to form a unity government with Netanyahu, which will obviously be a huge farce and guarantees no positive developments in the next 1-4 years. The arab list have stated that they are not likely to sit in a center-left coalition even if the opportunity would be offered to them but that they would be willing to recommend Herzog as prime minister to the president and support the coalition in crucial votes, I have a hard time seeing a reigning coalition with 48 or so seats though so it seems like a bit of a pipe dream.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2015 12:43
|
|
|
Any political backlash to the joint arab list from any of the other major parties? Anyone bpredict some bill being put before the Knesset to screw with something like that?
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2015 12:57
|
|
|
Not really, the arab parties are largely a non-factor in Israeli politics cause the Jewish parties all treat them like lepers, having their power consolidated in one party doesn't really change that. It's worth reminding that the reason they're running as a joint list is due to the raising of the elections threshold which was proposed by Liberman in order to marginalize the arab parties in the first place, so we're 'post backlash' by now and Liberman's gambit really didn't pay off for him. Edit: in other news, two rockets were fired from the Syrian Golan into the Israeli occupied Golan, IDF responded with firing 20 artillery shells into Syrian territory. emanresu tnuocca fucked around with this message at 13:23 on Jan 27, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2015 13:08
|
|
|
Im not terribly informed on the entire history of Israel. Was this the first war for Israel? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_Palestine_war Is this an accurate analysis of what started the first Muslim v israel wars? http://www.e-ir.info/2014/01/15/what-were-the-causes-and-consequences-of-the-1948-arab-israeli-war-2/ The general feeling I got from that information is that Britain promised Palestinians the land. Then the holocaust happened and for various reasons the Jews were promised the same land. Then jews moved to the area now known as Israel. Then palestinians and jews segregated themselves. Seems the Jews have had a long history of pissing people around them off and getting beat up because of it. Starting with Jew v Rome wars that resulted in the 2nd temple being destroyed and the jewish nation being shattered/scattered. Then they were the bad guys during the bubonic plague. As best I can figure they were less affected by the black plague and the people around them started accusing jews of either starting the plague or using witchcraft to keep it away then there was the holocaust, and still some anti semitic attitudes remain throughout europe. then their given land in the middle east and theyve been fighting every since. Why have they been the pariah for so long? Are they naturally disagreeable people that entice those around them to slaughter them? Thats a lot of questions because Im not terribly informed of the entire history of all parties involved. I think I have an open mind to the possibility that the jews created the monster their fighting against. By goon standards what should Israel do to make real peace with the palestinians? Im seeing wall to wall atrocities in the middle east. Muslim v muslim. Muslim v woman, muslim v rest of the world. Just seems regardless of what the Jews should/could have done it would be Muslim v Israel anyways. At what point does the killing stop?
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2015 18:03
|
|
|
logosanatic posted:Im not terribly informed on the entire history of Israel. Was this the first war for Israel? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_Palestine_war In the sense that Israel declared its independence then. But it was a continuation of the Yishuv, the Jewish community in Israel, which predated it, and which got into a series of conflicts with the British and the Arabs beforehand, although they were of a localized nature, rather than an actual war. quote:Is this an accurate analysis of what started the first Muslim v israel wars? http://www.e-ir.info/2014/01/15/what-were-the-causes-and-consequences-of-the-1948-arab-israeli-war-2/ Seems reasonable on the surface, but: quote:The general feeling I got from that information is that Britain promised Palestinians the land. Then the holocaust happened and for various reasons the Jews were promised the same land. Then jews moved to the area now known as Israel. Then palestinians and jews segregated themselves. That's not what even that source is saying. The British promised the Zionists some kind of "Jewish Home" in Palestine about the same time that they promised Faisal control over Greater Syria. Then they backstabbed him with Sykes-Picot, but that's taking us farther afield. The Palestinians and Jews were already in some respect segregated. They belonged to different Ottoman milets, that is, religious communities, so they were subject to slightly different laws, and then some of them claimed European capitulations, which are kind of like diplomatic immunity, so they were subject to different laws. It was not as integrated as people today try to picture it. quote:Seems the Jews have had a long history of pissing people around them off and getting beat up because of it. Starting with Jew v Rome wars that resulted in the 2nd temple being destroyed and the jewish nation being shattered/scattered. Most Jews weren't even in Palestine at the end of 2nd Temple. They were all over the Roman Empire. Serious persecution of Jews qua Jews only came about when Christianity took over the Empire. Until then they were treated like all other minority religions common to the Empire. quote:Then they were the bad guys during the bubonic plague. As best I can figure they were less affected by the black plague and the people around them started accusing jews of either starting the plague or using witchcraft to keep it away It was a misunderstanding of how contagion works. Jews held unfortunate positions for non-Christian groups, depending on where they were, and they were easy scapegoats, like the Roma. They had the "advantage" of also having Christianity considering them explicitly to be the killers of Jesus, so there was a whole ideology to rile up against them when the Black Plague came about. quote:then there was the holocaust, and still some anti semitic attitudes remain throughout europe. All over, really. And many in the Muslim world seem to have simply imbibed old antisemitic tropes verbatim, even though the history of Jews there was very different. quote:then their given land in the middle east and theyve been fighting every since. Why have they been the pariah for so long? Are they naturally disagreeable people that entice those around them to slaughter them? When people stick out, they stick out. Then when there's economic downturn or a plague or whatnot, they're an easy scapegoat. Imagine the anti-immigrant panic prevalent in Europe today, but add to it a centuries`-old tradition of using this one group as a scapegoat. The situation was different in Muslim countries, where they were persecuted more or less the same as Christians when they were, or not when things went better. There they did have the advantage of being a lot more similar in practice to Islam than to Christianity, with extensive legalism, explicit banning of any graven images, etc. quote:Thats a lot of questions because Im not terribly informed of the entire history of all parties involved. I think I have an open mind to the possibility that the jews created the monster their fighting against. What, with a magical cabal they used to form Jewish history? How is it that they have a responsibility for this rather than the orders of magnitude more people that were oppressing them throughout those years? You seem to be bringing up an extremely dubious proposition to open your mind to. This is separate from the question of whether oppressing the Palestinians is justified (it's not), although many Israeli Jews would be "open" to the idea that Palestinians brought that on themselves. quote:By goon standards what should Israel do to make real peace with the palestinians? Im seeing wall to wall atrocities in the middle east. Muslim v muslim. Muslim v woman, muslim v rest of the world. Just seems regardless of what the Jews should/could have done it would be Muslim v Israel anyways. I don't know if the killing will ever stop, although I sure hope so. There are no "goon standards" because this thread and its predecessor haven't reached a real consensus. I think there are clear frameworks Israel can choose to work within which it has not. The 1967 borders are internationally recognized now. It would require removing settlers. If Israel instead wants to have this be one state, they're going to have to give Palestinians citizenship, with all that entails. I don't think most of the Jewish Israeli public is open to that idea. Unless the US stops blocking any attempts to get Israel to pay for its international intransigence, though, not much progress is going to be made, other than in ethnically cleansing most of the good areas of the West Bank, and pushing Gaza back to the stone age.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2015 18:35
|
|
|
logosanatic posted:Im not terribly informed on the entire history of Israel. Was this the first war for Israel? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_Palestine_war Yes, because prior to the war there was no Israel. Keep in mind that Israel began as a project of colonialist (European Jewish) settlers in the late 19th century led by figures like Theodore Herzl. There were different strands of Zionism, but generally speaking, it was the product of a) colonialist ideology that was well-spread throughout the 19th century, particularly in the latter half, and b) an uptick in anti-semitism in the West that led many Jews to believe that as long as they were a minority in other nations, they would continue to face persecution. There was also quite a bit of ethno-nationalist ideology mixed in there as well, which is unsurprising given the influence of German Jews on the movement. And, needless to say, religious fervor. quote:The general feeling I got from that information is that Britain promised Palestinians the land. Then the holocaust happened and for various reasons the Jews were promised the same land. Then jews moved to the area now known as Israel. Then palestinians and jews segregated themselves. This is a simplification. As I said, the colonization of Palestine by European Jews had begun long before the Holocaust. For another, looking at it as "Britain promised Palestinians the land" is a skewed way of looking at it- this was the land that the Palestinians and their ancestors had lived on. In fact, Britain was generally far more sympathetic to the Zionists than to the Arabs(cf. the Balfour Declaration). Churchill summarized the British attitude pretty well when he said in 1937, "I do not agree that the dog in a manger has the final right to the manger even though he may have lain there for a very long time. I do not admit that right. I do not admit for instance, that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America or the black people of Australia. I do not admit that a wrong has been done to these people by the fact that a stronger race, a higher-grade race, a more worldly wise race to put it that way, has come in and taken their place." However, this was tempered by the fact that a) Britain controlled a lot of Arab land outside of Palestine and had to make some concessions to Arab public opinion as the result and b) in the late 30s and early 40s, Zionist terrorist groups like Lehi(aka the Stern Gang) and the Irgun began attacking British targets, including Churchill's friend, Lord Moyne. Also, the Zionists had no interest in integrating with the indigenous people; they looked at them as savages for the most part(this attitude also carried over to their treatment of Middle-Eastern Jews, though these were integrated into Israel because in Zionist ideology, Israel is the home of all Jews.) Zionist settlers and kibbutzim(farming co-operatives, basically) did everything they could to exclude Arab labor and to buy up land from which their Arab inhabits would expelled. This was the plan from the beginning and this exclusion fed Arab resentment, which in turn fueled even worse exclusion on the part of the colonists. quote:Seems the Jews have had a long history of pissing people around them off and getting beat up because of it. Starting with Jew v Rome wars that resulted in the 2nd temple being destroyed and the jewish nation being shattered/scattered. This is somewhat anachronistic. Yes, the Jewish people suffered enormously under the Romans, but so did any group who rebelled against Roman authority. Anti-semitism really began in the early Middle Ages and was primarily religious: Jews were those who killed Christ. They rejected the Word of God, just like those Mooslem infidels, and are thus contemptible. Anti-semitism and Islamophobia actually have a lot in common historically for this reason. In the modern era, anti-semitism began to mutate. In addition to the religious hatred, Jews had become associated with modernity. Jews were well-represented in the world of finance, which was rapidly transforming the West and upsetting traditional ways of life(their long-standing connections to money-lending, due to religious prohibitions on Christians lending money with interest, also helped fuel their persecution since it's very easy to get people to hate those to whom they're indebted.) They were associated with socialism and republicanism which were also seen as affronts to the established order. And science and materialism in general, which if you read many late 19th century authors like Huysmans, was seen as a destructive force that attacked religion and robbed nations of their roots. Muslims did not receive this same treatment, largely because there weren't many Muslim communities in the West at that point(this is also why Jews were more often used as a scapegoat throughout the Middle Ages than Muslims.) quote:then their given land in the middle east and theyve been fighting every since. Why have they been the pariah for so long? Are they naturally disagreeable people that entice those around them to slaughter them? I wouldn't say they're always the pariah. In fact, Herzl was largely proved wrong- Jews can integrate and assimilate into European/Western society. Jewish people in the West are doing quite well- they are more likely to have college educations and less likely to be unemployed or incarcerated. Jews are well-represented in Western parliaments and legislatures; hell, a Jewish man was elected vice-president of the USA in 2000(though he didn't take office) and DSK(who's Jewish) could easily have become president of France if it weren't for his predilection for rape and organized prostitution. Anti-semitism remains, of course, but it's nowhere near a potent political and social force as is, say, anti-black racism, xenophobia or Islamophobia. In the Middle East, however, yes, there is a very strong anti-Jewish sentiment(though there are flourishing Jewish communities in certain countries like Morocco.) I think it's important to distinguish this from anti-semitism as it's commonly understood, however, because it has completely different roots. Anti-Jewish sentiment in the Middle East is largely tied to Israel and its persecution of the Palestinians, just like anti-Japanese sentiment in the US was tied to the actions of Imperial Japan and the explosion of Islamophobia in the West was tied to 9/11 and other attacks. That's not to say that the Arab world has never persecuted Jews; that's simply false. However, Jews weren't particularly singled out more than other religious minorities and overall, the Arab world had been far more tolerant towards Jews than the West had. It's true that Western anti-semitism was introduced to the Arab world through colonialism and has been used by dictators to ferment hatred against Jews in order to help take attention away from domestic problems, but Israel is, by far, the largest source of anti-Jewish resentment in the ME. quote:By goon standards what should Israel do to make real peace with the palestinians? That's simple: make peace. Either a 1 state solution(where all inhabitants of I/P, including those ethnically cleansed during the Nakba, are equal citizens) or a 2 state solution with a sovereign Palestine on the internationally-recognized borders with a negotiated settlement of the victims of Israeli ethnic cleansing. So far, Israel has not made any serious peace proposal, at least none that would provide for a sovereign Palestinian state and the removal of the illegal settlements. To say nothing of East Jerusalem(which belongs to Palestine according to international law) or the resettlement of the refugee population(which again, is required under international law.) Worse, any serious peace proposal would be extremely unpopular in Israel. That's why many of us support BDS: it's clear that Israel will not make peace out of the goodness of her heart any more than you can expect a slavemaster to give his slaves their freedom unless coerced into doing so. Only by isolating Israel and imposing a serious cost on their policies of oppressing the Palestinians can we expect Israel to make peace and do the right thing. quote:Im seeing wall to wall atrocities in the middle east. Muslim v muslim. Muslim v woman, muslim v rest of the world. Just seems regardless of what the Jews should/could have done it would be Muslim v Israel anyways. Muslims aren't savages. For instance, Palestinians living in Israel are much less bigoted towards their Jewish neighbors than Israeli Jews are to the Palestinian minority living in their country. There's a lot of instability and bloodshed in the Middle East but this has to do with historically-based causes, like power vacuums(which lead to bloodshed, chaos and radicalism ANYWHERE), decades of political persecution of Islamists and the legacy of colonialism(to name just a few.) This idea that "Arabs are just too savage and blood-thirsty to make peace" is, in addition to being racist, the exact same thing that supporters of South African apartheid said to justify apartheid there: quote:When the whites met the blacks, the blacks had no written language, no technological knowledge, no cure for infectious diseases. In the 20th century, economic activity organized by whites gradually drew blacks out of their tribal lands into the cash economy and into the cities....
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2015 19:04
|
|
|
FreshlyShaven posted:I wouldn't say they're always the pariah. In fact, Herzl was largely proved wrong- Jews can integrate and assimilate into European/Western society.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2015 19:09
|
|
|
Xander77 posted:Jesus loving christ. Thanks for the poo poo post. Mind explaining how Jews are doomed to be pariahs forever, even though they're well represented in Western politics, culture and economy?
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2015 19:12
|
|
|
FreshlyShaven posted:Thanks for the poo poo post. Mind explaining how Jews are doomed to be pariahs forever, even though they're well represented in Western politics, culture and economy? Did you know that there is an African American President, and that there are many successful African American actors, politicians, and media personalities, and therefore racism is over? 
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2015 19:14
|
|
|
FreshlyShaven posted:Thanks for the poo poo post. Mind explaining how Jews are doomed to be pariahs forever, even though they're well represented in Western politics, culture and economy? Hint: Herzl wrote most of his theses about in late 19th century Germany. As you were compiling your lists of Jews that could have but didn't actually lead First-World countries, have you, perhaps, encountered any other events that would have proven him oh so very wrong? Perhaps taking place in the very same country, half a century latter? Mind telling me whether you're a
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2015 19:19
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:Did you know that there is an African American President, and that there are many successful African American actors, politicians, and media personalities, and therefore racism is over? That's an idiotic comparison. Black people, by every indicator, are heavily disadvantaged. They are more likely to be unemployed, more likely to be arrested, incarcerated or to be the victim of police injustice. They are less likely to be hired than a white person with the same CV. There are hardly any black politicians on the national stage or black executives despite making up a large percentage of the population. They are systematically oppressed by the state, albeit de facto and not de jure. Jewish people, by all indicators, are doing well. They're well-represented in the cultural, political and economic elite. They are more likely to have a college degree or a Nobel Prize or a well-paying job. If you honestly think that anti-semitism is anywhere near the political or social force that anti-black racism is, you're a drat fool.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2015 19:19
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:Did you know that there is an African American President, and that there are many successful African American actors, politicians, and media personalities, and therefore racism is over? Gosh, you're right! Clearly since African-Americans are incapable of integrating into white society, we should just pack up them all up and ship them back to Africa!
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2015 19:22
|
|
|
Xander77 posted:You're more than welcome. Feel free to keep writing imbecilic musings without taking the barest moment to consider what complete and utter poo poo you're spouting. Talk about projection. quote:Hint: Herzl wrote most of his theses about in late 19th century Germany. As you were compiling your lists of Jews that could have but didn't actually lead First-World countries, have you, perhaps, encountered any other events that would have proven him oh so very wrong? Perhaps taking place in the very same country, half a century latter? I'm quite well aware of the circumstances in which he wrote. If I had lived through the Dreyfus Affair, I would be pretty pessimistic as to the fate of Jews in Europe, too. And the Holocaust, well, that goes without saying. But that doesn't mean that Jews are forever destined to be a persecuted people that has no home in the West. The fact that Jews are prospering in the West, despite anti-semitism, demonstrates that. That's what I was saying, not that anti-semitism wasn't terrible or that it never lead to unimaginable bloodshed and suffering.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2015 19:28
|
|
|
FreshlyShaven posted:That's an idiotic comparison. Black people, by every indicator, are heavily disadvantaged. They are more likely to be unemployed, more likely to be arrested, incarcerated or to be the victim of police injustice. They are less likely to be hired than a white person with the same CV. There are hardly any black politicians on the national stage or black executives despite making up a large percentage of the population. They are systematically oppressed by the state, albeit de facto and not de jure. Jewish people, by all indicators, are doing well. They're well-represented in the cultural, political and economic elite. They are more likely to have a college degree or a Nobel Prize or a well-paying job. If you honestly think that anti-semitism is anywhere near the political or social force that anti-black racism is, you're a drat fool. There were millions of highly disadvantaged Jews that are no longer among us, because they were slaughtered en masse. Those who managed to immigrate were usually the ones more well-off. Furthermore, the majority of Jews in Israel are lower-class. Finally, your pretension that Hertzl was wrong in how difficult integration is ignores the fact that European acceptance and integration of immigrants is (or was) a very time-limited phenomenon, and only came about after forced migration and extermination made most of their countries a lot more ethnically uniform. The entirety of the Zionist movement was initiated by people who tried to assimilate, but failed. It was a significant driving point for the choices they made, so you saying "well, I guess now that 6 millions Jews were slaughtered and the millions in the former USSR are no longer barred from leaving and after a lot of civil rights efforts, and now that there's a country run by Jews in the Middle East, Jews seem to not be having it half bad, I guess it shows that Hertzl was wrong" is anachronistic rubbish. Explain to my late grandfather whose parents were killed by the Nazis, and he would be too if he hadn't immigrated to Palestine, why he made a stupid decision. Explain to the Jews who slowly vacated Egypt after the authorities there did not support and in some cases encouraged their oppression why going to Israel was a bad idea. Or to the Moroccan or Iraqi or Afghan or Yemenite Jews. That was when the big decisions were made, not now when everything is peachy keen and you can look back and say "well, if it just wasn't for those pesky Zionists Jews would be even better off". Main Paineframe posted:Gosh, you're right! Clearly since African-Americans are incapable of integrating into white society, we should just pack up them all up and ship them back to Africa! That's not the part of his argument I'm criticizing. African American oppression is different, but he's using bad metrics, period.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2015 19:35
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:Furthermore, the majority of Jews in Israel are lower-class. This has nothing to do with what I said. quote:Finally, your pretension that Hertzl was wrong in how difficult integration is ignores the fact that European acceptance and integration of immigrants is (or was) a very time-limited phenomenon, and only came about after forced migration and extermination made most of their countries a lot more ethnically uniform. Are you claiming that Jews are prospering in most of Europe only because of population transfers? For one thing, we're talking about Jews, not immigrants as a whole. For another, Jews are doing quite well in the US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and other Western(or in SA's case, somewhat Western) countries and that certainly can't be explained by forced migration or extermination. Anti-Jewish persecution has material and historical causes; it is not an inevitability. quote:The entirety of the Zionist movement was initiated by people who tried to assimilate, but failed. It was a significant driving point for the choices they made, so you saying "well, I guess now that 6 millions Jews were slaughtered and the millions in the former USSR are no longer barred from leaving and after a lot of civil rights efforts, and now that there's a country run by Jews in the Middle East, Jews seem to not be having it half bad, I guess it shows that Hertzl was wrong" is anachronistic rubbish As I said, I understand why Herzl et al. had little hope for the Jewish future in the West and if I were alive then, too, neither would I. Perhaps I worded my post poorly. That doesn't mean that Jews are destined to be forever a persecuted people and that they will never be at home in the West, which is what he was wrong about. The world today proves that that's not the case. quote:Explain to the Jews who slowly vacated Egypt after the authorities there did not support and in some cases encouraged their oppression why going to Israel was a bad idea. Or to the Moroccan or Iraqi or Afghan or Yemenite Jews. This has to do with Europe because...? quote:That was when the big decisions were made, not now when everything is peachy keen and you can look back and say "well, if it just wasn't for those pesky Zionists Jews would be even better off". I appreciate that nor did I say that "if it just wasn't for those pesky Zionists Jews would be even better off." You've repeatedly warped what I said. All I argued was that Jews are not forever destined to be persecuted and that ultimately, they have prospered in the West and have become well integrated into Western society, something that Herzl, no matter how understandably given the circumstances in which he lived, was wrong about. FreshlyShaven fucked around with this message at 19:54 on Jan 27, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2015 19:51
|
|
|
logosanatic posted:Im not terribly informed on the entire history of Israel. Was this the first war for Israel? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_Palestine_war Not really. It glosses over and just plain ignores a lot - like the fact that the Palestinians actually lived in Palestine at the time, it wasn't just some empty plot of land that the international community was trying to give it to. The British didn't "promise the Palestinians the land" so much as they promised to give up control of the land and let it revert back to the people who lived there. But it's not really that the article's trying to be biased so much as that it's only talking about the international war between Israel and neighboring countries - not the civil war for control of Palestine that Zionists launched against the British and the Palestinians and which eventually led to that intervention by the neighboring Arab countries. Though even then, whether you can call that Israel's first war depends largely on your definition of "Israel" and "war" - radical Zionist militias had been carrying out an active campaign of terrorism for decades with the aim of driving out the British and seizing control over Palestine. quote:Seems the Jews have had a long history of pissing people around them off and getting beat up because of it. Starting with Jew v Rome wars that resulted in the 2nd temple being destroyed and the jewish nation being shattered/scattered. Clear outsiders who maintain their own distinct customs, culture, and community and refuse to integrate into the majority have never fared well in Europe. Just look at the Roma people, who similarly spread throughout Europe without abandoning their unique cultural identity, who were similarly perceived as malcontents who thrived on crime and treason, who similarly faced oppression and violence throughout European history, who were similarly decimated in the Holocaust, and who still face just as much racism in 2015 as they did in 1915. They hold many similarities with Jews, right up to the part where a quarter of European Roma were killed in the Holocaust (along with many other minorities); why hasn't anyone offered them a state? Maybe the French mayor who told a journalist that "perhaps Hitler didn't kill enough Roma" and the French mayor who refused to allow the dead child of a poor Roma family to be buried in his town could get together and lead that charge. quote:By goon standards what should Israel do to make real peace with the palestinians? Im seeing wall to wall atrocities in the middle east. Muslim v muslim. Muslim v woman, muslim v rest of the world. Just seems regardless of what the Jews should/could have done it would be Muslim v Israel anyways. The atrocities you're seeing aren't from "Muslims", they're from extremist religious fundamentalists. Hell, we just got done talking about the oppression and violence women experience at the hands of extremist fundamentalist Jews right there in Israel. It seems like most of what you "know" is narrative rather than fact. For example, the "Jew vs Rome wars" weren't mean old Rome bullying Jews just because they were Jews, they happened because Israel kept launching rebellions against the Empire, which it was part of. As for what Israel should do to make real peace with the Palestinians? That's a very good question, but right now the problem is that Israel isn't doing anything at all to make peace with the Palestinians. They refuse to make any serious concessions, and impose ridiculous conditions on Palestine. Just having representatives of both sides in the same room does not make a "peace process", even if a US representative is also in the room as an "unbiased" mediator. As things stand currently, there won't be any peace until either all the Palestinians are dead or Israel demonstrates a willingness to compromise and make real concessions that they won't just turn around and unilaterally undo a couple days later.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2015 20:06
|
|
|
FreshlyShaven posted:
I apologize if it seemed i think muslims are savages. I dont think they are. Jewish and christian history is full of similar behavior and their ok now Certainly the early muslim empire during the dark ages was a place of learning and religious tolerance(relatively speaking for that time period). But that empire was taken over by more hardline muslim ideology The muslim faith shifted once it can shift again. Recently egypts sisi and others in the middle east have voiced that islam needs to reasses how they interact with the rest of the world. So thats a good sign. But the muslim empire 600-1000bc collapsed and from the literature Ive read part of that was infighting as the hardline muslims started taking over from the more machiavellian muslim leaders(i have a feeling im about to get schooled on this). So Im not inclined to blame israel for the hostility it experiences in the middle east. I do agree that their part of the problem now. Or that theyve been sucked into the religious killing whirlpool. But i disagree that they caused it or could have done anything not to get sucked in. Muslims have a long list of things they wont tolerate(kill for). So in my mind any scenario where israel exists alongside muslims cultures results in war regardless of how israel behaves. The reasons for the attacks just change. Case in point boko haram in nigeria. And isis killing other muslims(for watching soccer 14 young isis fighters were beheaded). This paints a picture of the newest evolution of islam being off the charts hostile Again Im not saying muslims have always been or always will be like this. But just talking about what im seeing right now. The past 1000 years of muslim religious evolution isnt entirely or even partially because of colonization is it? The power shift to extreme reading of koran started before the muslim empire collapsed or am i mistaken? Just trying to learn and keep open mind resisting the barrage of info streaming in thats negative to the muslim religion.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2015 20:19
|
|
|
logosanatic posted:
Oh my god I cant believe how many people are making Sisi ( a bloodthirsty dictator who killed egypts only attempt at democracy) and is the regime that DIRECTLY CONTRIBUTES TO THE PROBLEM as if he's some Martin Luther PLEASE read the news or check the facts. Al-Saqr fucked around with this message at 20:27 on Jan 27, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2015 20:24
|
|
|
I don't know about the rest of you, but I go out of my way to piss people off and make them try to kill me in my day-to-day life.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2015 20:26
|
|
|
Al-Saqr posted:Oh my god I cant believe how many people are making Sisi ( a bloodthirsty dictator who killed egypts only attempt at democracy) and is the regime that DIRECTLY CONTRIBUTES TO THE PROBLEM as if he's some Martin Luther PLEASE read the news or check the facts. Im just commenting that there are influential elements in the middle east pushing for a change in rhetoric in the muslim faith. Dont get upset Im not saying sisi is martin luther. And im posting in these forums precisely because its so difficult to find impartial information. I do have some limited time to do research but i exist in this world so want to know whats going on
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2015 20:42
|
|
|
Avshalom posted:I don't know about the rest of you, but I go out of my way to piss people off and make them try to kill me in my day-to-day life. Isn't that why we all joined SA?
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2015 20:57
|
|
|
logosanatic posted:Im just commenting that there are influential elements in the middle east pushing for a change in rhetoric in the muslim faith. Sisi is jumping on the 'Islam bad' bandwagon because the peaceful protesters he's gunning down are mostly political Islamists. The changes in Muslim rhetoric he's pushing for are ones that would weaken his opposition and allow him to tighten his stranglehold on his country. He's a really, really bad example to use.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2015 21:02
|
|
|
logosanatic posted:But the muslim empire 600-1000bc collapsed and from the literature Ive read part of that was infighting as the hardline muslims started taking over from the more machiavellian muslim leaders(i have a feeling im about to get schooled on this). So Im not inclined to blame israel for the hostility it experiences in the middle east. I do agree that their part of the problem now. Or that theyve been sucked into the religious killing whirlpool. But i disagree that they caused it or could have done anything not to get sucked in. I'm trying to be kind, but you straight-up have no loving idea what you're talking about. Jews fared fairly well under Muslim rule until the rise of nationalism, at which point conflict arose as a result of clashes between the ambitions of Arab nationalists and Zionists. Although the relationship between Arabs and Jews became tense in the early 20th century as a result of that competing nationalism, but Jews were able to live in Arab countries and neighborhoods until 1948, when the large immigrant Jewish minority in Palestine rose up in revolution and conquered the Arab-majority territory of Palestine by force, driving out most of the Arab population using violence and terror. At that point, for ~some reason~, the neighboring Arab countries suddenly became unfriendly toward Jews. It's got almost nothing to do with Islam or Judaism, and almost everything to do with the legacy of nationalism, imperialism, and colonialism that Israel represents. "Partition imposed against the will of the majority of the people will jeopardize peace and harmony in the Middle East. Not only the uprising of the Arabs of Palestine is to be expected, but the masses in the Arab world cannot be restrained. The Arab-Jewish relationship in the Arab world will greatly deteriorate. There are more Jews in the Arab world outside of Palestine than there are in Palestine. In Iraq alone, we have about one hundred and fifty thousand Jews who share with Moslems and Christians all the advantages of political and economic rights. Harmony prevails among Moslems, Christians and Jews. But any injustice imposed upon the Arabs of Palestine will disturb the harmony among Jews and non-Jews in Iraq; it will breed inter-religious prejudice and hatred." - Fadel Jamall, 1947
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2015 21:03
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:I'm trying to be kind, but you straight-up have no loving idea what you're talking about. Jews fared fairly well under Muslim rule until the rise of nationalism, at which point conflict arose as a result of clashes between the ambitions of Arab nationalists and Zionists. Although the relationship between Arabs and Jews became tense in the early 20th century as a result of that competing nationalism, but Jews were able to live in Arab countries and neighborhoods until 1948, when the large immigrant Jewish minority in Palestine rose up in revolution and conquered the Arab-majority territory of Palestine by force, driving out most of the Arab population using violence and terror. At that point, for ~some reason~, the neighboring Arab countries suddenly became unfriendly toward Jews. It's got almost nothing to do with Islam or Judaism, and almost everything to do with the legacy of nationalism, imperialism, and colonialism that Israel represents. Great info. Truly I admit I dont know as much as you guys. Im only sharing what I think I know to find where Im wrong So jews and muslims lived harmoniously until 1948 when jews got carried away with zionism? Am I wrong that the collapse of the muslim empire was infighting between the hardline muslims and the more practical rulers/muslims?
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2015 21:09
|
|
|
logosanatic posted:Great info. Truly I admit I dont know as much as you guys. Im only sharing what I think I know to find where Im wrong No, pretty sure Zionism funded by groups in the UK and US was directly involved. Oh, and as for 'harmoniously', there were multiple radical Zionist groups running around Palestine, several of whom contained members of the future Israeli leadership. So to echo Main Painframe, you don't know what you are talking about.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2015 21:15
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:No, pretty sure Zionism funded by groups in the UK and US was directly involved. I already admitted that im trying to learn. So for how long prior to 1948 were zionist groups running around palestine. And what were they up to? Were they reacting to some provocation or were the palestinians chill and wondering whats gotten into their neighbors? Your comment about uk/us funding being involved...is that in regards to the muslim empire collapse? That happened in 1000ad so that would be do to something other than uk/us
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2015 21:28
|
|
|
logosanatic posted:I already admitted that im trying to learn. I think we're referring to the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, and the 'promise' the UK made to Palestinian Arabs about Palestine, before backtracking and Zionising Palestine. As for Zionist group involvement, that goes back to the Balfour Declaration: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balfour_Declaration
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2015 21:32
|
|
|
logosanatic posted:I apologize if it seemed i think muslims are savages. I dont think they are. Jewish and christian history is full of similar behavior and their ok now This a very simplistic view. I mean, I assume you mean ce/ad instead of bc(what with there being no Muslims anywhere on Earth between 600 and 1000bc) Like any other civilization, it experienced periods of peace and "progress" and periods of infighting and repression, far too nuanced to say "from 600 to 1000, everything was cool. After that, dark ages." But the point is this: Islamic history is not a justification for ethnically cleansing and oppressing the Palestinians or warmongering. As I posted before, this "we're in a bad neighborhood" excuse was used by supporters of South African apartheid; why is it more convincing with Israel than it was with SA? Hatred of Israel in the Middle East is, for the most part, not due to religious fanaticism(especially since previous to the 90s or so, Palestinian Christians were known for being far more militant in their opposition to Israel than Palestinian Muslims); it's due to Israel's actions. How can you ethnically cleanse hundreds of thousands of Arabs and not expect other Arabs to resent you? How can you invade Arab countries, take their land and put the population under apartheid rule without generating hatred? quote:Muslims have a long list of things they wont tolerate(kill for). So in my mind any scenario where israel exists alongside muslims cultures results in war regardless of how israel behaves. The reasons for the attacks just change. See, you're painting all Muslims with one brush, as though they were some undifferentiated horde. What does Boko Haram, a violent extremist uprising in Northern Nigeria, have to do with I/P? Does the Lord's Resistance Army prove that all Christians are bloodthirsty psychos? Does Baruch Goldstein prove that all Jews are? quote:Again Im not saying muslims have always been or always will be like this. But just talking about what im seeing right now. The past 1000 years of muslim religious evolution isnt entirely or even partially because of colonization is it? The power shift to extreme reading of koran started before the muslim empire collapsed or am i mistaken? 1) What you're seeing right now has a lot to do with social biases. Islamophobia is a largely acceptable form of bigotry in the West and that colors things enormously. 2) What Muslim empire are you talking about? The Caliphate(s)? The Mughal Empire? The Ottoman Empire? And in fact, the kind of fanatical Islam that you see with ISIS or Saudi Arabia is actually a modern phenomenon with roots in the 19th and 20th centuries.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2015 21:32
|
|
|
Muslims had an official theological position that Jews should be treated as second class citizens. From the point of view of modern liberal democracy that is bad, but compared to how other pre-modern societies treated minorities that's actually pretty good. In practice dhimmi could range from active discrimination to a bit more tax and restrictions on hats while minorities run a large proportion of government. There's a reason the majority of Sephardic Jews ended up in the Ottoman empire.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2015 21:39
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:I think we're referring to the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, and the 'promise' the UK made to Palestinian Arabs about Palestine, before backtracking and Zionising Palestine. My apologies for not being clearer. I was referring to the muslim empire starting with muhammed in 600ad ending in 1000ad So zionists were active in palestine starting in 1917. What were they doing. What were palestinians doing?
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2015 21:52
|
|
|
logosanatic posted:My apologies for not being clearer. I was referring to the muslim empire starting with muhammed in 600ad ending in 1000ad The Palestinians were under the impression due to T.E. Lawrence's promises to the Arabs if they helped fight the Ottomans, they would gain independence as a Palestinian State. Meanwhile, in the UK, they decided to annex Palestine and make it a Zionist vacation spot. There followed the secret Sykes-Picot Agreement: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sykes%E2%80%93Picot_Agreement CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 21:59 on Jan 27, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2015 21:56
|
|
|
Soviet Space Dog posted:Muslims had an official theological position that Jews should be treated as second class citizens. From the point of view of modern liberal democracy that is bad, but compared to how other pre-modern societies treated minorities that's actually pretty good. In practice dhimmi could range from active discrimination to a bit more tax and restrictions on hats while minorities run a large proportion of government. There's a reason the majority of Sephardic Jews ended up in the Ottoman empire. How could hats be limited? Under the dhimmi system?
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2015 21:58
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:How could hats be limited? Under the dhimmi system? Part of dhimmi was dress codes, so often Jews (and Christians) had to either wear certain items or not wear certain items. It could be quite restrictive or it could be "don't wear a turban"
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2015 22:07
|
|
|
FreshlyShaven posted:How can you ethnically cleanse hundreds of thousands of Arabs and not expect other Arabs to resent you? How can you invade Arab countries, take their land and put the population under apartheid rule without generating hatred? 1) you cant, sounds like the jews screwed up. What was the middle east like before jews went ballistic? 2) all jews, christians, muslims arent like anything. Im not implying all muslims are horrible monsters. Just the other day I spent 3 hours doing a sale. I was trying to break some rules to their benefit, give them a hookup...and to make the sale. I could tell these people were the nicest gentlest people Ive ever met. They turned down the offer because they didnt want to basically cheat the company. Im getting all sorts of search results. But the lowest number Ive found is 7% of muslims are radical. Is this correct? Please tell me its like .00005% Because 7% is crazy high. 1.6billion muslims = 112 million radicals. Whatever those super awesome muslims i tried to sell to were. Their faith, their culture breeds radicals at a rate of 7% thats a big problem. Im sure most of those are in the troubled middle east area. But... With all the stuff on the news showing attacks all over the world, frequently against other muslims, but against everyone really. When muslims were chearing in the streets post 9/11 its hard not to get worked up. Im hearing reasons why there radicals in troubled middle east because of conflicts or colonization or jewish instigation. But what about muslims beheading muslims. Attacks in indonesia. Or india. Those arent because of colonization is it? And muslims dont have a monopoloy on mistreated people. Lords resistance army is like 5000 strong? Its a lot easier to dismiss them as reflecting christian culture. Than it is to dismiss what Im reading about muslim behavior. How long does 7% of the culture being radicals continue before we stop waving away the behavior as fringe and call it a symptom of the culture? No all muslims arent terrorists. And muslims used to be more chill and can be more chill again. If the 7% is wrong I deeply apologize its the lowest number i could find. 3) saudi arabia, isis, bokor are 19th century developments. Or do they stand out more? Did muslims behead muslims, opress woman before 19th century but no one cared?
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2015 22:24
|
|
|
Yeah, the problems, violence, poverty and ethnic/religious strife in India and Indonesia sure don't have anything to do with colonialism  And what is your definition for radical? Just being ultraconservative or actively participating in jihadist violence? DarkCrawler fucked around with this message at 22:40 on Jan 27, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2015 22:38
|
|
|
logosanatic posted:Great info. Truly I admit I dont know as much as you guys. Im only sharing what I think I know to find where Im wrong Jews and Muslims lived more or less harmoniously until the late 19th or early 20th century. The problem was basically the rise of nationalism - various Arabic peoples living under the thumb of some distant empire or another desired independence and a state for their own people, and around the same time various schools of Zionism arose, many of which desired a Jewish state of their own in the Middle East. Zionism also caused mass immigration to the region - from 1882 to 1929, at least 200,000 European Jews inspired by the Zionist movement immigrated to the Middle East, which caused plenty of trouble as well. These conflicting goals led to tensions, which were only aggravated after World War 1 when much of the Middle East fell under European control - France got what is now known as Syria and Lebanon, Britain got Palestine and Iraq and Jordan, Egypt was a British puppet state at the time, Iran had been under British and Russian occupation for over a decade, and the creation of what is now Saudi Arabia was essentially sponsored by Britain who backed Ibn Saud's series of conquests in exchange for his aid against the Ottomans. Naturally, the people who actually lived in these countries were pissed off, and both nationalists and other radical movements grew quickly; revolts and violence spread across the Middle East like wildfire, and in several cases (like Iran) the European countries pulled back their control and settled for simply supporting one faction in the waves of revolutions and coups. Most of the modern Middle East can be traced back to that period, and in fact many of today's Middle Eastern countries didn't achieve independence from the European empires until the pressures of World War II stretched their oppressors to the limit. Now that we've gone through that explanation, let's get back to the point. Let's look at the members of the Arab League. In 1948, Syria and Jordan had only been officially independent for two years, Lebanon had been independent for five years, a British re-occupation of Iraq had only just ended, and Egypt was undergoing intense political strife as the people tried to cut Britain's puppet strings. It's not at all shocking to hear that a lineup like that was strongly in favor of Palestinian independence, and intensely opposed to European proposals to dictate what was done with Palestine, especially since the proposal they had in mind was to slice it up and give half of the Mandate to a group that was a small minority in that region and made up mostly of European immigrants. The fact that Zionist militias chose to unilaterally declare independence anyway (without even waiting for the international community's go-ahead) and then seize power in the Mandate by force must have been genuinely alarming, partially since they feared that their own Jewish populations might have Zionist sympathies and side with Israel against their own countries, and partially because over seven hundred thousand Palestinians were expelled from Israel by force or violence. With all that in mind, it's not surprising that Israel's Arabic neighbors were entirely against Israel and were willing to go to war to thwart it - not because they were Muslims or because they hated Jews, but because of numerous political factors as well as the total disregard that was shown for the wishes of the native inhabitants. What "Muslim Empire" are you talking about, exactly? Palestine was under Muslim rule pretty much continuously from 1291 to 1918, when the Ottoman Empire was split up by European powers after its defeat in World War 1. Certainly the Ottomans saw their power decline during the 19th century, but that was largely due to nationalism (the Ottomans experienced considerable chaos caused by various ethnic groups agitating for independence), inherited problems from previous rulers finally coming to a head (like a poor economy and the excesses of the Jannisaries), and expansionist Great Power neighbors like Russia and Austria-Hungary who were more than happy to take advantage of any weakness the Ottomans showed.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2015 22:42
|
|
|
DarkCrawler posted:Yeah, the problems, violence, poverty and ethnic/religious strife in India and Indonesia sure don't have anything to do with colonialism 1) I admit india and indonesia had colonialism happen to them. But the muslims are killing their country men. And why is colonialism an excuse for that? But its not happening in china or brazil where colonialism also happened? 2) I guess my idea of a radical is someone who wants to kill people. Helps others kill people.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2015 22:52
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:
Awesome response thanks for that information. I was thinking of the muslim empire started by muhammed in 600ad. When it collapsed in 1000ad the book i read painted a picture of a tolerant(for that time) empire splintering when religious hardlinders started contesting control from the more secular...ish muslim elite
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2015 22:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 12:36 |
|
|
logosanatic posted:1) I admit india and indonesia had colonialism happen to them. But the muslims are killing their country men. And why is colonialism an excuse for that? But its not happening in china or brazil where colonialism also happened? Maybe you need to take a look at the borders and history of India and Indonesia to see how all those disparate people were forced inside same borders and how there is really not much unified national identity and hundreds of different ethnic groups, political beliefs and languages, and how most of the conflict in those nations can be tracked down to the tensions arising from those. China is a brutal dictatorship which kills its countrymen all the time. Brazil was one until pretty recently. Both are far more prosperous then most Muslim countries. Why do you think the rich Gulf Countries see less violence the shitholes like Syria or Iraq? When you don't have anything, radicalism is an attractive option when its available. When most of Europe was a shithole, same thing happened. 2) Then 7% is ludicrous. How many people do you think Muslim radical organizations count among their members? How would you even start calculating how someone wants to kill people? Like half of the world probably wants to see someone dead, easy. DarkCrawler fucked around with this message at 23:05 on Jan 27, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2015 23:03
|
|