Israel

[navyrules 1]

liking your responses... (especially yours A Nonny Moose... I know quite a bit about Israel's history but you blew me away)

what is your opinions on American policy with Israel

by the way Barbarossa... I understand your statement about how it is hypocracy if we critisize North Korea but not critisize Israel... but... this is my opinion... I don't think that this is as serious as a nuclear North Korea

but I understand your point

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Originally posted by: navyrules

liking your responses... (especially yours A Nonny Moose... I know quite a bit about Israel's history but you blew me away)

what is your opinions on American policy with Israel

by the way Barbarossa... I understand your statement about how it is hypocracy if we critisize North Korea but not critisize Israel... but... this is my opinion... I don't think that this is as serious as a nuclear North Korea

but I understand your pointquote>

You are welcome, my naval friend.

I've been around longer than most of the people who post on this board, so it is understandable that I might have a pretty good idea of what went on in the last two-thirds of the twentieth century, since I lived through it.  Also, when I was in primary school, we had a thing called education, and you got to hear about history quite a bit.  By the time I hit high school, I had the impression that the War of 1812 was sometime last month.  I knew rather a lot about General Brock and his affiliation with the Secord family who lived in the Beaverdams area.  For me, this is local knowledge, because I grew up in Niagara Falls, and at one point lived next to the cemetary where Laura Secord is buried.

The American policy on Israel is a mixed bag.  Because they caught this one from their very good friends, the Brits, at the time, they feel they have to follow through in an honorable way.  I am sure this causes gales of laughter in the cabinet room in Jerusalem.  Honor among nations went out with D'Artagnan.

The Israelis are working the Americans for everything they can get.  They have a large working faction with American citizenship who lobby and squeak their wheels at every opportunity.  I have no doubt the American Jews orchestrated the current kerfuffel over the new Islamic communicy center in New York. 

The Jews have a long business tranditon in America, and still control the majority of the media through their grip on the major motion picture studios, which they founded.  Over all, being Jewish in America is better by nine thousand rows of Christmas trees than being Jewish in Europe.

I think the American policy is altruistic.  They can't afford to offend a large, wealthy segment of their population, so they are forced to be good boys even when what they are doing is mashugga (hope I spelled that right).  The Jews will continue to milk this goyim cow as long as they can.

[Jasoncw 11,934]

Your age gives you a different perspective on history than younger people, but it also affects you in other ways, like in your belief in the Jewish Conspiracy. 

[Wrightguy0 40]

now let's not discuss things like who controls what in the media, i know quite a few jewish americans and very few of those think the planned center on Park Place shouldn't be there, most are rather Laissez Faire about the issue, now let's try to stay on topic and not generalize things any more

[Finkle 14]

I am glad ol' Rick found his place with in Simtropolis, but unlike Rick AKA Nonny the Moose, AKA Loony the Noose, I don't believe in the Great Jew owns man, and with that every opinion every to be opined. Let's get the story right and put it to bed Jews, Christians, Muslim Or first, second, last. So the creation of these religions plays a role or at least that's the aggressor's point of view. Second, Israel for the most part tries to build up not out as the Media (or for Nonny AKA Rick, the jews) tells everyone.

My opinion throw rocks back don't waste a bumper on them.

Didn't a couple years ago we learned Israel already has Nukes.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Wow!  Touched a few nerves there! 

I never said a word about the so-called Jewish conspiracy.  I don't believe there is one any more than there is a Chinese conspriacy.  It is just that people with an ax to grind tend to be rather more cohesive than others.  As for my friend Mr Finkle, if you go around anouncing by your screen name that you are Jewish, you should be careful about calling a white anglosaxon agnostic Canadian a Jew-lover.  I try very hard to be totally impartial.

I have rather a large number of Jewish friends because I worked in an industry that attracted many.  I also have a large number of Muslim friends and I don't see where anything I said smacks of a conspiracy on any side.  Facts are facts.  If you don't like them, you can't give them the Richard Nixon treatment ("Those facts are inoperable".)

People do what they want, and often what they must because of the Harvard Law of Animal behavior which states that a well trained animal, carefully conditioned throughout its life, will always do what it damn pleases.  If you think about it, because of the conditioning, they really can't do anything else.

How were you conditioned at your mother's knee, Mr. Finkel?

[astronelson 339]

As I am from a country where 0.4% of the population is Jewish and 1.7% Muslim, it would already be hard to call me biased towards either side. Adding my own personal care for any religion (close to zero, unless circumstances dictate otherwise), I'm about as neutral a starting point as you could wish.

I think the settlements are wrong. The land the Israelis are building on is not currently theirs, regardless of whether it is historically theirs, and they have no real right to build there. However, if Israel did invade and control the Palestinian territories, I would still object. In a few centuries I would probably be in a different mind about the matter. However, by such a point I shall be long gone.

You should not, however, assume that I think the attacks on the Israelis are justified. Nor do I think those carrying out attacks on either side represent the views of the majority of their respective peoples. I am a firm believer that people everywhere are generally the same, wanting a better life for themselves, their family, and those they care about. How they do this and what it means for other people trying to do the same depends on circumstance and the actions of those who, sadly, only want the first of these three things.

As an aside, it seems that the Punic Wars between Rome and Carthage officially ended in 1985, some 2,248 years after they started, when the mayors of Rome and Carthage signed a treaty of peace and cooperation. Perhaps there is hope yet for Israel and Palestine, and the Middle East in general. Citation here.

Originally posted by: A Nonny Moose

...They can't afford to offend a large, wealthy segment of their population, so they are forced to be good boys even when what they are doing is mashugga (hope I spelled that right)...

quote>

Meshugga (with an e) is Yiddish for crazy or senseless, but your sentiments still hold.

[navyrules 1]

Finkle... yes Israel has nuclear weapons... and before you jump on me when I said that statement about North Korea... an Israeli official said this... “We have built a nuclear option, not in order to have a Hiroshima, but to have an Oslo” this is purely for defence... and if you want to get angry at someone for this... talk to the French... they set Israel up with nuclear weapons as early as the six days war... although they decided (thankfully) not to use them for defence... they placed their trust in conventional weapons

[Ocram's Razr 964]

I finally got around to reading the article since I posted. Well, I see a contradiction (it might not be there because I read quickly). If the land that Israel conquered is there, then would the Arabs not be allowed to defend themselves and take back what is legally theirs? It says that the war is fought by peaceful Israelis and Palestinian terrorists. I do not think that either side is better than the other, they are both equally ambiguous. I heard somewhere that whenever there is a problem in the Middle East, the USA gives a country a nuclear warhead and 2 million dollars (or did they spend $2mil).

I will not feel bad if the Palestinians, Jordanians, Syrians, Turks, and/or Syrians fight back and win.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Originally posted by: Ilikeseattle

I finally got around to reading the article since I posted. Well, I see a contradiction (it might not be there because I read quickly). If the land that Israel conquered is there, then would the Arabs not be allowed to defend themselves and take back what is legally theirs? It says that the war is fought by peaceful Israelis and Palestinian terrorists. I do not think that either side is better than the other, they are both equally ambiguous. I heard somewhere that whenever there is a problem in the Middle East, the USA gives a country a nuclear warhead and 2 million dollars (or did they spend $2mil).

I will not feel bad if the Palestinians, Jordanians, Syrians, Turks, and/or Syrians fight back and win.quote>

Well, if the Israelites could conquer the land of Canaan and hold it by right of conquest, what's different now other than about 5000 elapsed years?  It is not so long ago that if you conquered a territory and could defend it, it was yours.  The last Franco-Prussian war gave Alsace to Germany.  By some twentieth century treaty, France got it back.  (Versailles?)

The big mistake the Palestinians and their fair-weather allies make is that they are unable to keep and defend any territory they over-run.  Also, rocket attacks across borders are just acts of terror, not acts of war.  The Israelis are fully entitled to retaliate.

Now both of these people provoke each other constantly by setting out unprotected settlements and especially kibbutzes within range of the Golan Heights (which are disputed territory).  I think the only real solution is for all the external powers of any kind to withdraw from funding and supplying any of the belligerents, and simple watch as they beat each other back into the stone age.  The only caveat is that if anyone uses a nuke, all sides get made into seas of glass.

Update: Monday, 11 October 2010  04:14 PM

The Palestinians claim both areas, captured by Israel in the 1967 Mideast war, as parts of a future independent state and say that continued Israeli settlement construction sends a message that Israel is not serious about reaching peace.

quote>

Full article

This article shows what stiff necks are being dealt with on both sides.  Neither listens to the other, but only want to score points.  What a terrible mistake the world has made here.  The pseudo-kindness after the great war has come back to bite the hands that fed them.

[paulmc 392]

Originally posted by: A Nonny Moose

 Both the lineally descended Arabs and Jews have the genes of Abraham.

quote>

 This is the root of that conflict. I don't wanna be religious liking, but I need to refer the Bible as a historic resource. According to it, Abram had a promise he would be father of a great nation, but he was already an old man and your wife couldn't  give him children beacuse she was sterile.

Gen 16:1  Now Sarai, Abram's wife, had given him no children; and she had a servant, a woman of Egypt whose name was Hagar.

Gen 16:2  And Sarai said to Abram, See, the Lord has not let me have children; go in to my servant, for I may get a family through her. And Abram did as Sarai said.

So Abram couldn't wait by his promise and he had a son of his servant.

Gen 16:15  And Hagar gave birth to a child, the son of Abram, to whom Abram gave the name of Ishmael.

Gen 16:16  Abram was eighty-six years old when Hagar gave birth to Ishmael.

But after this son,  Abram would have another son , and was about this son that his promise of a great nation was refering:

Gen 17:19  And God said, Not so; but Sarah, your wife, will have a son, and you will give him the name Isaac, and I will make my agreement with him for ever and with his seed after him.

Gen 17:20  As for Ishmael, I have given ear to your prayer: truly I have given him my blessing and I will make him fertile and give him great increase; he will be the father of twelve chiefs, and I will make him a great nation.

Gen 17:21  But my agreement will be with Isaac, to whom Sarah will give birth a year from this time.

In the sequence of the history, Isaac have prospered, and his descents as well, and his descendence is the jew people ( in this case Israel). Ishmael also prospered, he is father of the muslim people ( in this case Palestine). So the fight happens because Ishmael is the first son , according to the laws of that time, he would have the inheritance rights. But the promise made of Isaac the  winner of all inheritance of Abraham, and the fight is given by this inheritance, which is the land of israel and palestine and they are fighting for this land for centuries, so I think this fight will last longer yet,  this happens from before USA be a nation and even be founded. So I think this is a problem to be solved only by them, palestines and israeli, they live there, there is where their histories happened, this is not of the business of western world an other countries try to make agreements, this will always fail  while  palestine and israeli people don't take conscience and accept they are brothers. My humble opinion.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Well, my friend, you get no argument from me.  However, one must remember that that Bible was written long after the time of Abraham, when men were in the ascendancy and women denigrated.  At the time of Abraham, archeological evidence is that inheritance is on the female side, so that Ishmael, being the son of a "servant" (actually slave), has no standing whatever in the normal scheme of things.  If it were not for the promise made to him by God, he would have been a slave, and nothing.

However, the descendants of Ishmael, the illegitimate, are the Arabs (not the Muslims).  Islam came about 3000 years after all this, at the beginning of the Moorish Empire period, and it was attractive to the Arab Jews who felt disinherited.  They became powerful enough to throw the Christians and Jews out of the Holy Land (Saladin the Great), but by then their star was in descent.

Of course the Romans expelled the Jews at the time of the Macabees' revolt, and various people lived in the rebuilt Jerusalem, probably more Arabs than any other.  By the time the crusades were successful, the Moorish Empire was fighting for its life in Spain and other provinces.  The winner in all this history seems to have been north Africa, principally Egypt after they shucked off the yoke of the Romans.

The history of the middle ages is very muddled and obscure.  In fact, it was a dark age over which a curtain has been drawn.

The present family squabble in the eastern end of the Mediterranean just fills me with disgust.

[Ocram's Razr 964]

I actually knew both of these but I had forgotten most of the detail until my memory was refreshed now. I would like most of all for both sides to stop the terrorism and the Palestinians win back the Gaza Strip, Western Rise, and Golan Heights fair and square then both sides live in peace. Will that happen? Unlikely.

[fenton56 0]

Israel is One nation; even all the Occupied Territories!

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 8, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Well, Barbarossa is right.  But if you win something and can hold it by right of conquest, it really can't be called "thus and so" territories any more.  It should simply be named as cantons, provinces or whatever, and life should go on.

The big problem is the people who "ref out" of these territories, then want to come back but expect everythimg to be status quo ante.  This is impossible since the government of the area has changed, and there are new rules to follow.  We now come to the stiff-necks on both sides.  If no one will give, then there can only be take.

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 8, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[Ocram's Razr 964]

With the attitudes shared by Israelis and Palestinians (and their strongest supporters), I believe that they deserve to destroy themselves/each other without international interference. I used to hope and pray for peace and understanding in the Middle East but now I must admit that I would be happy to see that entire region depopulated. I would be happiest if all the people who remained good up and left and that no good people would go there for any reason but I certainly will not be sad to see that area destroyed through war (Iraq, Iran, Israel, Afghanistan, and Kashmir), financial disasters (Dubai), and/or lack of resources (deforestation, overfishing, and of course Peak Oil Production will hit all of them). I used to think that theocracies were moral and good but now I see that all of them are bad. My only hope is that we do not have to clean up the mess. I was raised Christian but I would not cry if Nazareth and Jerusalem were to be part of the casualties of the STUPID, IGNORANT, IMMATURE FIGHTING (at least Christians would still have Italy and the Vatican).

[navyrules 1]

ok... seems we have hit a standstill... no posts since November 2nd... and llikeseattle I would not want to see the place blown apart because then I would have to listen to Muslims, Jews, and Christians gripe and argue about who caused it and how each other needs to be blown up and the thing that would annoy me most is CNN ramble on about this for months.

but you have your opinions

ok moving on... do you think Israel had the right to storm that ship

I think that there could have been the possibility there could have been weapons onboard and I think that the US would have done the same if they were in the situation but then no one would critisize us because the US did it

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 8, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Originally posted by: Barbarossa

Originally posted by: navyrules  ok moving on... do you think Israel had the right to storm that ship

I think that there could have been the possibility there could have been weapons onboard and I think that the US would have done the same if they were in the situation but then no one would critisize us because the US did itquote>

It's been a while for me.  Which ship?  The one where people were killed, or the one that had Mankell on board?  They stormed both.

Regardless, if the ship was in international waters, then I would say "absolutely not".  If it was in Israeli waters, then it becomes far more complicated since I consider Israel's occupation of the Gaza Strip and the West Bank to be illegal.  It could be that the waters legitimately belong to the Palestinians.  We all have to look at it from an unbiased perspective.

Like a broken record, let me remind all that Israel has a right to exist, but they do not have the right to land-grab just because they are powerful.  IMO, anything seized as a result of the war in 1967 is not the turf of the victor.

Barbarossa

 quote>

You have a funny sense of ownership.  If you occupy a territory by right of conquest, and can keep it, it is yours, will ye, nil ye.  The whole argument about the so-called "occupied territories" is just so much blather.  I am sure that Israel doesn't think of those lands as conquered, but simply new lands for their use.  They are not the ones who attacked.

The Palestinians lost, fare and square by the rules of war, even if the war was an undelclared one.  The fact that the civilian population decided to ref-out is not the fault of the Israelis.  Many Arabs live peacefully on Israeli territory.

 

The U.S. only got Detroit and the Staits of Mackinack back because it was part of the treaty settlement.  If the Palestinians want that territory back, let them come to the treaty table instead of firing rockets at the victors.  They are just prejudicing their case.

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 8, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[Duke87 1,070]

With regards to the stormed aid ship... what people neglect to point out is that Israel is not actually stopping aid from going into Gaza. The problem is that people were delivering weapons to Hamas under the guise of "aid", so now there is a requirement that all aid must be inspected before it can be delivered, and a blockade is in place to enforce this. If the folks on that ship had docked in Israel (or Egypt) and let the authorities search their cargo before they went to Gaza, they would not have had any trouble. But their mission wasn't to deliver aid, their mission was to engage in activist disobedience... so rather than let their cargo get checked out, they deliberately attempted to just run the blockade and, naturally, that didn't end well.

It was a nasty incident, but at the end of the day, I can't really fault Israel for their actions. If you set up a blockade, you have to enforce it no matter who's attempting to break through, with as much force as necessary. The ship may not have been transporting weapons, but the Israelis weren't given a chance to ascertain that.

I can understand the sentiment that Israel shouldn't be blockading Gaza, but matters of international diplomacy need to be left to the diplomats. Attempts at activist intervention do nothing towards solving problems, and very often just end up further inflaming the situation. And, indeed, doing something with the idea that you will make Israel look bad is further inflaming the situation. No fair and peaceful solution will ever be found so long as people keep insisting on assigning the roles of victim and oppressor to the parties in this conflict.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Your reductio ad absurdum is a weak argument at best.  We are not talking about individuals but sovereign states. 

War is the ultimate failure of diplomacy, but what if there is no conversation before the attack?  What if there is no political action but only a raid by bandits?  FYI Hamas, the party in power in the PA, is outlawed in Canada.  We consider them to be terrorists.  Supporting them is supporting international terror and banditry.  You liberal people should wake up and smell the gun powder smoke.

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 8, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[mightygoose 92]

while you make liberalism sound very good at driving everything, socio-politcally, its men's clamour for power and wealth in a very personally conservative way that drives the world, which although sounding counter-intuitive is a truism i can find no real arguements against. (there may be a tenuous macro/micro arguement, by that's dependant on perspective and scope)

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 8, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

My dear Barbarossa, I really feel you are missing my point.  The Israelis were attacked by the Palestinians and in the throes of driving away the attackers, they happened to occupy some of the land the Palestinians used to have.  In order to provide a more secure set of boundaries, they have every reason to keep the occupied space, and in the scheme of things, can't really let all that nice land be vacant, now can they?  If I had a nasty neighbour and managed go get him to move out, and I could take over his house to keep him out of it and away from my family, I most certainly would.  Why should I give him back his house because he "used to own" it.  I certainly wouldn't want him as a neighbour again.  This is in keeping with man's natural greediness.

I don't necessarily condone what the Israelis are doing, but they didn't make the original boundaries, and there really was never any real treaty rights among all those peoples on the east end of the Med.  At the end of the Great War to End All Wars, the allies were saddled with several hundreds of thousands of Jews who were not welcome anywhere in Europe or North America.  So they made a quick decision to implement the Balfor Declaration, not forgetting who controlled the UN at the time.

So now, 65 years later, history is pointing out what a horrible mistake this was.  Now you tell me, what would you have done with all those Jews?  Continued with the Final Solution?  Impossible, we aren't that kind of folks (anymore).  What country or countries would have been willing to absorb any part of this mass of refugees?  Not even the famous land of the free and home of the brave could have done it because you would have had another revolution on your hands, or at least a civil war.  We could have taken them all, but the government of the time would not.  Of all the civilized places in the world, we have the territory to take them in, but then they would be Canadians because we would not have ceded sovereignty to them.  Many of them were highly educated, and only needed time to recover.

We had a mass of Ukranian refugees who came and settled our western province of Saskatchewan.  They became what they always were, wheat farmers.  But on much better land, in a more benevolent political climate.  I don't know where we would have put a million Jewish refugees, but if I were running the show at the time, I would have taken them.  These are industrious, useful people and the land is empty (still).

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 8, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Well, I only defend them out of perversity.  You have to understand that, while I support the idea of a Jewish state, I am also appalled at the behaviour of these people.  Stiff-necked is hardly the word for the Semites on both sides.  What is going on, as far as I am concerned is a civil war between parts of the same family.  They want to be traditional, so let's go back to Abram (Abraham) and ask what he would do with the multitudes that have resulted from his, then perfectly legal, dalliance with the servant (slave?) girl.  He would probably say that Ishmael has no rights of inheritance and his descendents are interlopers on the promised land.  Funny that.  Could the Jews be planning a pogrom against the Arabs?  After centuries of being on the wrong end of the stick, maybe they would like to get a little back.

On the other hand, the whole thing about Jerusalem and the question of Israel comes down to the behaviour of Judah Maccabeus and his guerillas.  When you run on a forest of spears, you are likely to be impaled.  The Romans were no slouches with a pilum.  If the Jews want to complain, let them explain why anyone in his right mind would take on the Roman Empire at the height of its power.  And if they want their treasure back, they can have the Colosseum.  I expect the Italian government would be glad not to have to maintain the site any longer.  As for Jerusalem, give it back to the people who want to live there, visitors excluded from choice.