Young Israeli man facing prison

[Zeek]

Originally Posted by Zeek

Israel is not an occupying force...the truth is they are forced to be a presence in areas where there are Arab Palestinians in order to keep the peace
​

A peace-keeping force is one that is invited by the government. If they go there against the will of the people who live there it is an occupation. Israel is occupying Palestinian areas, just like the US occupied Iraq and Afghanistan, whatever the motivations.

Israel is forced to have troops, road-blocks and surveillance in some areas, because the local poplance cannot be trusted not to build bomb factories, or smuggle in weapons or promote suicide bombings...thus it is keeping the peace as best it can...the barrier, although an eye-sore, has effectively cut out about 95% of suicide bombers.


...and they are forced to be a presence in some areas where the Settlers are a law unto themselves.

If we are talking about Israeli Settlers, why not tell them they have to leave?

Some of them might have to one day if proper negotiations bring a solution.

 

[smaneck]

Originally Posted by Zeek

Israel is not an occupying force...the truth is they are forced to be a presence in areas where there are Arab Palestinians in order to keep the peace​

What you don't seem to get is that the reasons for their occupation is irrelevant to the fact that they are indeed an occupying force. The fact that the allies had just reasons to occupy Germany after WWII did not change the fact that it was occupied.

Some of them might have to one day if proper negotiations bring a solution.

Their very presence is what makes an negotiated solution nearly impossible.​

 

[Zeek]

What you don't seem to get is that the reasons for their occupation is irrelevant to the fact that they are indeed an occupying force. The fact that the allies had just reasons to occupy Germany after WWII did not change the fact that it was occupied.

They are not occupying any sovereign state, they have a necessary presence in Judea and Samaria which is disputed territory to which Israel has a reasonable claim.

Their very presence is what makes an negotiated solution nearly impossible.

Not so....what makes a negotiated solution virtually impossible is that ultimately the Palestinian Arabs will never be happy until the whole of Israel is wiped clean of Jews....that is their declared long term goal.

 

[smaneck]

They are not occupying any sovereign state, they have a necessary presence in Judea and Samaria which is disputed territory to which Israel has a reasonable claim.

On what grounds do they have a reasonable claim on that territory.

Not so....what makes a negotiated solution virtually impossible is that ultimately the Palestinian Arabs will never be happy until the whole of Israel is wiped clean of Jews....that is their declared long term goal.

That is simply false. Arafat has been trying to reach a negotiated settlement with Israel since 1976. By 1988 he had publicly disavowed the intention to destroy the state of Israel before the United Nations back in 1988. But then Mossad funded Hamas to weaken the PLO. It is Hamas that wishes to get rid of the state of Israel entirely and sabotaged the Oslo Accords.

 

[TheDirector]

On what grounds do they have a reasonable claim on that territory.

On what grounds do you have a claim to whatever place in the States you live in? Shouldn't you hand over all of your property to a Native American, and go back where your ancestors immigrated from? Or is that somehow magically different, all of a sudden?

That is simply false. Arafat has been trying to reach a negotiated settlement with Israel since 1976. By 1988 he had publicly disavowed the intention to destroy the state of Israel before the United Nations back in 1988. But then Mossad funded Hamas to weaken the PLO. It is Hamas that wishes to get rid of the state of Israel entirely and sabotaged the Oslo Accords.

Also, once again: Why is this in "Christianity and World Religion", and not in "International Politics", "News", etc?

ARAFAT trying to reach a negotiated peace?
*beep* please!
Arafat was offered generous deal upon generous deal, and turned it down. Why? Because peace would mean that he would have had to enforce his side of the bargain ( = crack down on terrorism), and that he would no longer have had the conflict with Israel as a sop to point to, in keeping the Arabs from focusing on his own mismanegement.

I don't give a rat's bottom what Arafat, or any other Arab leader for that matter, said in a sob-speech in the UN, or to Western media. I care about what he said in Arabic, to Arab media, and to the Arabs of his own side.

 

[BruceDLimber]

[Pacifism] is the coward's way of enjoying the benefits of a free society, without wanting to do anything to uphold and protect it.

Oh, REALLY??!!!

You appear to be entirely ignoring the fact that I, having conscientious-objector status as a noncombatant, had a four-year hitch in the US Air Force where, if I may say so myself, I did an excellent job of performing my duties (in publishing, both designing forms to be filled in and editing & typing publications for imminent printing).

And I will point out that being wrong at the top of one's lungs is no virtue.


Bruce

 

[TheDirector]

Oh, REALLY??!!!

You appear to be entirely ignoring the fact that I, having conscientious-objector status as a noncombatant, had a four-year hitch in the US Air Force where, if I may say so myself, I did an excellent job of performing my duties (in publishing, both designing forms to be filled in and editing & typing publications for imminent printing).

And I will point out that being wrong at the top of one's lungs is no virtue.


Bruce

So you weren't a coward previously. Whoop-dee-diddling-doo.
No, "being wrong at the top of one's lungs" is no virtue, certainly. So I'm a little bit sorry for you, and hope you'll stop being wrong.

 

[smaneck]

On what grounds do you have a claim to whatever place in the States you live in? Shouldn't you hand over all of your property to a Native American, and go back where your ancestors immigrated from? Or is that somehow magically different, all of a sudden

No, some injustices cannot be undone. But I can at least admit that an injustice was done to the Native Americans. And if they were still fighting against us I would not be blaming the victim.

Also, once again: Why is this in "Christianity and World Religion", and not in "International Politics", "News", etc?

I have no idea. I didn't start this thread.

ARAFAT trying to reach a negotiated peace?
*beep* please!
Arafat was offered generous deal upon generous deal, and turned it down.

On the contrary, he accepted the Oslo Accords.

Why? Because peace would mean that he would have had to enforce his side of the bargain ( = crack down on terrorism),

Sorry, but if he is not allowed to be properly armed he is in no position to crack down on terrorism.

and that he would no longer have had the conflict with Israel as a sop to point to, in keeping the Arabs from focusing on his own mismanegement.

Yes, there was downright corruption in the PLO's management of the West Bank and the Gaza strip, but it was the Mossad-supported Hamas that was creating all the problems with Israel.

I don't give a rat's bottom what Arafat, or any other Arab leader for that matter, said in a sob-speech in the UN, or to Western media. I care about what he said in Arabic, to Arab media, and to the Arabs of his own side.

Like you understand Arabic and can know what he said.

 

[TheDirector]

No, some injustices cannot be undone.

Ahh, I see. Different standards for you than for those pesky Jews that keep insisting on existing?
Why am I not surprised?
No one in the Western Hemisphere has the right to tell Israel anything about where its people can or cannot live. Not unless they themselves are willing to hand over all they have to a Native American/Aboriginal/etc, and leave for the country their ancestors came from.

On the contrary, he accepted the Oslo Accords.

Yes, for PR reasons. When push came to shove, though, he rejected long-term peace plan that would have been fair to both sides, but which neither side would have been completely happy with.
I am, of course, referring to his rejection of Barak's offer at Camp David.

Like you understand Arabic and can know what he said.

1: Not the bloody point.
2: I do not understand Arabic. However, there ARE those outside the Arab world who do. I don't know if you've heard of the existence of such people. Other people referred to as "journalists" can sometimes write things in media called newspapers (back then they were pretty dominant, but are becoming less so), or even online.
And such people, the aforementioned "journalists", sometimes also call upon experts on a subject before they write about it.
Thus, you also learned something today

 

[ContraMundum]

No, it isn't. Plain and simple.

Seriously, for a Lutheran you seem to be at odds with Lutheran doctrine on war.

Let me guess...you put your patriotism into your religion. Kinda shows. I bet you think Jesus advocated warfare and American style capitalism as well!

 

[TheDirector]

Seriously, for a Lutheran you seem to be at odds with Lutheran doctrine on war.

I wasn't aware that there was a "Lutheran doctrine on war". And no, a random statement by the body that is misnomerically referred to as the ELCA does not count.

Let me guess...you put your patriotism into your religion.

Let me tell you: You haven't got the faintest idea what you're talking about.
God, King, Country. In that order.

Kinda shows.

It shows that you should probably get some professional help, since you're obviously delusional.

I bet you think Jesus advocated warfare and American style capitalism as well!

1: Advocate warfare as a general "Yeah, this is cool!"-thing? No. And no one here has done or said that. However, Jesus DID command the israelites to go forth and conquer Canaan, and the point is then that military service in and of itself is not wrong. Or are you one of those who call themselves Christian, but denies the divinity of Christ?

2: Jesus didn't advocate any modern ideology; be that capitalism, socialism, etc.

 

[ContraMundum]

I wasn't aware that there was a "Lutheran doctrine on war".

That explains it then. There is. You should look into it.

 

[TheDirector]

That explains it then. There is. You should look into it.

1: Nope, that's not how it works. I'm not the one who needs to go looking; you're the one who needs to back it up. So: Link, or it didn't happen.

2: Authored by who, when, and in what context? Not by Luther himself, that's for sure.

3: "Lutheran" doesn't mean "anything that someone else calling themselves Lutheran ever said". It means going to the Scriptures, primarily. If something is against the Scriptures, it cannot be Lutheran. Pacifism is against the Scriptures. Ergo, it cannot be Lutheran.

 

[ContraMundum]

1: Nope, that's not how it works. I'm not the one who needs to go looking; you're the one who needs to back it up. So: Link, or it didn't happen.

2: Authored by who, when, and in what context? Not by Luther himself, that's for sure.

3: "Lutheran" doesn't mean "anything that someone else calling themselves Lutheran ever said". It means going to the Scriptures, primarily. If something is against the Scriptures, it cannot be Lutheran. Pacifism is against the Scriptures. Ergo, it cannot be Lutheran.

I already outlined what would amount to the Lutheran/scriptural position, but you are so angry at everyone and trying to blast the forum that you more or less missed it, and I'm sure you would have agreed with it as well.

So, just to educate you on your own religion: here's your holy and most blessed link.

Now, trim the above with a more pacifist approach (eg. do not make war at all unless it is to defend the innocent or defend a godly government or society) as the Lutheran position is a little tainted with Reformation political bias (the need for war was part and parcel of the Reformation), and there you have it.

Also, just for you:

Monty Python-Holy Hand Grenade - YouTube

 

[LoAmmi]

Now, trim the above with a more pacifist approach (eg. do not make war at all unless it is to defend the innocent or defend a godly government or society)

This is basically my point of view. I think pure pacifism to be evil, but one who resists war until it is the last resort to be good.

 

[smaneck]

Ahh, I see. Different standards for you than for those pesky Jews that keep insisting on existing?

No, I don't believe Israel can be given back to the Palestinians at this time. But they can at least give the Palestinians the right to return to Israel if they wish to. We don't tell Native Americans they can't live in the US or leave the reservation.

I am, of course, referring to his rejection of Barak's offer at Camp David.

The PLO was not invited to attend Camp David.

 

[LoAmmi]

No, I don't believe Israel can be given back to the Palestinians at this time. But they can at least give the Palestinians the right to return to Israel if they wish to. We don't tell Native Americans they can't live in the US or leave the reservation.

I thought that has been offered and rejected in the past.

 

[ContraMundum]

I thought that has been offered and rejected in the past.

That's correct!

 

[Zoness]

Neo-Conservatism and Christianity mixed gives me a tremendous headache. Unfortunately, I think it describes most Evangelical rightists in the US.

I don't think there is a simple solution to this conflict, I am not overly invested in it because a few reasons:

1. I am not Jewish, I have no vested interests in the state of Israel the same way they have no interests in me.
2. I am not Muslim, I am not interested in the creation of another Islamic state in the Middle East.

I am, however, interested in peaceful resolution which looks a no-hope venture but why would it be? The military-industrial complex can keep endless wars up to profiteer forever, none of the world's defense contractors would benefit if they couldn't sell arms to the Palestinians or back the Israeli army anymore.

 

[smaneck]

I thought that has been offered and rejected in the past.

No, the two issues which remained unresolved in the Oslo Accords was the status of Jerusalem and the Right to Return. Eventually the agreement was to table these two issues and implement the rest of the Accords and attempt to resolve the other two issues later. I personally think that the Palestinians would agree to allow Jerusalem to remain the capital of Israel if they were given the right to return.