ISRAEL - IRAN - SYRIA - HAMAS - HEZBOLLAH - WWWIII?

cicerone imposter wrote:

Zioists always fall back on calling those who disagrees with their treatment of the Palestinians as anti-Semites. Grow up! There are many Jews who also do not agree with the way Palestinians and others are treated by the Israelis. I know, they're Jew-haters: They hate themselves.

Whose calling anyone anti-Semites? I only pointed out that those Palestinians that will never accept Israel as a Jewish State may be suffused with an indelible brand of anti-Semitism, since Palestinians didn't rebel against the Ottoman Turks, or the British? Only Jews in Palestine got them so upset.

Also, one needn't be a religious Zionist to believe Israel should exist as a Jewish State. It can also reflect the realism that Jews for the past thousand years, until the New World was settled, had nowhere to live in safety. Meaning, the reality of anti-Semitism is the seedling of Zionism. It is not based on Jews wanting their own turf. They were persecuted on other's turf. That's a fact. So, again, if you have a solution, please offer one, rather than making ad hominem comments to whoever.

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

Foofie wrote:
georgeob1 wrote:
I see little objective basis on which to prefer Israeli tribalism to the Palestinian version. The issues here of course involve, not so much the Israeli treatment of its Palestinian citizens, as their treatment of the much larger number of inhabitants of the occupied territories. There are very few historical precedents for such long-term oppression and ill-treatment of a captive people - particularly at the hands of states that claim to adhere to modern Western concepts of freedom and democracy.

I'm only guessing, but perhaps the Israeli treatment of the Palestinians in the occupied territories is a vestige of how Jews were treated for a thousand years in the ghettos of Europe. Only a guess.

Possibly so. However it wasn't the Palestinians who did that.

In addition not all of the ghettos of Europe were places of oppression. In many cases they were the most prosperous and opulent quarters of the cities involved (consider Budapest) and there was a good deal of self-selection among the residents.

Where's Budapest? Hungary? Don't compare the Magyars to the rest of Europe.

Your point about Jews living in the "most prosperous and opulent quarters of the cities" is laughable (to me), since that is exactly what generated anti-Semitism! Remember, Catholic theology said for rejecting Christ, Jews were supposed to roam the Earth until the end of time (aka, Wandering Jew), so the reality of wealthy Jews was offensive to Europeans' faith. By definition, Jews were supposed to be ragged and homeless.

0 Replies

Foofie wrote:

cicerone imposter wrote:
Zioists always fall back on calling those who disagrees with their treatment of the Palestinians as anti-Semites. Grow up! There are many Jews who also do not agree with the way Palestinians and others are treated by the Israelis. I know, they're Jew-haters: They hate themselves.

Whose calling anyone anti-Semites? I only pointed out that those Palestinians that will never accept Israel as a Jewish State may be suffused with an indelible brand of anti-Semitism, since Palestinians didn't rebel against the Ottoman Turks, or the British? Only Jews in Palestine got them so upset.

This is not historically accurate. The Arabs of what is now Iraq, Jordan, Syria and much of Palestine actively supported the British & French financed rebellion against the Ottoman Turks. They did so under the explicit promise of sovereignty offered by these allies in WWI. Indeed it was this rebellion (and the transfer of 500 or so thousand British & French troops from the Western Front to the Middle East) that brought down the Ottoman Empire. No matter that the British, in the same year also made a contradictory promise to European Zionists to support the establishment of a Jewish homeland in Palestine.

Later, after their betrayal by the British & French became clear, the Arabs did indeed rebel against the European colonial powers, driving the British out of Iraq in the 1920s, and the French out of Syria soon after WWII.

All of this added fuel to the Arab resentment of the Jewish settlements in what they regarded as their lands.

Both your premise and your conclusions are wrong.

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

Foofie wrote:
cicerone imposter wrote:
Zioists always fall back on calling those who disagrees with their treatment of the Palestinians as anti-Semites. Grow up! There are many Jews who also do not agree with the way Palestinians and others are treated by the Israelis. I know, they're Jew-haters: They hate themselves.

Whose calling anyone anti-Semites? I only pointed out that those Palestinians that will never accept Israel as a Jewish State may be suffused with an indelible brand of anti-Semitism, since Palestinians didn't rebel against the Ottoman Turks, or the British? Only Jews in Palestine got them so upset.

This is not historically accurate. The Arabs of what is now Iraq, Jordan, Syria and much of Palestine actively supported the British & French financed rebellion against the Ottoman Turks. They did so under the explicit promise of sovereignty offered by these allies in WWI. Indeed it was this rebellion (and the transfer of 500 or so thousand British & French troops from the Western Front to the Middle East) that brought down the Ottoman Empire. No matter that the British, in the same year also made a contradictory promise to European Zionists to support the establishment of a Jewish homeland in Palestine.

Later, after their betrayal by the British & French became clear, the Arabs did indeed rebel against the European colonial powers, driving the British out of Iraq in the 1920s, and the French out of Syria soon after WWII.

All of this added fuel to the Arab resentment of the Jewish settlements in what they regarded as their lands.

Both your premise and your conclusions are wrong.

So, it makes sense to you to blame the Jews? Why not blame the French and British? And, what you're leaving out of the analysis is that after WWII there were 500,000 Jewish Displaced Persons that England wanted out of England. So, managing for expediency, in my opinion, put these Jews in Palestine. Too many to live as squatters, so the Balfour Declaration was invoked.

In the way of analogy, Pakistan is no older than Israel. Only because India has the sense to allow the Moslem Pakistanis to live separate is there peace there. Now look back at Israel. They're not so lucky.

0 Replies

Foofie wrote:

So, it makes sense to you to blame the Jews? Why not blame the French and British? And, what you're leaving out of the analysis is that after WWII there were 500,000 Jewish Displaced Persons that England wanted out of England. So, managing for expediency, in my opinion, put these Jews in Palestine. Too many to live as squatters, so the Balfour Declaration was invoked.

In the way of analogy, Pakistan is no older than Israel. Only because India has the sense to allow the Moslem Pakistanis to live separate is there peace there. Now look back at Israel. They're not so lucky.

I do indeed blame the French and the British for the mess in the Middle East.

After WWII there were hundreds of thousands of displaced Jews (only a few in England) who were, or feared they were, unwelcome in their old homes, and very likely unable to restore their property there amidst all the devistation of post war Europe. I cannot argue with their motivation to emigrate to Palestine and establish a community there. However, I can see no justification for them to apply to the residents of the land they coveted, the same injustices that Europeans had inflicted on Jews.

It is simply a verifiable fact that most of the leading Zionists in the early post War years had as a goal - from the very beginning of the settlement - the creation of a permanently Jewish state, one that would not provide equal rights and opportunities for resident Palestinians. Much is made of the Arab attack on the Jewish settlements, but the fact is that this action played into the hands of the Zionists who quickly proclaimed the Jewish state and got UN and American recognition of their actions. Even with all this I don't seriously fault the Israelis. They did indeed create a modern state that could have been a model for the economic and political development of the whole region. However their determination to maintain a Jewish state at all costs, and do so in defiance of the physical realities before them, created the contradictions that beset israel today and which seriously threaten its future.

For me the line was crossed after the 1967 War. The military occupation of the West Bank and Gaza which for 40+ years has deprived the Palestinians of political (and in many cases property) rights, and has been accompanied by brutal and cynical Israeli efforts to drive the residents from their land to facilitate the expansion of the Jewish state, has sown the seeds of permanent conflict. Israel had in 1967 a unique opportunity to create an expanded state promising the application of modern governance and economic development for all residents, setting an example of the principles of tolerance and justice for which European Jews presumably so long aspired. Unfortunately they chose instead to model their behavior on that of their former oppressors.

We have not yet seen the end of the bitter harvest of this fundamental political and moral error.

0 Replies

The French and Brits aren't the ones practicing aparthied in Israel.

0 Replies

Georgeob1 has sent me to the sources more than once, and I have learned much from those sources which have corrected many misconceptions that I have had about the whole Middle East fiasco. I accept that the Zionists have not always been model citizens of the world and have not exercised the most honorable judgments in some of their decisions and activities.

Where George and I part company, however, is that the modern Israeli, not guilty of the sins of their fathers, are expected to atone for those sins at the cost of their own peace, prosperity, and possibly their lives. It is not unlike requiring white Americans who have fought for civil rights and to correct inequities of the past are still expected to atone for the sins of slavery for presumably infinity. It is the same as modern day Germans who in no way typify the Nazi of the 30s and 40s being expected to atone for the Holocaust forever. It is the same as the modern day Japanese being expected to pay restitution now to the peoples their fathers and grandfathers once brutalized.

It is my belief from careful observation, that all Palestinians have to do is to acknowledge Israel's right to exist and to cease and desist from terrorist attacks, rocket launching, kidnappings, etc., and I think they would find the Israelis to be not only accommodating but altruistic. Should that not be the case, I think Israel would lose U.S. support within a very short time. But few seem to see a hospitable Palestine as a viable solution while it seems that it is usually Israel who is painted as the villain and who is expected to make all the concessions.

I think Israel should get more credit for being the good guys when they are and for being better people now than they once were.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

It is the same as modern day Germans who in no way typify the Nazi of the 30s and 40s being expected to atone for the Holocaust forever.

Actually that is expected. And it's not completely wrong to do so.

0 Replies

Walter Hinteler wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
It is the same as modern day Germans who in no way typify the Nazi of the 30s and 40s being expected to atone for the Holocaust forever.

Actually that is expected. And it's not completely wrong to do so.

Thats where I disagree.
It is completely wrong to expect the sins of the father to be paid for by the son.
Most of the Germans living today had nothing to do with the barbarity of the Nazi regime.
To hold them responsible for something that happened before they were born is stupid and just plain wrong.

0 Replies

mysteryman wrote:

Walter Hinteler wrote:
Foxfyre wrote:
It is the same as modern day Germans who in no way typify the Nazi of the 30s and 40s being expected to atone for the Holocaust forever.

Actually that is expected. And it's not completely wrong to do so.

Thats where I disagree.
It is completely wrong to expect the sins of the father to be paid for by the son.
Most of the Germans living today had nothing to do with the barbarity of the Nazi regime.
To hold them responsible for something that happened before they were born is stupid and just plain wrong.

I didn't say at all that those Germans living today are responsible for what happened between 1933 and 1945.

But I do think that we - as a state and nation - surely should atone that period.

And I do think that the sins of those period must be paid for - especially, since today's Germany is (from the first day onwards) the follower state of the German Reich, with all and every consequences.

0 Replies

I feel the same about Japan; they've yet to apologize to the Chinese and Koreans for their dastardly deeds before and during WWII; as a country they must atone - even the younger generation.

The younger generation are the ones who should demand that their current government make atonement a priority.

0 Replies

Walter Hinteler wrote:

mysteryman wrote:
Walter Hinteler wrote:
Foxfyre wrote:
It is the same as modern day Germans who in no way typify the Nazi of the 30s and 40s being expected to atone for the Holocaust forever.

Actually that is expected. And it's not completely wrong to do so.

Thats where I disagree.
It is completely wrong to expect the sins of the father to be paid for by the son.
Most of the Germans living today had nothing to do with the barbarity of the Nazi regime.
To hold them responsible for something that happened before they were born is stupid and just plain wrong.

I didn't say at all that those Germans living today are responsible for what happened between 1933 and 1945.

But I do think that we - as a state and nation - surely should atone that period.

And I do think that the sins of those period must be paid for - especially, since today's Germany is (from the first day onwards) the follower state of the German Reich, with all and every consequences.

The people are the state and nation. The reason it is not reasonable to expect the sons to pay for the sins of their fathers is where do you draw the line? How far back do you go? WWI? Charlemagne? The feudal kingdoms? The 4th and 5th Century invasions of the Roman Empire? What nation among us has a stellar history re treatment of people? If your father is a drunken bum who cheats on his taxes and operates a money laundering scam, is it your responsibility to pay his debts or fines or go to jail in his place?

Is it your children's responsibility to atone for your sins?

The Bible has a famous passage: "The sins of the fathers shall be visited upon the children even unto the fourth and fifth generation." This is a metaphorical explanation of how choices and actions can affect our children and grandchildren who suffer the consequences if we make poor choices or act unwisely. The blame, however, does not rest with the children and grandchildren. In my opinion, each person is only responsible for his own choices and actions which include that which he or she condones and tolerates.

Our best choice is to understand our history and choose to do better. And that helps everybody including the formerly oppressed. Otherwise every generation is enslaved by obligations that can never be met but produces an unhealthy guilt that will probably hinder the healing process.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

The reason it is not reasonable to expect the sons to pay for the sins of their fathers is where do you draw the line? How far back do you go? WWI? Charlemagne? The feudal kingdoms? The 4th and 5th Century invasions of the Roman Empire? What nation among us has a stellar history re treatment of people? If your father is a drunken bum who cheats on his taxes and operates a money laundering scam, is it your responsibility to pay his debts or fines or go to jail in his place?

I don't think anything slightly comparible happened before, especially nothing in the examples you gave.

Foxfyre wrote:

Is it your children's responsibility to atone for your sins?

I think that there's a difference between what privately happens or what is done by a nation/state.

I agree with

what you wrote:

Our best choice is to undestand our history and choose to do better.

I don't think we, as a nation/state, should ever forget what terrible injustice and undescribable genocide was done by us, as a nation/state.
And that we, as a nation/state, have a responsibility for that, something what is called "remembrance culture" (in German Erinnerungskultur).

0 Replies

Walter Hinteler wrote:

mysteryman wrote:
Walter Hinteler wrote:
Foxfyre wrote:
It is the same as modern day Germans who in no way typify the Nazi of the 30s and 40s being expected to atone for the Holocaust forever.

Actually that is expected. And it's not completely wrong to do so.

Thats where I disagree.
It is completely wrong to expect the sins of the father to be paid for by the son.
Most of the Germans living today had nothing to do with the barbarity of the Nazi regime.
To hold them responsible for something that happened before they were born is stupid and just plain wrong.

I didn't say at all that those Germans living today are responsible for what happened between 1933 and 1945.

But I do think that we - as a state and nation - surely should atone that period.

And I do think that the sins of those period must be paid for - especially, since today's Germany is (from the first day onwards) the follower state of the German Reich, with all and every consequences.

And I think Germany has atoned.
Those that committed or authorized the barbarity have all paid with their lives.
Many of them were tried and executed.
Most of those that escaped were hunted down and captured, while others are still being hunted.

Germany was completely and utterly destroyed in WW2, and I dont mean just militarily.
The German infrastructure was destroyed and Germany was no better off then a third world country after the war.
Germany has paid hundreds of millions of dollars in reparations to both countries and private citizens since the war ended,and the bulk of that has been in the last few years.

While Germany is a full member of the EU, it is still watched and looked at with suspicion by the rest of the world, just to make sure it doesnt happen again.

I know you live in Germany and have your own opinion, and you know more about what the average German feels, but I personally think that Germany has paid for what was done, and I dont think todays Germany or todays German citizen still needs to atone for what was done by their fathers.

CI...

Quote:

I feel the same about Japan; they've yet to apologize to the Chinese and Koreans for their dastardly deeds before and during WWII; as a country they must atone - even the younger generation.

The younger generation are the ones who should demand that their current government make atonement a priority.

Actually, Japan HAS apologized.
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2005-04/22/content_436701.htm

http://news.ncmonline.com/news/view_article.html?article_id=de17ca149e1cb1fdf724171810fda32e

There are other examples, just type "japanese apology" into google.

Now I am not saying that either Japan or Germany should ever be allowed to forget the horrors they inflicted on the world, but I dont think its right to hold people today responsible for what happened in the past.

To me its like holding you responsible for the crimes committed by an ancestor of yours.
Should you be considered guilty if your ancestor robbed a bank, before you were born?
Should you pay back that money to the bank?

Now I am not comparing what Germany and Japan did to bank robbery,
I just used that as an analogy.
I know that what Germany and Japan did was much worse.

0 Replies

Walter Hinteler wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
The reason it is not reasonable to expect the sons to pay for the sins of their fathers is where do you draw the line? How far back do you go? WWI? Charlemagne? The feudal kingdoms? The 4th and 5th Century invasions of the Roman Empire? What nation among us has a stellar history re treatment of people? If your father is a drunken bum who cheats on his taxes and operates a money laundering scam, is it your responsibility to pay his debts or fines or go to jail in his place?

I don't think anything slightly comparible happened before, especially nothing in the examples you gave.

Foxfyre wrote:
Is it your children's responsibility to atone for your sins?

I think that there's a difference between what privately happens or what is done by a nation/state.

I agree with

what you wrote:
Our best choice is to undestand our history and choose to do better.

I don't think we, as a nation/state, should ever forget what terrible injustice and undescribable genocide was done by us, as a nation/state.
And that we, as a nation/state, have a responsibility for that, something what is called "remembrance culture" (in German Erinnerungskultur).

The Holocaust was a huge sin, there is no denying that, and it was especially notable because it was so concentrated, of such magnitude, and well publicized. But sins of lesser concentration can be just as cruel and leave people just as disenfranchised and just as dead. The Inquisition, for instance, was quite active and pervasive in Medieval Germany. The feudal wars burned out families and whole villages and essentially enslaved many thousands.

Slavery was probably the most impressive sin of us here in the United States, but there have also been sins on a smaller scale that were just as cruel and harmed people just as much. Germany has learned to be better. Americans have learned to be better. We all do what we can reasonably do to make things better. As MM pointed out, Germany is a better place now as is the USA. No one responsible for slavery is alive in the USA today. Probably few, if any, Germans who were involved in or condoned the Holocaust are alive today either.

A 'remembrance culture' is a good thing. We should all know our history and improve on what we can and vow not to repeat the sins of our past. (Sometimes we do better than others with that.) Benevolence and kindness are also worthy virtues and to be commended everywhere, but should not be confused with obligation.

0 Replies

I'm glad that most here in Germany have a different opinion about our responsibilty, late, sometimes, and espcially the conservatives do hard to admit it, but nevertheless.

A recent example is Deutsche Bahn, the former state railway company:
Nazi 'death trains' exhibition opens

Quote:

"Without the Reichsbahn, the industrial murder of millions of people would not have been possible," said Susanne Kill, a Deutsche Bahn historian.

"It is late, but it is never too late to remember. I am pleased that we have this exhibition in such a prominent place," said Hermann Simon, the director of Berlin's Centrum Judaicum.

"Deutsche Bahn knows that it played a big and bad role in the Holocaust, but it took a long time for it to acknowledge that.

"But at least now the rail operator feels responsibility for what happened in the past," Mr Simon added.

0 Replies

Walter Hinteler wrote:

I'm glad that most here in Germany have a different opinion about our responsibilty, late, sometimes, and espcially the conservatives do hard to admit it, but nevertheless.

A recent example is Deutsche Bahn, the former state railway company:
Nazi 'death trains' exhibition opens

Quote:
"Without the Reichsbahn, the industrial murder of millions of people would not have been possible," said Susanne Kill, a Deutsche Bahn historian.

"It is late, but it is never too late to remember. I am pleased that we have this exhibition in such a prominent place," said Hermann Simon, the director of Berlin's Centrum Judaicum.

"Deutsche Bahn knows that it played a big and bad role in the Holocaust, but it took a long time for it to acknowledge that.

"But at least now the rail operator feels responsibility for what happened in the past," Mr Simon added.

So is 'feeling responsible' sufficient? Should the son of the rail operator be supporting a Jewish family for the rest of his life to atone for the sins of the father? What is your personal responsibility?

Otherwise how is this different from anything that I said?

And to recall why this is pertinent to this thread, what is the obligation of the 30 year old lsraeli to Palestinians that are attempting to bomb him and his neighbors or are launching rockets into his neighborhood?

0 Replies

If the Israelis are practicing apartheid, how come they tolerate Arabs living throughout Israel, and furthermore tolerate those same Arabs growing and prospering?

I think the answer is obvious. The Arabs living throughout Israel are not a threat to the existence of Israel, because these Arabs living throughout Israel are not mass murdering or attempting to mass murder Israeli Jews.

Too many Arabs living outside of Israel are mass murdering, attempting to mass murder, supporting the mass murder, or tolerating the mass murder of Israeli Jews. I think it quite respectful of civilized human life and rationality for the Israelis to practice apartheid, including defensive retaliation, on those too many Arabs.

I think the almost 6 million european Jews who meekly complied with the Nazis, and obediently rode and walked to their own executions, have demonstrated for all rational people to see, that passive resistance does not work with humans determined to exterminate you.

0 Replies

mm, That was no real apology from Japan, and you should be ashamed of yourself for trying to make it sound like it is. They had ulterior motives, and it's nothing new in their so-called apology. Shame on you for buying it.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

mm, That was no real apology from Japan, and you should be ashamed of yourself for trying to make it sound like it is. They had ulterior motives, and it's nothing new in their so-called apology. Shame on you for buying it.

EVERY nation has ulterior motives in everything they do.
There is no such thing as a totally altruistic nation.

Japan's apology may not be perfect, and you may not be happy with it, but you cannot deny the fact that they did apologize.
If other nations accept it or not is up to them, not you.

0 Replies

ISRAEL - IRAN - SYRIA - HAMAS - HEZBOLLAH - WWWIII?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know