-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
General Israel/Palestine discussion thread
- Thread starter LashL
- Start date
- Status
All this is quite true, truethat, and, on the whole and historically speaking, Jews were certainly treated better in Islamic than in Christian countries.
The problem is twofold, however:
1). What was quite liberal and reasonable in 1200 -- non-Muslims being left in peace so long as they pay a special tax (as opposed to being expelled or killed) -- is no longer so in 2000.
2). The million dollar question is what counts as being "in peace" with Islam? To some Muslims the definition is the same as that of the western use of the word. To others, the mere fact that the other countries refused conversion is a declaration of war.
Unfortunately the latter seems rather popular. One of Muhammad's first -- probably the first -- international acts was to send to letters to the leaders of the two most important foreigners he heard of, the Persian monarch and the emperor of Byzantium, demanding conversion or death. Both ignored his letters -- and ever since they were "enemies of Islam" and their countries were targets, the war only stopping with their total defeat, as indeed occurred.
Doctor Evil
Master Poster
- Joined
- Mar 24, 2008
- Messages
- 2,014
By the way, treated better does not mean treated well. It is just that the standard set by Europe was so low, everything is better in comparison. At best, Jews were tolerated as a second class citizens who had to pay special taxes. At worst, Jews were either forced to convert (Almohads dynasty in 12th century Spain), expelled (Yemenite Jews were expelled to the desert in the 17th century, but were allowed to return later. Many did not survive), or killed (in 15th century Fez, and many more).
a_unique_person
Director of Hatcheries and Conditioning
If you read the general history of that time, wholesale killing, brutality and oppression were quite common. It was hardly a uniquely anti-Jewish thing. The Ottomans oppressed the Muslims they ruled quite ruthlessley. I'm not saying your claims are incorrect, but it was hardly just Jews who suffered during those times. Xian on Xian war was quite common, between the different branches. Even Buddhists were at it in Asia.
Doctor Evil
Master Poster
- Joined
- Mar 24, 2008
- Messages
- 2,014
This is generally true. For instance, the Though there some animosity between Muslims and Jews stemming from Mohammad's fights against Jewish tribes. Some rulers treated the Jews as people of the book, namely second class citizens. Others treated them worse. You can find impressions of foreigners vising Jerusalem in the years it was ruled by Muhammed Ali, and commenting that Jews were treated worse than Christians.
Anyway, my main point was that we should not over romanticize the situation of Jews under Islamic rule. It was generally better than their trials under Christianity, but at times it was as bad as one can imagine.
FireGarden
Philosopher
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2002
- Messages
- 5,047
How many IDF troops are occupying Gaza again? Just a rough estimate will do, thanks!
Irrelevent. The quote from the CIA should make that clear. They say both that Gaza is occupied territory and that Israeli troops left.
The quote from the EU representative should also make it clear.
The fact the UK still lists Gaza as occupied should make it clear.
The BBC says Israel claims the occupation of Gaza is over. And then goes on to say that this claim has not been accepted internationally.
Anonymous bod on the internet asking what he thinks are pertinent questions really has no impact to compare to that.
clearly, the views of the CIA, the EU, the UK, and the BBC are all Arab-loving pro-islamooNazi propaganda.
http://www.haaretz.com/news/diploma...y-members-slain-in-settlement-attack-1.348707
I am greatly saddened that these poor children were put directly in the line of fire, by their foolish and stupid parents.
Raising children in an illegal settlement should be considered child-abuse.
I am greatly saddened that these poor children were put directly in the line of fire, by their foolish and stupid parents.
Raising children in an illegal settlement should be considered child-abuse.
bigjelmapro
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2009
- Messages
- 3,509
Its already a known fact that Parky has no idea what Godwin law really is. It is indeed a fallacy the way he uses it.
bigjelmapro
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2009
- Messages
- 3,509
Ta for this clarity. No condemnation for the muppet who stabbed a 3 year old and a 1 month old baby, but an allegation of child abuse for those residing in a region of disputed land, apparently amongst 'savages', eh?
But hey, stabbing a child and a baby is perfectly justifiable eh? Those evil joos!
Explain how the WB in its entirety is 'in the line of fire'?
Another post chock-full of misconceptions and utter stupidity. But whinge whinge about an infraction, just as long as you can continue posting this drivel.
bigjelmapro
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2009
- Messages
- 3,509
Nobody is claiming the above. Glad we cleared that up.
bigjelmapro
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2009
- Messages
- 3,509
Perfectly relevant.
All branches of Gaza's government are controlled by Hamas. There are no foreign troops on the ground (besides the foreign jihadists, but they are mostly invited). Gaza is not occupied by any form of the term. Not being able to fish 5-8 km off shore is not a form of government. Airspace is also not a form of government (not that one would need it since Arafat and everybody after were more invested in weaponry than making an airport). Not being able to freely transport suicide bombers across a border or launch mortars/rockets is not a form of government.
Unless we want to create another special definition for Palestinians when it comes to the concept of 'occupation' as we did with 'refugee', its perfectly relevant.
Last edited:
bikerdruid
Philosopher
really?
immigration? emmigration?
does hamas have a seat on any multi-lateral organization? the u.n.?
its cute how the deniers love to debate the definition of terms like "occupation", "refugee", "border", etc etc....rather than actually facing the internationally recognized political facts.
no, Hamas nor Palestine is not a member state of the UN nor any other international organizations.
no, Hamas nor Palestine has no self-control over immigration or emigration.
they have no control over their airspace, their borders, their water, etc etc etc
they are no more an independent sovereign state than Alaska.
Last edited:
WildCat
NWO Master Conspirator
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2003
- Messages
- 59,856
Not irrelevant. It is impossible to occupy a country without, you know, occupying it. Israel is no more occupying Gaza than I am occupying your bathroom at the moment.
Legal status:
The UN, Human Rights Watch and many other international bodies and NGOs consider Israel to be the occupying power of the Gaza Strip as Israel controls Gaza's airspace and territorial waters, and does not allow the movement of goods in or out of Gaza by air or sea.[16][17][18] Israel states that Gaza is no longer occupied, inasmuch as Israel does not exercise effective control or authority over any land or institutions in the Gaza Strip.[19][20]Foreign Affairs Minister of IsraelTzipi Livni stated in January, 2008: “Israel got out of Gaza. It dismantled its settlements there. No Israeli soldiers were left there after the disengagement.”[21]
After Israel withdrew in 2005, Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas stated, "the legal status of the areas slated for evacuation has not changed."[19]Palestinian American attorney Gregory Khalil said “Israel still controls every person, every good, literally every drop of water to enter or leave the Gaza Strip. Its troops may not be there... but it still restricts the ability for the Palestinian authority to exercise control.”[22]
In his statement on the 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict Richard Falk, United Nations Special Rapporteur wrote that international humanitarian law applied to Israel "in regard to the obligations of an Occupying Power and in the requirements of the laws of war."[23] In a 2009 interview on Democracy Now Christopher Gunness, spokesperson for the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) called Israel an occupying power. However, Meagan Buren, Senior Adviser to the pro-Israeli media group Israel Project, contested that characterization.[24]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaza_strip#Legal_status
...forgive me for deferring my views on highly sophisticated and controversial international events to long trusted and established entities, but I shall consider the Gaza Strip to be no longer Occupied by Israel, when the United States, the EU, and the UN says so.
Last edited:
FireGarden
Philosopher
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2002
- Messages
- 5,047
Perry Mason got nothing on you! What a sharp legal mind.
Meanwhile, on planet Earth...
The CIA, UK government, and EU disagree with you. Guess who I'm going to trust.
applecorped
Banned
- Joined
- Mar 8, 2008
- Messages
- 20,145
5 Israelis stabbed to death
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/12/us-palestinians-israel-violence-idUSTRE72B0B920110312
"In a televised speech, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu expressed shock that the parents and three of their children -- including a baby -- were "brutally murdered on Sabbath eve while sleeping.""I instructed our security forces to make all efforts to find the murderers and we will not rest until we find them and bring them to justice," he said.
The office of President Barack Obama said: "There is no possible justification for the killing of parents and children in their home. We call on the Palestinian Authority to unequivocally condemn this terrorist attack."
Terrorist attack? Could be but since no one has been apprehended yet this may not be the case.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/12/us-palestinians-israel-violence-idUSTRE72B0B920110312
"In a televised speech, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu expressed shock that the parents and three of their children -- including a baby -- were "brutally murdered on Sabbath eve while sleeping.""I instructed our security forces to make all efforts to find the murderers and we will not rest until we find them and bring them to justice," he said.
The office of President Barack Obama said: "There is no possible justification for the killing of parents and children in their home. We call on the Palestinian Authority to unequivocally condemn this terrorist attack."
Terrorist attack? Could be but since no one has been apprehended yet this may not be the case.
FireGarden
Philosopher
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2002
- Messages
- 5,047
Jesus Christ! I've been teleported into the thread from hell!
It's not all one topic!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
It's not all one topic!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Last edited:
Mycroft
High Priest of Ed
- Joined
- Sep 10, 2003
- Messages
- 20,501
Of course not. Because you know darn well the legal definition doesn’t back you up.
And that’s really the crux of this debate. We have an international agreement called the Hague Conventions where these issues were discussed and agreed upon more than a century ago, but when it comes to Israel and [o]only[/i] Israel, we have revisionists who want to make up a different definition because the actual definition doesn’t suite their prejudices.
That’s the point I was making earlier about revisionism. You agreed that revisionism is disgusting, so can you tell me why it’s not disgusting when applied to Israel?
You will rely on everything…except the actual definition established by international agreement more than a century ago, that applies to every government everywhere. Even Israel.
For starters they could have listed the internationals who hold the opinion that Israel has not ended the occupation.
Honestly, I haven’t checked. When we have a legally established definition that’s pretty easy to understand, I don’t personally think it’s necessary to compile a list of politicians who agree or not. But for the sake of argument, if you were to identify a significant list of politicians who agree with your point of view, I think all that would accomplish is to completely validate the claim that Israel is held to different standards than the rest of the world.
Can you think of any defensible reasons why Israel should be held to different standards than the rest of the world? I can’t.
If you truly believe that then it’s bizarre that you’re trying to push the term “Hafrada”. Do you believe they are separated or not? Which is it? Or is it that they are separated when you want to manufactured an emotionally charged term to use for propaganda purposes, and they are not separated when saying so lends a little weight to your revisionist changing definitions?
See, those are the kind of tricky logical contradictions you fall into when you purposefully disregard the facts. It’s so much easier to just stick with what is factually true, then argue for how you think things should change from there.
I don’t need a lawyer to read and understand the Hague Conventions. There is a legal definition of “occupation” and you’re not using it. Instead you’re choosing to make up a different definition and apply it exclusively to Israel. That’s revisionism.
It’s good that Abbas did that, and that makes him way better than his predecessor, but it’s not an assurance of what would happen after a new state of “Palestine” is created.
Nice try, though.
Yeah…like the international military force that’s supposed to be keeping Hezbollah from rearming yet can’t ever seem to see any of the arms shipments coming in from Syria? It’s easy to see how being okay with that sort of deal may not be an assurance of peaceful intentions, and it’s easy to understand why Israel would have a problem with it.
So…you’re claiming you want to take the Hebrew word for “separation” and use it to say they are not separated. And in order to do that you can’t just say, “They’re not really separated.” Oh yeah, and “separation” is worse than Apartheid…therefore Israel should be more in control of Palestinian government…?!
Surely you must see the logical problems with all that?
Wouldn’t it be so much easier to just say you believe Palestinians need more independence than they have right now, and that you believe that even though Israel is no longer occupying Gaza that they still have a moral obligation to the people of Gaza? You’d be saying the things you seem to believe, but you wouldn’t need to tie yourself up in logical knots trying to coin new terms and force old words into new definitions. Most of the time just saying what you think the truth is in simple terms is the best.
Granted, you run the risk of giving Israel credit for its policy of disengagement (I don’t know what the Hebrew word for “disengagement is, but at least it’s an actual policy, unlike “Hafrada”) and you would run the risk of saying Israel was right to withdraw from Gaza…but that might not be such a downside if it makes you come across as being a reasonable moderate and not just an anti-Israel kook.
So, to recap;
You have not only failed to cite a definition of “occupation” as defined by the Hague Conventions, but have asserted you have no intention of doing so. Bizarrely, you do cite snippets from travel websites.
You have failed to list the assurances given to the Israelis by the Palestinians that a new Palestinian state won’t be just a platform to wage war against Israel, but you have cited a statement by Abbas saying he rejects violence in the short-run.
You have actually named one international politician who claimed Gaza is still occupied, Javier Solana, but failed to notice his comments predate the withdrawal from Gaza and that Mr Solana has been retired for a couple of years now. It’s unclear from reading the article if the statement represents an official statement of policy from the post he held or a personal opinion. In any case, I’m going to assume that finding it indicated you put effort into looking, and that’s the best you found.
- Status