Support NeoGAF

[speculawyer]

No JayDub is an alien. He's not normal. Most normal REPs will just stop posting. And that's not what we need.

Citizen of the Republic of Texas?

 

[Steve Youngblood]

If "REPs" don't want to post in this thread, it isn't because of me. It's because they either have nothing to contribute or they don't know why they remain a Republican. It has nothing to do with hostility. JayDub is an excellent example.

To be fair, they're also in a difficult position. This is caused simply by the phenomenon of being grossly outnumbered. Regardless of measurable intellectual prowess of the posters from any side, the conservative on this forum is going to have 10 people countering every point that he makes. Ergo, right or wrong, trying to carry on this battle is an exercise in tedium.

Someone arguing from the left is in a much, much easier position. If I decide to attack a conservative viewpoint, and find myself unable to continue this discussion, I can rest easy knowing that there are plenty of other like-minded people on this forum who will fight the good fight, so to speak.

 

[reilo]

anymore than some are trying to find the smallest example of republican or conservative wrong doing.

False.

The difference is that we don't have to look very hard to find republican wrong doings - and when they do it, it's on an unimaginable level at certain times.

 

[PantherLotus]

To be fair, they're also in a difficult position. This is caused simply by the phenomenon of being grossly outnumbered. Regardless of measurable intellectual prowess of the posters from any side, the conservative on this forum is going to have 10 people countering every point that he makes. Ergo, right or wrong, trying to carry on this battle is an exercise in tedium.

Someone arguing from the left is in a much, much easier position. If I decide to attack a conservative viewpoint, and find myself unable to continue this discussion, I can rest easy knowing that there are plenty of other like-minded people on this forum who will fight the good fight, so to speak.

No doubt. But the truth leans left, so it's a good way for them to become acquainted with it.

 

[Steve Youngblood]

No doubt. But the truth leans left, so it's a good way for them to become acquainted with it.

Perhaps. But being the devil's advocate allows one to see that your statement could just as easily be regarded as strength in number leading to an unnecessarily smug worldview.

 

[PantherLotus]

Perhaps. But being the devil's advocate allows one to see that your statement could just as easily be regarded as strength in number leading to an unnecessarily smug worldview.

Ah, smug. My favorite euphemism for "educated."



That doesn't mean I can spell well though!

 

[Steve Youngblood]

Ah, smug. My favorite ephemism for "educated."

Awkward...

 

[mernst23]

Awkward...

Irony is great.

 

[PantherLotus]

:lol

I deserve that.

 

[Jason's Ultimatum]

...and tied with Carter.

Carter was a better president than Reagan will ever be.

 

[charlequin]

I imagine that the only response will be some variant of the claim that Europeans are brainwashed from birth into dependence on the welfare state, but oh well.

I wouldn't be surprised to see the slightly more nuanced take where Americans are more productive people in general, while enough of the British are poor slobs who sponge off their betters that they can tip welfare programs across the line into "popular with a majority."

I do know that there has to be a balance between the good of the people and the good of the business, which are both important.

What is "business," though?

If we're talking "all business entities," there's no solid answer: every plan will benefit some businesses and hurt others. At the moment, health insurance rules are tilted drastically towards the interests of large conglomerates, while proving actively toxic to startups and the self-employed. Single-payer helps with both of these things, while Obama's plan and most of the things they're discussing in Congress aren't nearly as helpful to small businesses.

If we're talking the health insurance business, I just disagree with you; there's no reason to protect these businesses at all. If marginalizing "private health insurance" to the role of providing secondary coverage above and beyond what's covered by the government plan is what it takes to have sensible health policy in the US, then marginalize away.

I think if you're a genuine racist you won't be happy with either mainstream party.

What's a "genuine racist"?

 

[Steve Youngblood]

What's a "genuine racist"?

Edward Norton's character in American History X pre-jail? There's a wide gulf that separates him from your garden variety "black people are uneducated and love fried chicken" wannabe racists.

 

[Jason's Ultimatum]

Holy shit at Tancredo on Hardball. This guy is a nutjub. :lol :lol

 

[Particle Physicist]

That movie was terrible.

And Jay should feel terrible for recommending it.

boooooooooo!


i really like Pi .

>(

 

[PantherLotus]

Newt Doubles Down: Sotomayor Worldview 'Un-American'

Gingrich Digs In On Sotomayor-Bashing
By Eric Kleefeld - May 29, 2009, 4:31PM

Newt Gingrich does not seem to be deterred by the new message of the Republican leadership, such as Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX), that he and Rush Limbaugh should stop calling Sonia Sotomayor a racist.

Gingrich has now sent out a fundraising e-mail, asking for help to send blast faxes to every member of the Senate demanding that the Sotomayor nomination be defeated. He even says that she shouldn't even get a vote in the Senate, but should just have to withdraw.

Gingrich warns that all of American civilization is at stake here. "If Civil War, suffrage, and Civil Rights are to mean anything, we cannot accept that conclusion," he writes. "It is simply un-American. There is no room on the bench of the United States Supreme Court for this worldview."​

###​

Wow. He's really spending his chips here isn't he?

 

[Jason's Ultimatum]

This coming from a guy who cheated on his second wife during the Clinton impeachment. :lol

 

[Steve Youngblood]

Wow. He's really spending his chips here isn't he?

Eh. That's about as bold as me going all-in on the first hand of a play money online poker tournament.

It's easy to spout empty rhetoric when you're not really in the game.

 

[cjdunn]

Wow, Newt, wow.

 

[Stoney Mason]

Newt is the intellectual heavyweight of the right.


At least that is how he is promoted and the personae he likes to wrap himself in.

 

[Arde5643]

So basically the usual message from your bigot neighborhood GOP, huh?

 

[Oblivion]

NPR All Things Considered
Slate Political Gabfest
NPR Economy
CFR The World Next Week

Thanks, dude. <3

 

[mAcOdIn]

I highly disagree. The more people that vote, the more likely that Democrats will win.

You're both correct and wrong at the same time thanks to the silly(IMO) system we have, although with our current districts and the trend of the Republican party you get more right as time goes by, we'll see how long that lasts.

Let's be clear. This has nothing to do with me and you know it.

I'm hardly the strongest logician and can be proven wrong when I have flawed arguments (as JayDub could correctly point out). Because one regular republican poster isn't able to do so doesn't mean I am not calm nor patient.

If "REPs" don't want to post in this thread, it isn't because of me. It's because they either have nothing to contribute or they don't know why they remain a Republican. It has nothing to do with hostility. JayDub is an excellent example.

I do think it should be pointed out that a lot of the difference in opinion here have nothing to do with logic in reality, so it's not always that an argument is flawed just that where one may see a flaw the other side may feel that's how it should be.

 

[Incognito]

Netanyahu hitting wall

Last night, shortly after U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told journalists that the Obama administration "wants to see a stop to settlements -- not some settlements, not outposts, not natural growth exceptions," Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu called a confidante. Referring to Clinton's call for a settlement freeze, Netanyahu groused, "What the hell do they want from me?" according to his associate, who added, "I gathered that he heard some bad vibes in his meetings with [U.S.] congressional delegations this week."

In the 10 days since Netanyahu and President Barack Obama held a meeting at the White House, the Obama administration has made clear in public and private meetings with Israeli officials that it intends to hold a firm line on Obama's call to stop Israeli settlements. According to many observers in Washington and Israel, the Israeli prime minister, looking for loopholes and hidden agreements that have often existed in the past with Washington, has been flummoxed by an unusually united line that has come not just from Obama White House and the secretary of state, but also from pro-Israel congressmen and women who have come through Israel for meetings with him over Memorial Day recess. To Netanyahu's dismay, Obama doesn't appear to have a hidden policy. It is what he said it was.

"This is a sea change for Netanyahu," a former senior Clinton administration official who worked on Middle East issues said. The official said that the basis of the Obama White House's resolve is the conviction that it is in the United States' as well as Israel's interest to end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. "We have significant, existential threats that Israel faces from Iran and that the U.S. faces from this region. It is in our mutual interest to end this conflict, and to begin to build new regional alliances."

Netanyahu needed to engage Obama directly, the former official said. "Now that he has done so, and also sent a team of advisors to meet [special envoy to the Middle East George] Mitchell, he has very clearly received a message: ‘I meant what I said on settlements. No natural growth. No elasticity. There will be a clear settlement freeze.'" (Netanyahu sent a team of advisors including minister for intelligence Dan Meridor for meetings with Mitchell in London Monday.)

"Over the past 15 years, settlements have gone from being seen in Washington as an irritant, to the dominant issue," says Georgetown Univeristy Middle East expert Daniel Byman. He pointed out that key figures in the Obama administration -- Mitchell, who headed the Mitchell Commission, which recommended a halt to settlements; national security advisor Gen. Jim Jones -- see the Jewish settlements in the West Bank, home to some 290,000 people, as a key obstacle to getting a peace settlement. "I don't think the logic is hidden," Byman said.

It's not just the administration that's delivering Netanyahu that message, however. Whereas in the past Israeli leaders have sometimes eased pressure from Washington on the settlements issue by going to members of Congress, this time, observers in Washington and Israel say, key pro-Israel allies in Congress have been largely reinforcing the Obama team's message to Netanyahu. What changed? "Members of Congress have more willing to follow the leadership of the administration ... because [they] believe it is in our national security interest to move toward ending the conflict and that it is not a zero sum for Israel," the former senior Clinton administration official said. ...

 

[Pristine_Condition]

Classic LosingSteam. Nobody is excusing their behavior, or they shouldn't be. But you were suggesting that they got away "scott free" and that there was a nationwide conspiracy to scare white people. That's just silly.

Uh...

According to the complaint, Malik Zulu Shabazz, a Howard University Law School graduate, said the placement of King Samir Shabazz and Mr. Jackson in Philadelphia was part of a nationwide effort to deploy New Black Panther Party members at polling locations on Election Day.

And yeah. They did get away "scott free." Two of the men just walked away, the other got told "don't bring a weapon to a polling place again." That's about it. The men never even responded or had to appear in court to answer the charges. They ignored the court for five months, basically:

The three men named in the complaint - New Black Panther Chairman Malik Zulu Shabazz, Minister King Samir Shabazz and Jerry Jackson - refused to appear in court to answer the accusations over a near-five month period, court records said.

Justice Department Voting Rights Section Attorney J. Christian Adams complained in one court filing about the defendants' failure to appear or to file any pleadings in the case, arguing that Mr. Jackson was "not an infant, nor is he an incompetent person as he appears capable of managing his own affairs, nor is he in the military service of the United States."

Blatantly disregarding the court will get you slapped with contempt in a lot of judges courtrooms. Nothing happened to these guys. And then, mysteriously, a few month later, everything just went away like it never happened.

That's about as "scott free" as it gets, PantherLotus."

And the behavior was truly appalling:

"In my opinion, the men created an intimidating presence at the entrance to a poll," he declared. "In all my experience in politics, in civil rights litigation and in my efforts in the 1960s to secure the right to vote in Mississippi ... I have never encountered or heard of another instance in the United States where armed and uniformed men blocked the entrance to a polling location."

Mr. Bull said the "clear purpose" of what the Panthers were doing was to "intimidate voters with whom they did not agree." He also said he overheard one of the men tell a white poll watcher: "You are about to be ruled by the black man, cracker."

He called their conduct an "outrageous affront to American democracy and the rights of voters to participate in an election without fear." He said it was a "racially motivated effort to limit both poll watchers aiding voters, as well as voters with whom the men did not agree."

 

[Jason's Ultimatum]

I think happening right now in Canada is the Bush/Clinton debate. I hope there's video footage later.

 

[ClovingWestbrook]

Uh...



And yeah. They did get away "scott free." Two of the men just walked away, the other got told "don't bring a weapon to a polling place again." That's about it. The men never even responded or had to appear in court to answer the charges. They ignored the court for five months, basically:



That'll get you slapped with contempt in a lot of judges courtrooms.

And then, mysteriously, a few month later, everything just went away like it never happened. That's about as "scott free" as it gets, PantherLotus."

And the behavior was truly appalling:

Exactly. Its appalling when any one person or person's representing a particular group try to stop another from voting and and applying their right as a US citizen. The fact that the US justice dept just let them all go is even more appalling.

 

[ClovingWestbrook]

So I am probably opening up a can of worms but what would you all do if you were on the Israeli side of the isle.

 

[Shirokun]

Netanyahu hitting wall

Hate to be a cynic, but this is still headed for a predictable outcome. Peace is not in Netanyahu's interests. He was elected by a fearful, paranoid, but prideful Israeli public, and he will be reelected the same way.

I foresee him giving a "halt" to settlements, and then as soon as some dipshit Hamas fighter fires a rocket on Tel Aviv, all hell will break loose. Netanyahu will restart settlement expansion, while having the benefit of saying "I tried."

It will take moderate leadership on both sides before anything is to happen. I'm not getting my hopes up.

 

[Shirokun]

So I am probably opening up a can of worms but what would you all do if you were on the Israeli side of the isle.

1) Realize that my ever-growing population is going to run out of land very soon.

2) Buy an island in the south pacific, or a mid-western US state, and call it "New Israel"

Problem solved.

 

[ClovingWestbrook]

1) Realize that my ever-growing population is going to run out of land very soon.

2) Buy an island in the south pacific, or a mid-western US state, and call it "New Israel"

Problem solved.

1. Ok, now try to take into consideration the religion and cultural identity of Israel for the Jewish population. Also take into consideration the Holocaust and the fact Israel is seen by many Jewish people as a safe haven from the Holocaust taking place again. They have taken up the notion of Masada to never let an event like that which happened about 70ad or WW2 Final Solution to take place. Also take into consideration that the country is surrounded by many countries that want its destruction. With all of that being said, what would you do? Remember, if someone came to the US and demanded to get off your land and bombarded it, would you just leave and create a "New US" or stay and fight?

 

[electricpirate]

So I am probably opening up a can of worms but what would you all do if you were on the Israeli side of the isle.

Demand my government and a group of extremist settlers stop breaking the law and putting up settlements that make the peace process more difficult.

From my recent experience in Israel, that's what a lot of Israeli's and the moderate/progressive portions of their government want. Hell, even Lieberman's Neo-Racist party wants to stop and slow down settlers, but settlers are about 300k people that basically excercise massive voting block power.

 

[Jonm1010]

So I am probably opening up a can of worms but what would you all do if you were on the Israeli side of the isle.

For one, on the demographic issue alone, peace agreement is in the best interest of Jewish Israelis as the Jewish population in the next decades risks being overpopulated by the muslim population and thus if Israel wants to stay democratic, the current Jewish hegemonic dominance is going to end up losing a substantial amount of power when that shift happens.

Better to cut a deal now and try to ensure a better future that will see many of your interests stay in tact while they still have the leverage to do so than having almost no say in the matter later on when they will be drowned out by a demographic shift that most likely will not have the same aims in mind.

The only other option would be to abandon democracy in an attempt to keep the balance of power in tact but that is a policy that wont have many backers from the key players in the game (Europe, America etc.)

However i dont see the current Israeli government having that type of foresight and rational approach.

 

[ClovingWestbrook]

For one, on the demographic issue alone, peace agreement is in the best interest of Jewish Israelis as the Jewish population in the next decades risks being overpopulated by the muslim population and thus if Israel wants to stay democratic, the current Jewish hegemonic dominance is going to end up losing a substantial amount of power when that shift happens.

Better to cut a deal now and try to ensure a better future that see many of your interests stay in tact while they still have the leverage to do so than having almost no say in the matter later on when you will be drowned out by demographic shift that most likely will not have the same aims in mind.

The only other option would be to abandon democracy in an attempt to keep the balance of power in tact but that is a policy that wont have many backers from the key players in the game (Europe, America etc.)

However i dont see the current Israeli government having that type of foresight and rational approach.

That is true however one has to wonder if/when the Israeli Jewish population is outnumbered, will the Arab Muslim/Christian/Jewish just choose to change the way that law's are made and therefore laws themselves? I have seen both sides of the issue. During undergrad I took an Islam course and the Professor had us read a graphic novel based on the Palestinian's plight. It truly concerned and grieved me seeing and hearing the suffering they endure.

Being Jewish and losing family in the Holocaust I also see the Israeli side of the issue in which they are surrounded by countries that want their destruction or want them to give up land they claimed during war. I find it interesting that countries are calling for Israeli to give up land won during war and yet these same countries would refuse to give up land won during their own wars. While I admit it isn't a cookie cut answer to the conflict, I do have to say that Israeli is in a unique position that many other countries who are calling for her to give up certain things are not in themselves.

 

[Shirokun]

Remember, if someone came to the US and demanded to get off your land and bombarded it, would you just leave and create a "New US" or stay and fight?

Funny, you can apply this to the Palestinian mindset as well. It shows you just how ridiculous the whole thing is.

Ok, now try to take into consideration the religion and cultural identity of Israel for the Jewish population.

What about the Palestinians' religious and cultural identity?

Also take into consideration that the country is surrounded by many countries that want its destruction.

Why do you suppose these countries want Israel's destruction? Muslims were quite tolerant of Jews for centuries, even when European countries were rounding them up for slaughter(Spanish Inquisition for example).

These harsh feelings are very recent, and as a direct result of Israeli actions over the last 50 years. Is all the blood on their hands? No, but stuff like settlement expansion simply adds fuel to the fire.

So what would I do?

The bottom line is, eventually, Israel is gonna run out of land. This is ultimately what this conflict boils down to. Religion and ethnicity play very little into things.

What happens when they do run out of land is up to them. Think of it this way: They can keep subduing the Palestinians hoping they'll either just go away or die off. All the while continuing to make enemies of their neighbors. Not really a state I'd want to live in.

Or... they can realize their situation, and try to get more land in a legitimate means without blood shed, thereby lessening hatred of them in the region, and living in relative peace and harmony...blah blah. Israel is a wealthy nation. I don't see why they can't purchase land elsewhere and let the Palestinians have their own bloody state. Would solve many problems.

 

[ClovingWestbrook]

Or... they can realize their situation, and try to get more land in a legitimate means without blood shed, thereby lessening hatred of them in the region, and living in relative peace and harmony...blah blah. Israel is a wealthy nation. I don't see why they can't purchase land elsewhere and let the Palestinians have their own bloody state. Would solve many problems.

When you say purchase land elsewhere, do you mean leave the entire state of Israel behind and pick up lets say in South America/Europe? Or are you saying to give up some of the Israeli land, i.e. go back to the 67 territory?

 

[Shirokun]

When you say purchase land elsewhere, do you mean leave the entire state of Israel behind and pick up lets say in South America/Europe? Or are you saying to give up some of the Israeli land, i.e. go back to the 67 territory?

The latter. Any rational person realizes it's unrealistic for Israel to leave completely.

 

[Jonm1010]

That is true however one has to wonder if/when the Israeli Jewish population is outnumbered, will the Arab Muslim/Christian/Jewish just choose to change the way that law's are made and therefore laws themselves? I have seen both sides of the issue. During undergrad I took an Islam course and the Professor had us read a graphic novel based on the Palestinian's plight. It truly concerned and grieved me seeing and hearing the suffering they endure.

Being Jewish and losing family in the Holocaust I also see the Israeli side of the issue in which they are surrounded by countries that want their destruction or want them to give up land they claimed during war. I find it interesting that countries are calling for Israeli to give up land won during war and yet these same countries would refuse to give up land won during their own wars. While I admit it isn't a cookie cut answer to the conflict, I do have to say that Israeli is in a unique position that many other countries who are calling for her to give up certain things are not in themselves.

Your attempting to interject morality and emotion into an issue that demands pragmatism and rational approach. Making concerned efforts now to deal with the situations that no doubt will be dealt with when that demographic shift happens will almost certainly ensure not only that in the negotiation process they will get to see some of their self interests met that out of power is likely not to occur, it will also buffer any type of blowback that will occur once that shift happens.

If you have made a good faith effort to come to a rational and fair conclusion to ending the conflict and divides that plague this situation, it will pay dividends in terms of keeping the more radical elements at bay, especially when that demographic barrier is crossed and the balance shifts.

I realize this doesnt mean it will necessarily all work out all utopic like, but it is an avenue I cant see a rational long-term thinker not at least giving strong attention to.

 

[mernst23]

So i just saw this camera phone video of this whole black panther voter intimidation thing. That's hilarious, if I saw them in front of my polling place is would've been like "Man, Sarah Palin is on the ball, flat tax, down with democrats!" as I walked by them even though I would've intended on voting for Obama. But then again, i'm a dumb asshole who likes to start shit.

 

[mAcOdIn]

So i just saw this camera phone video of this whole black panther voter intimidation thing. That's hilarious, if I saw them in front of my polling place is would've been like "Man, Sarah Palin is on the ball, flat tax, down with democrats!" as I walked by them even though I would've intended on voting for Obama. But then again, i'm a dumb asshole who likes to start shit.

You think how I do, seriously how does someone intimidate you to not vote. Shit, I understand if you kill me or just outright kick my ass but if you can't pass someone who just "looks" scary to you voting is probably too much of a responsibility for you, best leave it up to someone else.

But that's just me.

 

[mernst23]

You think how I do, seriously how does someone intimidate you to not vote. Shit, I understand if you kill me or just outright kick my ass but if you can't pass someone who just "looks" scary to you voting is probably too much of a responsibility for you, best leave it up to someone else.

But that's just me.

See, I don't contend that what these guys did was right, because it's obvious that was their intention to intimidate people, but trying to create ties to the Obama administration that these people were not charged is ludicrous. I wonder if more people were intimidated by the fact they were black over the fact they had clubs? I bet you can answer that question yourself.

 

[gutter_trash]

I am enjoying every moment of the GOP self-destruction

many are offended by their retardities... I am not, I am enjoying and encouraging it

why woudl I encourage it? simple, I don't want to see the GOP form government ever again,

anything that makes them big losers makes me happy

 

[Hamfam]

1. Ok, now try to take into consideration the religion and cultural identity of Israel for the Jewish population. Also take into consideration the Holocaust and the fact Israel is seen by many Jewish people as a safe haven from the Holocaust taking place again. They have taken up the notion of Masada to never let an event like that which happened about 70ad or WW2 Final Solution to take place. Also take into consideration that the country is surrounded by many countries that want its destruction. With all of that being said, what would you do? Remember, if someone came to the US and demanded to get off your land and bombarded it, would you just leave and create a "New US" or stay and fight?

BLAH DE BLAH BLAH BLAH.

Translation of your post: Israel should be able to steal land from its surrounding countries just because they want more land.

HEY, I THINK WE HAVE A CONSENSUS IN THE WORLD NOWADAYS; THAT'S A BAD THING.

 

[ClovingWestbrook]

This post states that any group of people that wants more land, can just take it from another. You're a piece of shit.

Thanks for the thoughtful response. In reality this is what happens around the world except some countries choose to excuse their own actions but not those of another. For instance, the US took the land from the Natives and is now dictating Israel to give up land they won. England the same, Russia the same, many countries gained the land they possess through war and victory.

 

[Hamfam]

Sorry, but your post didn't deserve any better.

You put tons of sentences that stray completly away from the relevant topic, and expect me to give respect to an opinion which just says "if you want more land for your population, just take it"?

"Hey, look at Israel's point of view! Someone tried to kill people in their religion - so they should be able to just steal land from who they want" HUUUUUH?!

Your examples are awful - England, Russia? Both had to give up the vast majority of the land they took, because it wasn't managable. The local populations bankrupted and broke their will in trying to maintain their ill be-gotten land.

 

[Hamfam]

Oh, and there's a reason why the US gets to dictate to Israel. Israel would be NOTHING without the US. You think Israel would be around if they didn't receive the financial, millitary and public support the US gives them? Nope.

Not only does the US have a right, I'd say it has an OBLIGATION, to keep Israel on a leash.

 

[ClovingWestbrook]

Sorry, but your post didn't deserve any better.

You put tons of sentences that stray completly away from the relevant topic, and expect me to give respect to an opinion which just says "if you want more land for your population, just take it"?

Your examples are awful - England, Russia? Both had to give up the vast majority of the land they took, because it wasn't managable. The local populations bankrupted and broke their will in trying to maintain their ill be-gotten land.

I wasn't bothered by what you said as I understand this is a difficult issue and it can get heated on both sides. I apologize if what I said gave the impression that I think any country has the moral right to take land from another as that wasn't my intention. My point in saying what I did was looking at it from Israel's point of view. I understand that the Palestinian's have a totally different point of view as well.

I definitely understood what you are saying about England/Russia but their argument for Israel to give up land isn't based upon its inability to continue to maintain it, its to broker peace. These countries wouldn't and didn't give up land for peace (if I am wrong please correct me).

I make no bones about the fact that I favor the Israeli side more in this issue however, with that being said I am not oblivious to the fact t/at the Palestinians have their own concerns and side.

 

[Diablos]

Netanyahu hitting wall

Good.

 

[Iksenpets]

Thanks for the thoughtful response. In reality this is what happens around the world except some countries choose to excuse their own actions but not those of another. For instance, the US took the land from the Natives and is now dictating Israel to give up land they won. England the same, Russia the same, many countries gained the land they possess through war and victory.

Yes, and those things all happened in a very different era. Times have changed. The fact that these things happened in the past doesn't excuse people continuing to do them now. It's not like you can ask the Americans or the Russians to give up the land now so as not to be hypocrites or something. Forcing them off of land they've been on for generations would be just as wrong as it was for them to take it in the first place, regardless of how illegitimately they came to possess it. The same applies to Israel. It would be wrong to evict the Israelis from the land they have effectively made theirs, but at the same time it's just as wrong for them to continue their expansion into Palestinian territories.

At the end of the day, colonialism just doesn't work. All attempts at it end in violence, whether its the genocide of the natives seen in America or the overthrow of the colonists seen in much of the rest of the world. The violence in Israel is inevitable so long as each side continues to insist that they have the right to expand into the other.

 

[ClovingWestbrook]

Yes, and those things all happened in a very different era. Times have changed. The fact that these things happened in the past doesn't excuse people continuing to do them now. It's not like you can ask the Americans or the Russians to give up the land now so as not to be hypocrites or something. Forcing them off of land they've been on for generations would be just as wrong as it was for them to take it in the first place, regardless of how illegitimately they came to possess it. The same applies to Israel. It would be wrong to evict the Israelis from the land they have effectively made theirs, but at the same time it's just as wrong for them to continue their expansion into Palestinian territories.

At the end of the day, colonialism just doesn't work. All attempts at it end in violence, whether its the genocide of the natives seen in America or the overthrow of the colonists seen in much of the rest of the world. The violence in Israel is inevitable so long as each side continues to insist that they have the right to expand into the other.

Fair enough. BTW, Awesome post!

 

[mAcOdIn]

I find it interesting that countries are calling for Israeli to give up land won during war and yet these same countries would refuse to give up land won during their own wars. While I admit it isn't a cookie cut answer to the conflict, I do have to say that Israeli is in a unique position that many other countries who are calling for her to give up certain things are not in themselves.

I think the main difference between Israel and the US is that all those people are still alive. We really haven't tolerated any land grabs in the last 50 years from industrialized nations. Further Israel never should have even been made, if people wanted to immigrate there and the locals were cool with it then fine but it never should have been carved up. I also question the need, not so much for a state that has a lot of Jews, but for a Jewish theocracy.

I see only two possible end game options for Israel, either they kill all the Palestinians and take all their land and get relative peace that way or Israel and Palestine merge and both groups are given equal rights and treatment, representation and all that jazz, going back to '67s borders isn't really a long term solution in my opinion.

Israel was a knee jerk reaction that never should have happened, the Jews in "Israel" at that time should have fought it out with the Palestinians there and whomever won won, but for foreign powers to carve it up and give one side weapons and shit just because in another part of their world their people were persecuted was idiotic.