Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. Subscriber kmax87
    You've got Kevin
    01 Jun '17 12:13
    I've been listening to argument on both sides for many years on this forum, that either vilifies the Jews or the Palestinians, and a wide range of reasons for why things are the way they are.

    Yet the right to armed struggle/defence of land/national identity is clung to by both sides and whenever a non violent strategy is put forward as a way forward its quickly dismissed as another way to weaken the already precarious position the Palestinians find themselves in, but whenever a cease fire is called for and subsequently broken then it almost always is used as proof by the Israeli​'s as proof that their heavy handed scorched earth methods are valid while a slightly quieter chorus will blame the return of hostilities on black flag operations sponsored by the Jewish controlled State of Israel.

    But whenever that logic is aired it is usually quickly quashed with stories of how ill-disciplined the Palestinians are in negotiation or their inability to control their more militant factions that from long experience the wise cynics will prognosticate, that in the long run it's better not to bother because the Palestinians are not interested in solutions but just want an opportunity for the Israeli forces to drop their guard a bit and it will be Kristallnacht all over again.

    So the question is, given that this is just a small impression of the contradicting narratives that are heard by interested but non involved third person's standing on the sidelines​, is this assymetrical cycle of violence and dispair, a cycle of distrust that can ever be broken, or is believing meaningful peace can ever be brokered in the Middle East a hope never to be realised?

    Are people on both sides actually more comfortable with the idea that peace is unattainable, and would rather continue on that basis, than hope for peace and a positive future because they fear that whatever is agreed upon will always be interpreted as too much, too little, too late, and it serves the fatalistic mindset of those who live in the region much better to live without hope and expect only the worst. At least that way you are not easily disappointed?

    Or are there solutions that can work, that only needs implementing, but more importantly does not require people to suddenly behave in ways they have never behaved before, for this plan to work?
  2. 01 Jun '17 12:43 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by kmax87
    I've been listening to argument on both sides for many years on this forum, that either vilifies the Jews or the Palestinians, and a wide range of reasons for why things are the way they are.

    Yet the right to armed struggle/defence of land/national identity is clung to by both sides and whenever a non violent strategy is put forward as a way forward its q ...[text shortened]... require people to suddenly behave in ways they have never behaved before, for this plan to work?
    In order to have peace, you need to sit with someone you hate and acquiesce on issues that you don't want to. It's really difficult when you'd rather send missiles or glorify suicide bombers then have peace delegations. Right now, it seems that there is more of an appetite to blame the other side than to sacrifice and thus real change seems unlikely.
    Look at the venom in the United States between Democrats and Republican and we don't shot missiles at each other, we don't have land arguments, we don't have close to the same degree of religious arguments and we have close to zero appetite for compromise.
  3. 01 Jun '17 12:53 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by kmax87
    I've been listening to argument on both sides for many years on this forum, that either vilifies the Jews or the Palestinians, and a wide range of reasons for why things are the way they are.

    Yet the right to armed struggle/defence of land/national identity is clung to by both sides and whenever a non violent strategy is put forward as a way forward its q ...[text shortened]... require people to suddenly behave in ways they have never behaved before, for this plan to work?
    All that can be known is that Islam is a religion of peace, and Israel and the US are evil oppressors

    Next question.
  4. 01 Jun '17 13:56
    Originally posted by whodey
    All that can be known is that Islam is a religion of peace, and Israel and the US are evil oppressors

    Next question.
    And when presented with that type of rhetoric, there is no desire to sacrifice for peace.
  5. 01 Jun '17 14:21
    Originally posted by quackquack
    And when presented with that type of rhetoric, there is no desire to sacrifice for peace.
    Why should Jews trust Muslims? Within the Muslim community there is an active branch that simply wants to kill those who do not submit to Islam.

    That branch has even immigrated to Europe and the US, let alone existing in their native lands.
  6. 01 Jun '17 14:22
    Originally posted by kmax87
    Or are there solutions that can work, that only needs implementing, but more importantly does not require people to suddenly behave in ways they have never behaved before, for this plan to work?
    You seem to totally ignore the third set of people that don't fit your criteria.

    As for solutions, I am sure they exist, but it seems improbably that they will be implemented any time soon. The problems are multifaceted and generally getting worse not better. What Israel needs is a Ghandi or Mandela moment. It needs a charismatic person to stand up and bring everyone together to talk and listen. In the long term there are only two viable solutions:
    1. Complete separation into two countries with agreed on borders and most grievances resolved.
    2. Complete unification with no more apartheid and identification of individuals as one group or another group.

    The real cause of the problems is the fact that humans love to separate into groups and love to hate the 'other' and leaders who encourage this tend to benefit by doing so. Until we find political systems that explicitly discourage such behaviour, we will always have conflict. It often helps to have a much more splintered set of people. So my suggestion is to import large numbers of Chinese and Japanese. Once you have four equal groups instead of two, the conflict will subside.
  7. 01 Jun '17 14:29
    Originally posted by Eladar
    Why should Jews trust Muslims? Within the Muslim community there is an active branch that simply wants to kill those who do not submit to Islam.

    That branch has even immigrated to Europe and the US, let alone existing in their native lands.
    Peace talk involve talking to a someone you can't stand (far worse then say a Trump supporter hates Sanders or vise versa) and then adopting some of their views. It's not an easy thing to do and I don't think it will be done. I don't disagree with your sentiments but if enough people think that way there won't be meaningful results from peace discussions.
  8. 01 Jun '17 14:31
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    So my suggestion is to import large numbers of Chinese and Japanese. Once you have four equal groups instead of two, the conflict will subside.[/b]
    How do you import people?
  9. 01 Jun '17 14:33 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by quackquack
    Peace talk involve talking to a someone you can't stand (far worse then say a Trump supporter hates Sanders or vise versa) and then adopting some of their views. It's not an easy thing to do and I don't think it will be done. I don't disagree with your sentiments but if enough people think that way there won't be meaningful results from peace discussions.
    I can see making peace with someone you can't stand. You can't make peace with someone you don't trust. Only a fool would do that.

    Better is peace through strength forcing submission.
  10. 01 Jun '17 17:47
    Originally posted by quackquack
    How do you import people?
    I believe containers are the cheapest. By air is generally considered more humane.
  11. 01 Jun '17 18:25
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    I believe containers are the cheapest. By air is generally considered more humane.
    Sounds like you've resolved the Mid East problems.
  12. 01 Jun '17 20:05 / 2 edits
    Originally posted by kmax87
    I've been listening to argument on both sides for many years on this forum, that either vilifies the Jews or the Palestinians, and a wide range of reasons for why things are the way they are.

    Yet the right to armed struggle/defence of land/national identity is clung to by both sides and whenever a non violent strategy is put forward as a way forward its q ...[text shortened]... require people to suddenly behave in ways they have never behaved before, for this plan to work?
    "...both sides for many years on this forum, that either vilifies the Jews or the Palestinians"
    --Kmax87

    Kmax87 wrongly equates 'the Jews' with the state of Israel (or with Zionism).
    The two sides are *not* the Palestinians and 'the Jews. They are the Palestinians and Israel.
    There are some Jews (including my friends) who are proud to stand on the Palestinians' side.

    In fact, there are some Jews (both secular and religious) who oppose Israel's oppression of the Palestinians.
    There are some Jews who oppose Zionism. There are a few Jews who have joined the PLO.
    Daniel Barenboim, an Israeli Jew, made the point of applying for and receiving Palestinian citizenship as well.

    I already have recommended this book _Ten Myths About Israel_ by Ilan Pappe, an Israeli Jewish historian.
    It should be easy enough reading even for ignorant Westerners (like Kmax87) who
    foolishly like to conflate being a Jew, an Israeli, and a Zionist.

    _Ten Myths About Israel_ by Ilan Pappe (2017)
    Ilan Pappe's an Israeli Jewish historian now at the University of Exeter in the UK.

    "History lies at the core of every conflict. A true and unbiased understanding
    of the past offers the possibility of peace. The distortion or manipulation of
    history, in contrast, will only sow disaster. As the example of the Israeli-Palestinian
    conflict shows, historical disinformation, even of the most recent past, can do
    tremendous harm. This willful misunderstanding of history can promote
    oppression and protect a regime of colonization and occupation.
    It is not surprising, therefore, that policies of disinformation and distortion
    continue to the present and play an important part in perpetuating the conflict,
    leaving very little hope for the future.
    ...
    The Zionist historical account of how the disputed land became the state of Israel is based
    on a cluster of myths that subtly cast doubt on the Palestinians' moral right to the land.
    Often, the Western mainstream media and political elites accept this set of myths as
    a given truth, as well as the justification for Israeli actions across the last sixty or so years."
    --Ilan Pappe

    Here are the titles of the chapters about myths.
    1) Palestine was an empty land.
    2) The Jews were a people without land.
    3) Zionism is Judaism
    4) Zionism is not colonialism.
    5) The Palestinians voluntarily left their homeland in 1948.
    6) The June 1967 war was a war of 'no choice'.
    7) Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East.
    8) The Oslo mythologies.
    9) The Gaza mythologies.
    10) The two-states solution is the only way forward.

    Regarding these ten myths, Ilan Pappe asserts:
    1) The Zionist slogan of Palestine as 'a land without people for a people without land' is absurd.
    Before the arrival of Jewish settlers in the late 19th century, the Palestinians
    had a thriving society (under the Ottoman Empire) undergoing modernization.
    2) The Jewish settlers who began arriving in the late 19th century were far from
    being the same people as the Jews who had lived under the Romans around 70 CE.
    3) It's wrong to claim that Zionism is Judaism or that anti-Zionism is anti-Semitism.
    4) Zionism is a settler colonial project, essentially a form of racist imperialism.
    5) Israel forcibly expelled many Palestinians in 1948 and lied about doing so.
    6) Israel attacked first in the 1967 war in order to further its conquest
    of Arab lands that it had not yet occupied in the 1948 war.
    7) Israel is hardly a true democracy; it's a Herrenvolk democracy at best.
    8) Was the Oslo process a successful Israeli ploy to deepen its occupation of the Palestinians?
    9) The misery of Gaza's people should not be blamed only or primarily upon Hamas.
    10) The two-states solution should not be the only framework for the peace process.

    Already knowing the abysmal general 'intellectual' level of writers in this forum, I suspect
    that most Westerners here will prefer to ignore Ilan Pappe (an Israeli Jewish academic historian)
    and believe only what they hear from more populist sources, including YouTube videos.
    The endemic racism of Westerners here influences most of them to have a pro-Israeli bias.

    "Mit der Dummheit kaempfen Goetter selbst vergebens."
    (Against stupidity the gods themselves struggle in vain.)
    --Friedrich Schiller

    So most Westerners (enjoying their own great stupidity) should be invincible. (sarcasm intended)
  13. Standard member sonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    01 Jun '17 21:06 / 2 edits
    Originally posted by Duchess64
    "...both sides for many years on this forum, that either vilifies the Jews or the Palestinians"
    --Kmax87

    Kmax87 wrongly equates 'the Jews' with the state of Israel (or with Zionism).
    The two sides are *not* the Palestinians and 'the Jews. They are the Palestinians and Israel.
    There are some Jews (including my friends) who are proud to stand on the ...[text shortened]... So most Westerners (enjoying their own great stupidity) should be invincible. (sarcasm intended)
    Herrenvolk democracy, how many true democracies are there in the world not oppressing minorities? It would seem to me to include minorities in the system there would have to be a percentage of power given to minorities. In the US minorities get ground under, majority rules and screw the minorities like first nation peoples, blacks, Asians and so forth.

    So who does it right? I would think space in governance should be made at least for the percentage of population so at least the minority can be heard and possibly laws made that helps said minorities which is far from what goes on in the US now.
  14. 01 Jun '17 21:13 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    Herrenvolk democracy, how many true democracies are there in the world not oppressing minorities? It would seem to me to include minorities in the system there would have to be a percentage of power given to minorities. In the US minorities get ground under, majority rules and screw the minorities like first nation peoples, blacks, Asians and so forth.
    ...[text shortened]... and possibly laws made that helps said minorities which is far from what goes on in the US now.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herrenvolk_democracy

    "Herrenvolk democracy is a system of government in which only the majority
    ethnic group participates in government, while minority groups are disenfranchised."

    Arab citizens of Israel have the right to vote, though they are much underrepresented politically
    and encounter many laws discriminating against non-Jews. Israel's a Jewish supremacist state.

    Will you read _Ten Myths About Israel_ by Ilan Pappe (a book meant for ignorant laymen)?
  15. Standard member sonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    01 Jun '17 21:36
    Originally posted by Duchess64
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herrenvolk_democracy

    "Herrenvolk democracy is a system of government in which only the majority
    ethnic group participates in government, while minority groups are disenfranchised."

    Arab citizens of Israel have the right to vote, though they are much underrepresented politically
    and encounter many laws discriminating a ...[text shortened]... ate.

    Will you read _Ten Myths About Israel_ by Ilan Pappe (a book meant for ignorant laymen)?
    What I asked was are there ANY democracies that don't tread on minorities? I suppose there is more in the book but you seem to have given workable summary. Zionism sucks.