Angry Jews call Hawking a hypocrite

Adept · Post by **Adept** » Sun May 12, 2013 12:36 am

TakingArms wrote:QUOTE (TakingArms @ May 12 2013, 01:14 AM) Look I get that you're trying to argue that Palestinians are being oppressed. I agree, but frankly the reason they're being oppressed is because they have resorted to violence against civilians to make their point.

Still making excuses for Israel and trying to say their apartheid doesn't count. That dog won't hunt.

takingarms1 · Post by **takingarms1** » Sun May 12, 2013 1:41 am

Still failing miserably at basic reading comprehension, I see.

clint · Post by **clint** » Sun May 12, 2013 5:35 am

TakingArms is from Israel ?

Apartheid in South africa : white people came in south africa and take power from black people, and vote law for their community with this power.

Apartheid in Israel : jews people came in israel and take power from palestinian people, and vote law for their community with this power.

Maybe it's not a real apartheid cause israeli-arab with the nationality have the same right than every israeli citizens.

But all those who live in palestinian colony have not the same right than other cause they are not citizen.

In all case, we are against the demcrocy problem : 51 % of people dictate de 49 % of other. And palestinian would just recover their sovereignty

ryujin · Post by **ryujin** » Sun May 12, 2013 3:42 pm

TakingArms wrote:QUOTE (TakingArms @ May 11 2013, 05:14 PM) reason they're being oppressed is because they have resorted to violence against civilians to make their point

i think they resorted to violence because violence was used against them to essentially displace them from the place they called home...

you'll probably argue that native americans who fought against the white settlers displacing them "resorted to violence against civilians" as well

SgtMajor · Post by **SgtMajor** » Sun May 12, 2013 3:58 pm

Ryujin wrote:QUOTE (Ryujin @ May 12 2013, 09:42 AM) i think they resorted to violence because violence was used against them to essentially displace them from the place they called home...

you'll probably argue that native americans who fought against the white settlers displacing them "resorted to violence against civilians" as well

[ ] Not told
[x] Told

Viscur · Post by **Viscur** » Sun May 12, 2013 7:26 pm

How about we all just agree that both sides are really just pooping in each others cheerios, and no amount of forum squawking will resolve the issue?

Adept · Post by **Adept** » Sun May 12, 2013 7:44 pm

Viscur wrote:QUOTE (Viscur @ May 12 2013, 10:26 PM) How about we all just agree that both sides are really just pooping in each others cheerios, and no amount of forum squawking will resolve the issue?

Doesn't work. Presenting the conflict as between two sides who are equally wrong and equally to blame is playing perfectly to what Israel wants. The land grab goes on, Palestinians are in an economic stranglehold kept in poverty in an open-air prison and as cheap labour without normal employee rights, while Israel is a heavily militarised and subsidised state. Israel holds nearly all the cards in the situation, and is not interested in anything like a fair solution to the crisis.

takingarms1 · Post by **takingarms1** » Mon May 13, 2013 12:11 am

Ryujin wrote:QUOTE (Ryujin @ May 12 2013, 11:42 AM) i think they resorted to violence because violence was used against them to essentially displace them from the place they called home...

you'll probably argue that native americans who fought against the white settlers displacing them "resorted to violence against civilians" as well

Ever hear of guys called Ghandi and Martin Luther King? They might have something to say about the issue. Also if you're going to use violence, targeting civilians is something I'm always going to argue is wrong.

Viscur wrote:QUOTE (Viscur @ May 12 2013, 03:26 PM) How about we all just agree that both sides are really just pooping in each others cheerios, and no amount of forum squawking will resolve the issue?

I basically agree.

Adept wrote:QUOTE (Adept @ May 12 2013, 03:44 PM) Doesn't work. Presenting the conflict as between two sides who are equally wrong and equally to blame is playing perfectly to what Israel wants. The land grab goes on, Palestinians are in an economic stranglehold kept in poverty in an open-air prison and as cheap labour without normal employee rights, while Israel is a heavily militarised and subsidised state. Israel holds nearly all the cards in the situation, and is not interested in anything like a fair solution to the crisis.

I don't understand how you can ignore and excuse the fact that the palestinians target civilians. Also the palestinians aren't so helpless as you suggest. They are subsidized, and they have a huge forum in the UN that they can and have used to great effect. You also seem to ignore the fact that both sides have been presented with numerous opportunities for numerous peace initiatives which both sides violated at one time or another.

takingarms1 · Post by **takingarms1** » Mon May 13, 2013 12:45 am

Sorry for the double post but I thought maybe some history of how the situation got started might be instructive. From wikipedia:

QUOTE After World War II, Britain found itself in fierce conflict with the Jewish community, as the Haganah joined Irgun and Lehi in an armed struggle against British rule.[68] At the same time, hundreds of thousands of Jewish Holocaust survivors and refugees sought a new life far from their destroyed communities in Europe. The Yishuv attempted to bring these refugees to Palestine but many were turned away or rounded up and placed in detention camps in Atlit and Cyprus by the British. In 1947, the British government announced it would withdraw from Mandatory Palestine, stating it was unable to arrive at a solution acceptable to both Arabs and Jews.

On 15 May 1947, the General Assembly of the newly formed United Nations resolved that a committee, United Nations Special Committee on Palestine (UNSCOP), be created "to prepare for consideration at the next regular session of the Assembly a report on the question of Palestine".[69] In the Report of the Committee dated 3 September 1947 to the UN General Assembly,[70] the majority of the Committee in Chapter VI proposed a plan to replace the British Mandate with "an independent Arab State, an independent Jewish State, and the City of Jerusalem..., the last to be under an International Trusteeship System".[71] On 29 November 1947, the General Assembly adopted a resolution recommending the adoption and implementation of the Plan of Partition with Economic Union as Resolution 181 (II).[72] The Plan attached to the resolution was essentially that proposed by the majority of the Committee in the Report of 3 September 1947.

The Jewish Agency, which was the recognized representative of the Jewish community, accepted the plan, but the Arab League and Arab Higher Committee of Palestine rejected it.[73] On 1 December 1947, the Arab Higher Committee proclaimed a three-day strike, and Arab bands began attacking Jewish targets.[74] The Jews were initially on the defensive as civil war broke out, but gradually moved onto the offensive.[75] The Palestinian Arab economy collapsed and 250,000 Palestinian-Arabs fled or were expelled.[76][/quote]

I realize that right now it looks like a superior force dominating an inferior one, but that's not how things started. It came to be the way it is now for a lot of reasons, not least of which is that Israel was more effective militarily (for a host of reasons, one of which is probably better outside support). Being the better military force doesn't somehow make that side the aggressor or the bad guy in my opinion.

HSharp · Post by **HSharp** » Mon May 13, 2013 2:47 am

TakingArms wrote:QUOTE (TakingArms @ May 13 2013, 01:45 AM) Being the better military force doesn't somehow make that side the aggressor or the bad guy in my opinion.

What about being terrorists? Because that's what the Irgun and Lehi were.