Expectations of World War


dennislmay

Recommended Posts

Rather, it was an exercise to show Baal that the type of arguments that he uses to make Muslims and Islam look violent are in fact just as easily applied to Judaism and Jews because it is quite easy to pick and choose verses from a book out of context and without considering abrogation and also by pointing out the extremist views of a very vocal minority and saying that if some believe this, then all must etc.

BTW here’s a Christian pastor who, when pressed, acknowledged that because of the specific biblical commandments on the matter, if he knew of any Amalekites still living today he would consider it his duty to kill them. Presumably their infants and animals too. This clip doesn’t have the full statement, but there’s enough here to verify this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fAt4w6qgTLo

And he really seems like a decent guy, if you watch the whole thing. It calls to mind this Steven Weinberg quote:

Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 198
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

ND:

Do you, or, anyone else here have any negative impressions, or experiences with Quakerism?

Last time I checked, it is a religion.

Adam

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It calls to mind this Steven Weinberg quote:

Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.

It's not primarily religion but belief in a Supreme Being, then the religion kicks in. The Supreme Being thing can relieve the individual of all personal responsibility save that of obeying Him--i.e., he who speaks for Him. The amount of personal responsibility waxes and wanes according to the prophet at the time and the amount of rationality in the head of the believer. Irrationality can be compartmentalized. That's why we have the spectacle of scientists who are also religious nutters.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ND:

Do you, or, anyone else here have any negative impressions, or experiences with Quakerism?

Last time I checked, it is a religion.

Adam

Quakers are Christians, they were very important in introducing the idea into Christianity that slavery should be abolished. They practiced proto-Gandhiesque non-violence, and proudly went to jail for their beliefs (in England, 1600's). However, Richard Nixon was a Quaker, so let's not get the idea that it's a guarantee of anything good. Nevertheless, Quakers, Sufis and Jains are the main examples I've brought up to challenge (and/or qualify) Rand's claim about Faith and Force being inextricable corollaries. I don't recall what thread that was on.

I don't see any connection to this thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ND:

Do you, or, anyone else here have any negative impressions, or experiences with Quakerism?

Last time I checked, it is a religion.

Adam

Quakers are Christians, they were very important in introducing the idea into Christianity that slavery should be abolished. They practiced proto-Gandhiesque non-violence, and proudly went to jail for their beliefs (in England, 1600's). However, Richard Nixon was a Quaker, so let's not get the idea that it's a guarantee of anything good. Nevertheless, Quakers, Sufis and Jains are the main examples I've brought up to challenge (and/or qualify) Rand's claim about Faith and Force being inextricable corollaries. I don't recall what thread that was on.

I don't see any connection to this thread.

Did not mean it to have a connection to this thread. Just was interested in the "rationality" of the broad brush strokes painted on the entire class "religion."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did not mean it to have a connection to this thread. Just was interested in the "rationality" of the broad brush strokes painted on the entire class "religion."

From the Weinberg quote? He’s not putting forward a recipe, as in take a sample of “good people”, add religion, and guaranteed or double your money back you’ll get evil actions. He’s saying when you see “good people” doing evil, there’s bound to be religion behind it, inspiring it. This ties in to the pastor saying one of the biblical genocides was a good thing, because God ordered it. Elsewhere he says he would (hypothetically) take part in one today, if it turned out the tribe in question hadn't been wiped out in biblical times.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sticking with my observation that without the nutter leaders, the ideology means little.

Just look at how differently the different leaders take the same body of ideas.

If you want to change the world, find a way to get to and influence the leader folks. They will twist the ideology to fit any new agenda they adopt--like they always do. Then the rest will follow.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyone want to hazard any guesses as to what will happen in Syria and Egypt?

Only if you do ...

Seriously, in Syria I see more of the same but worse. More militarization, more arms, more killing, more massacres, more torture, more children abused and more summary executions. As the UN pulls out, and the government (and Russia) thumbs its nose at decency and deals wholesale destruction, more of the same. War.

Expectations for WWIII erupting from the Syria conflict are very high, but only on condition that Russia/China/Iran want to stare down the world with their ally in his redout in Damascus.

War, hideous full-on war, between a government and its 'rebels' ... with all the consequences of war.

Now you, then me/Egypt, then you, OK?

In the sweet meantime, a series of images that tell you what I mean by more of the same. Click the image to see the other brilliant work at the Atlantic.

s_s16_15053508.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^ ^ ^

I clicked and I saw photos of the fruits of Islam, The Religion of Peace.

The death of a Muslim, subtracts nothing from my life.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmmm, interesting.

Though quite unbelievable actually. Especially considering the behavior of many extremist Jews in Israel and abroad who promote Kahanism and other disgusting ideologies claiming that such beliefs are "True Torah" beliefs.

Jewish extremists are in the minority in Israel which has a small population. The entire population of Israel amounts to one quarter of all the Jews there are. And that population is a miniscule portion of the world's population.

The attitude of American Jews (who are the ones contributing the most directly and indirectly to Israel and its people) is decidedly NOT extreme. Jews tend to be liberals in the U.S. not especially pro-war.

In modern times. the percentage of Jews who are observant is probably less than 15% if the Jewish population of New York City is any indication. And most of these folks are actually not fervent Zionists either. The attitude among Orthodox Jews concerning the founding of the State of Israel was rather negative. They believe it would be up to G-D when and if He decided to regather His people to the Land of Promise. They definitely did not approve of the original crew of Zionists who were mostly Socialist and Atheistic and certainly non observant. The fire-brands in Israel are a minority of a minority.

My fantasy is that a meteor from outer space lands smack on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem. Hopefully during the month of Ramadan. It would squash the Mosque on the Temple Mount and it would eliminate Jerusalem which has become an inflamed zit on the hide of humanity.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A brutal secular authoritarian dictatorship, officially without religion, dealing death to its citizens, and you see The Muslims. I once thought you might have a peach-sized heart, Bob, but gosh, maybe it is only large as its pit. You are brutal in your monomania, and learn little from your peers on this subject of The Them People, My Enemy Of Another Faith. And now a space-bomb for the temple in Jerusalem.

Glad to know we have you aboard, Bob, as we inch our way through the ethical icebergs

Edited by william.scherk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Glad to know we have you aboard, Bob, as we inch our way through the ethical icebergs

You may be certain that I will do my share of bailing water.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jewish extremists are in the minority in Israel which has a small population. The entire population of Israel amounts to one quarter of all the Jews there are. And that population is a miniscule portion of the world's population.

So what you're stating is that Jewish extremists only make up a very small portion of Jews? Therefore they're not representative of Jews?

Newsflash, Muslims have been saying that about extremists in Islam for years yet you still don't take that as an excuse, why should we accept your excuse?

The attitude of American Jews (who are the ones contributing the most directly and indirectly to Israel and its people) is decidedly NOT extreme. Jews tend to be liberals in the U.S. not especially pro-war.

Rabbi Meir Kahane and Baruch Goldstein were US Jews actually, so are the Jewish Task Force.

In modern times. the percentage of Jews who are observant is probably less than 15% if the Jewish population of New York City is any indication. And most of these folks are actually not fervent Zionists either. The attitude among Orthodox Jews concerning the founding of the State of Israel was rather negative. They believe it would be up to G-D when and if He decided to regather His people to the Land of Promise. They definitely did not approve of the original crew of Zionists who were mostly Socialist and Atheistic and certainly non observant. The fire-brands in Israel are a minority of a minority.

So what I'm getting is that the majority of Jews in Israel actually have no real religious connection to those lands in the first place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So what I'm getting is that the majority of Jews in Israel actually have no real religious connection to those lands in the first place.

Cultural more than religious. Most American Jews have no intention of ever going to Israel (for which I can hardly blame them). For them it is more a cultural artifact or a place to take a two week vacation and "work" on a Kibbutz (for which privilege the will pay several thousand dollars). Or they will get a mini-thrill from visiting the Jerusalem and touching the West Wall. For American Jews (by and large) America is home. We are not exactly living in "exile".

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So what I'm getting is that the majority of Jews in Israel actually have no real religious connection to those lands in the first place.

Cultural more than religious. Most American Jews have no intention of ever going to Israel (for which I can hardly blame them). For them it is more a cultural artifact or a place to take a two week vacation and "work" on a Kibbutz (for which privilege the will pay several thousand dollars). Or they will get a mini-thrill from visiting the Jerusalem and touching the West Wall. For American Jews (by and large) America is home. We are not exactly living in "exile".

Ba'al Chatzaf

Fantastic! Let's deprive millions of people with an unbroken link to the Holy Land of their homes and farmlands built by their fathers, their father's fathers and so on going back more than a thousand years as well as depriving them of having a nation state because some Jews who say that God promised them the land and therefore it is there's yet have no real religious practice can have a nice vacation place by the sea.

Sounds like justice to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LM,

Millions? No, several thousand, at the time. Some villages, some farmland, and some Jewish-bought-and-owned farmland. Your argument is the fallacy of consequentialism - of what 'might have been' if the scattered population of Palestinians had stayed in place.

Israel/territory is the constant refrain: now the demand is for Israel to return to the '48 borders. Well, tell that to the Arab League who contested those, at the time.

My simple formula derives from these primary facts - the '48 borders were not respected; the '67 borders were not respected; and so on, until now, Hamas still threatens the overthrow of Israel. Violence and threat, which always accompanies no respect for property.

Therefore, given this, can anybody give one - only one- good reason that Israel must respect borders itself?

(Though it repeatedly has done up til now.)

And do so without introducing a double standard?

For whatever reasons and justification - Israel exists, and is not going anywhere - and your evasions of that reality do nothing but stunt your intellectual growth - as they are stunting the freedom, growth and prosperity of Gaza and the West Bank, by Hamas and the Palestinian inhabitants, too.

Is your concern for their plight (as you've voiced in the past) greater than your hatred for Israel?

Then there is only one option for you and them, to push for peace. Otherwise, everything is only bluff and bluster and delicate pride.

"Justice"? In objectivist terms, justice is the fruit earned by a person as a result of his observance and respect for reality - particularly, life. It transcends all Law, secular, and of course, theist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A brutal secular authoritarian dictatorship, officially without religion, dealing death to its citizens, and you see The Muslims. I once thought you might have a peach-sized heart, Bob, but gosh, maybe it is only large as its pit. You are brutal in your monomania, and learn little from your peers on this subject of The Them People, My Enemy Of Another Faith. And now a space-bomb for the temple in Jerusalem.

Glad to know we have you aboard, Bob, as we inch our way through the ethical icebergs

I know when a target has been painted on my pink Jewish ass and that of my children and grandchildren. We are being set up by the fanatics for another slaughter. Listen to the Jew-Hatred of the Jihadis some time. And the (so-called) moderate Muslims do nothing to oppose this insanity. I cannot rely on the goodness of (so-called) moderate Muslims. They will go along with the fanatics in much the same way as "good" non-Nazi Germans went along with Hitler and his crazy friends.

Islam is a vile religion and it has to be hedged and bound to save Muslims from themselves and the rest of the world from Muslims. There is no sign that is happening in any effective way. The silence of the American Muslim community on Sept 12, 2001 was positively deafening.

Ba'al Chafatz

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LM,

Millions? No, several thousand, at the time. Some villages, some farmland, and some Jewish-bought-

and-owned farmland. Your argument is the fallacy of consequentialism - of what 'might have been'

if the scattered population of Palestinians had stayed in place.

Israel/territory is the constant refrain: now the demand is for Israel to return to the '48 borders. Well, tell that to the Arab League who contested those, at the time.

My simple formula derives from these primary facts - the '48 borders were not respected; the '67 borders were not respected; and so on, until now, Hamas still threatens the overthrow of Israel. Violence and threat, which always accompanies no respect for property.

Therefore, given this, can anybody give one - only one- good reason that Israel must respect borders itself?

(Though it repeatedly has done up til now.)

And do so without introducing a double standard?

The whole argument is faulted because who were the international community to impose the creation of a nation state dividing land up which already contained people who had lived in peace for a great deal of time in the first place.

The fact is that Europe hates Jews and has a history of persecuting them and despite the fact that the Jews did their utmost to become European and assimilate the Europeans in their blood lust and hatred still could not resist in murdering Jews so instead of continuing that they thought that they could get rid of the Jews by shipping them off to another land and in all their wisdom in controlling the world they decided to deprive the Palestinians of lands.

- The 1948 borders were illegitimate because they were not agreed on by both parties. Instead, they were agreed upon by Europeans, both European Jews and Europeans who wanted the Jews out and the Arabs that had been promised that land by the Colonial powers (hence the lands being under mandate) were betrayed and the European Jews then began taking the land for themselves after the Arabs disagreed, so and need not be respected.

- The Suez Canal Crisis of 1956 was perpetrated by the Israelis and the British where Israel invaded Egypt to control the Suez Canal.

- The 1967 borders were also illegitimate but that war wasn't actually started by the Arabs, it was the Israelis that attacked first.

For whatever reasons and justification - Israel exists, and is not going anywhere - and your evasions of that reality do nothing but stunt your intellectual growth - as they are stunting the freedom, growth and prosperity of Gaza and the West Bank, by Hamas and the Palestinian inhabitants, too.

Is your concern for their plight (as you've voiced in the past) greater than your hatred for Israel?

Then there is only one option for you and them, to push for peace. Otherwise, everything is

only bluff and bluster and delicate pride.

"Justice"? In objectivist terms, justice is the fruit earned by a person as a result of his

observance and respect for reality - particularly, life. It transcends all Law, secular,

and of course, deist.

Yes, Israel exists now but still has no recognition by the Arabs in general except the Egyptians and Jordanians. So those who consider it an illegitimate military occupation of the lands are well within their rights to resist the occupation of those lands.

The parties who are against the occupation of their lands have offered peace talks, in fact they've made a generous offer of peace with all of the Arab States including the Palestinians yet Israel still drags its feet.

The Arab Peace Initiative, 2002

Official translation of the full text of a Saudi-inspired peace plan adopted by the Arab summit in Beirut, 2002.

The Arab Peace Initiative

The Council of Arab States at the Summit Level at its 14th Ordinary Session,

Reaffirming the resolution taken in June 1996 at the Cairo Extra-Ordinary Arab Summit that a just and comprehensive peace in the Middle East is the strategic option of the Arab countries, to be achieved in accordance with international legality, and which would require a comparable commitment on the part of the Israeli government,

Having listened to the statement made by his royal highness Prince Abdullah bin Abdul Aziz, crown prince of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, in which his highness presented his initiative calling for full Israeli withdrawal from all the Arab territories occupied since June 1967, in implementation of Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338, reaffirmed by the Madrid Conference of 1991 and the land-for-peace principle, and Israel's acceptance of an independent Palestinian state with East Jerusalem as its capital, in return for the establishment of normal relations in the context of a comprehensive peace with Israel,

Emanating from the conviction of the Arab countries that a military solution to the conflict will not achieve peace or provide security for the parties, the council:

1. Requests Israel to reconsider its policies and declare that a just peace is its strategic option as well.

2. Further calls upon Israel to affirm:

I- Full Israeli withdrawal from all the territories occupied since 1967, including the Syrian Golan Heights, to the June 4, 1967 lines as well as the remaining occupied Lebanese territories in the south of Lebanon.

II- Achievement of a just solution to the Palestinian refugee problem to be agreed upon in accordance with U.N. General Assembly Resolution 194.

III- The acceptance of the establishment of a sovereign independent Palestinian state on the Palestinian territories occupied since June 4, 1967 in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, with East Jerusalem as its capital.

3. Consequently, the Arab countries affirm the following:

I- Consider the Arab-Israeli conflict ended, and enter into a peace agreement with Israel, and provide security for all the states of the region.

II- Establish normal relations with Israel in the context of this comprehensive peace.

4. Assures the rejection of all forms of Palestinian patriation which conflict with the special circumstances of the Arab host countries.

5. Calls upon the government of Israel and all Israelis to accept this initiative in order to safeguard the prospects for peace and stop the further shedding of blood, enabling the Arab countries and Israel to live in peace and good neighbourliness and provide future generations with security, stability and prosperity.

6. Invites the international community and all countries and organisations to support this initiative.

7. Requests the chairman of the summit to form a special committee composed of some of its concerned member states and the secretary general of the League of Arab States to pursue the necessary contacts to gain support for this initiative at all levels, particularly from the United Nations, the Security Council, the United States of America, the Russian Federation, the Muslim states and the European Union.

For purposes of comparison, the following is an earlier draft discussed by Arab foreign ministers on 25 March, 2002, in advance of the summit:

The Council of the Arab League, which convenes at the level of a summit on March 27-28, 2002 in Beirut, affirms the Arab position that achieving just and comprehensive peace is a strategic choice and goal for the Arab states.

After the Council heard the statement of Crown Prince Abdullah bin Abdul Aziz in which he called for the establishment of normal relations in the context of a comprehensive peace with Israel, and that Israel declares its readiness to withdraw from the occupied Arab territories in compliance with United Nations resolutions 242 and 338 and Security Council resolution 1397, enhanced by the Madrid conference and the land-for-peace principle, and the acceptance of an independent, sovereign Palestinian state with al-Quds al-Sharif as its capital, the Council calls on the Israeli government to review its policy and to resort to peace while declaring that just peace is its strategic option.

The Council also calls on Israel to assert the following:


  • Complete withdrawal from the Arab territories occupied since 1967, including full withdrawal from the occupied Syrian Golan Heights and the remaining occupied parts of south Lebanon to the June 4, 1967 lines.

  • To accept to find an agreed, just solution to the problem of Palestinian refugees in conformity with Resolution 194.

  • To accept an independent and sovereign Palestinian state on the Palestinian lands occupied since June 4, 1967 in the West Bank and Gaza Strip and with Jerusalem (al-Quds al-Sharif) as its capital in accordance with Security Council Resolution 1397.

In return, the Arab states assert the following:


  • To consider the Arab-Israeli conflict over and to enter into a peace treaty with Israel to consolidate this.

  • To achieve comprehensive peace for all the states of the region.

  • To establish normal relations within the context of comprehensive peace with Israel.

The Council calls on the Israeli government and the Israelis as a whole to accept this initiative to protect the prospects of peace and to spare bloodshed so as to enable the Arab states and Israel to coexist side by side and to provide for the coming generations a secure, stable and prosperous future.

It calls on the international community with all its organisations and states to support the initiative.

The Council calls on its presidency, its secretary general and its follow-up committee to follow up on the special contacts related to this initiative and to support it on all levels, including the United Nations, the United States, Russia, the European Union and the Security Council.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow, two interesting options. You can either be slaves to the Jews, or they'll kill you, plunder your lands and take your women and children as slaves..

The definitive book of orthodox Judaism is the Babylonian Talmud compiled by Rsbbis and Sages.

The verses you quote were for Hebrews of the Biblical Era who were as badass as Jihadi Muslims are today.

Judaism has detoxified itself. Primarily it is because Jews have had the shit beat out of them for 1500 years and have been forced to live in lands that were not theirs. It is painful but it is a useful character building exercise.

I look forward (without to much hope) to the day when Islam detoxifies itself.

Ba'al Chatzaf

No one cares about you to be honest. You're just some hate filled nutjob with serious mental issues in the US who isn't a threat to anyone.

The truth is that Muslims have had control over lands filled with Jews for more than 1000 years and there's been no great big genocide of Jews. In fact when Europeans have been the ones massacring Jews with their inquisitions and the sort it has been Muslims that have protected the Jews and given them safe haven. The fact that we haven't done what the Europeans have is enough proof that Muslims aren't a threat to the Jews at all.

If it were truly our goal to rid the world of the Jews I can assure you that it would have already been done long ago.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow, two interesting options. You can either be slaves to the Jews, or they'll kill you, plunder your lands and take your women and children as slaves..

The definitive book of orthodox Judaism is the Babylonian Talmud compiled by Rsbbis and Sages.

The verses you quote were for Hebrews of the Biblical Era who were as badass as Jihadi Muslims are today.

Judaism has detoxified itself. Primarily it is because Jews have had the shit beat out of them for 1500 years and have been forced to live in lands that were not theirs. It is painful but it is a useful character building exercise.

I look forward (without to much hope) to the day when Islam detoxifies itself.

Ba'al Chatzaf

No one cares about you to be honest. You're just some hate filled nutjob with serious mental issues in the US who isn't a threat to anyone.

The truth is that Muslims have had control over lands filled with Jews for more than 1000 years and there's been no great big genocide of Jews. In fact when Europeans have been the ones massacring Jews with their inquisitions and the sort it has been Muslims that have protected the Jews and given them safe haven. The fact that we haven't done what the Europeans have is enough proof that Muslims aren't a threat to the Jews at all.

If it were truly our goal to rid the world of the Jews I can assure you that it would have already been done long ago.

How would the Muslims have gotten their hands on American Jews in a "rid the world of Jews" campaign? You are starting to match up to Ba'al's bluster, maybe in frustration with him?

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LM,

Still dreaming...

Israel is "dragging its feet" to that most generous :) peace treaty, yes - because

without Hamas initiating peace, peace with Arab nations is meaningless.

And to return to the '67 borders, as a condition for granting Israel peace?

Fuhgeddaboudit. Do you believe Israelis to be stupid? Give up the Golan Heights,

so Syria can walk across, anytime?

And: "The '67 borders were also illegitimate but that war wasn't actually started by

the Arabs, it was the Israelis that attacked first."

Oh, right. Then who did they actually attack - but those massive forces gathering

just outside Israel, who sort-of, kinda happened to be there...by accident?

Seriously, you need different history books.

Here's the irony. You say: "The argument is faulted because who were the international

community to impose the creation of a nation state dividing up land..."

But you then follow up by citing the Councils of Arab States and Arab League,

the United Nations etc etc as having the authority to impose THEIR will.

What are they but "the international community" too?

You, then, disapprove of the first 'imposition' (not btw, initially a "nation state",

but a "Jewish homeland") but approve of the second. You can't have it both ways.

In the mean time, Israel, who could similarly be charged with having it both ways, in reverse, is no longer the weak, rag-tag bunch they were then in '48, grabbing every possibility for Jewish survival.

Now they can - they've earned the right - call the shots on their security and self-interest, and the "international community" can shout all they wish.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How would the Muslims have gotten their hands on American Jews in a "rid the world of Jews" campaign? You are starting to match up to Ba'al's bluster, maybe in frustration with him?

--Brant

Where did you happen to see anyone state that Muslims would like to get their hands on American Jews in the first place Grant? I was referring to the fact that no one would ever consider him a threat because he is just a lone nutjob in the US with mental problems who talks big but is ultimately quite harmless.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LM,

Still dreaming...

Israel is "dragging its feet" to that most generous :smile: peace treaty, yes - because

without Hamas initiating peace, peace with Arab nations is meaningless.

And to return to the '67 borders, as a condition for granting Israel peace?

Fuhgeddaboudit. Do you believe Israelis to be stupid? Give up the Golan Heights,

so Syria can walk across, anytime?

And: "The '67 borders were also illegitimate but that war wasn't actually started by

the Arabs, it was the Israelis that attacked first."

Oh, right. Then who did they actually attack - but those massive forces gathering

just outside Israel, who sort-of, kinda happened to be there...by accident?

Seriously, you need different history books.

Under that logic you're using you would then have to concede that Iran has much more right to attack the US for massing military bases on its borders and sending their Armada to the Persian Gulf than Israel had to attack neighboring states in 1967.

The fact is that Israel attacked first, as they attacked first in the Suez Canal crisis. Who could blame Egypt for amassing troops after Israel had tried within the last 15 years to take over Egyptian territory during the Crisis?

Here's the irony. You say: "The argument is faulted because who were the international

community to impose the creation of a nation state dividing up land..."

But you then follow up by citing the Councils of Arab States and Arab League,

the United Nations etc etc as having the authority to impose THEIR will.

What are they but "the international community" too?

You, then, disapprove of the first 'imposition' (not btw, initially a "nation state",

but a "Jewish homeland") but approve of the second. You can't have it both ways.

In the mean time, Israel, who could similarly be charged with having it both ways, in reverse, is no longer the weak, rag-tag bunch they were then in '48, grabbing every possibility for Jewish survival.

Now they can - they've earned the right - call the shots on their security and self-interest, and the "international community" can shout all they wish.

The offer was proposed to Israel, the fact that it went through other states was part of the negotiation process. Furthermore, HAMAS agreed to the stance.

If Israel doesn't want to have a just peace agreement then that's fine. But that will be to Israel's own detriment in the end because it is bleeding itself dry financially and can't sustain itself. The day US money runs out for Israel will be the day that they're forced to reconsider their unjust position and at that time there may be justice.

If Israel never reconsiders then the only other option will be for the war to continue until they're willing to come to the table.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now