Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Another thing worth noting here that may answer the OPs question the family of the Herodian Jewish king at the time of the revolt was allied with the family of Vespasian and Titus and the Herodian princess Berenice was known to have spent a lot of her personal money and time helping Vespasian to become Emperor. She eventually had a 10 year affair with Titus which only ended when Titus became emperor 10 years or so after the Churban around the year 80 CE. I would imagine R Yochanan Ben Zakai would have known about this. It’s also worth noting as an earlier commenter on this thread mentioned that Josephus claimed an almost identical story about himself that he wrote at least a couple hundred years before this story was written down.
Beis Hillel,
You said “Are you aware that the personal physician to Queen Elisabeth is a homeopath.”. Assuming this is true all it does is bolster my opinion that Queen Elizabeth is an idiot. Which isn’t surprising considering that she has spent her whole life playing “monarch” and the amount of inbreeding in royal families. Again the reason these remedies aren’t simply called “medicine” is because they have not been proven to work. Remedies that have been scientifically proven to work are called “Medicine”.
Doomsday,
All of your comparisons to the tobacco industry are missing the point that in spite of all their efforts it was never the consensus of the scientific community in the USA let alone the world that smoking was healthy. You positing that the entire scientific community and every major health agency on earth in every single country are engaged in a giant conspiracy. This requires a lot more proof then you are presenting in order to be credible.
Doomsday,
You said “and NOW have the SICKEST GENERATION EVER in the History of USA:”
You have said many stupid things about medicine but this one is so glaringly ridiculous that I just can’t resist answering:
You are aware that from 1900 to 1950 child mortality was so high in the USA that the average life span was about 48 years. Right?
Doomsday,
All other inaccuracies in your posts notwithstanding, you are aware that the CDC is not the only medical organization that has concluded that vaccines are safe, right?
EVERY single major health organization and reputable medical journal and organization ON EARTH have come to the conclusion that vaccines are safe. You are positing that ALL reputable medical organizations in EVERY developed country on earth are part of a giant conspiracy to hide the fact that vaccines are in fact harmful.
Beis Hillel, “Alternative” remedies (homeopathy) BY DEFINITION have either been proven not to work OR have not been proven to work. You know what they call “Alternative” or “Homeopathic” remedies that have been proven to work? Medicine. They call them Medicine.
Doomsday,
Re Placebo’s again: When a NEW vaccine is debuted it is tested with a Placebo not another vaccine.
The only time Placebos (as in totally fake vaccines filled with saline for example) aren’t used is when there is an existing vaccine that has been proven effective and they are testing an IMPROVED vaccine for the same illness. In that situation due to the ethical issues involved with leaving someone unprotected when a safe vaccine already exists they will often use the old safe (but possibly not as effective) vaccine as a placebo.
Vaccines literally DO undergo the same testing as other medicine. You need to stop making up facts and ignoring those facts that don’t fit with your anti science/anti medicine ideology.
Doomsday,
New vaccines ARE tested in Placebo tests. You are simply making up facts here. The only time Placebos (as in totally fake vaccines filled with saline for example) aren’t used is when there is an existing vaccine that has been proven effective and they are testing an IMPROVED vaccine for the same illness. In that situation due to the ethical issues involved with leaving someone unprotected when a safe vaccine already exists they will often use the old safe (but possibly not as effective) vaccine as a placebo.
I’m honestly not sure from your comments that you even know what a “Placebo” is.
As far as risk: again, there has been study after study done by every major institution of medical science on earth and they all agree that the risk of vaccinating is far below that about which it is necessary to be concerned about. Having your child transported to school or anywhere else for that matter in a motorized vehicle is many times more dangerous then having them vaccinated. Every study done by every major institution of medical science also have come to the conclusion that vaccination eliminates or severely reduces the risk of contracting many dangerous infections that were once common place and extremely dangerous.
Truth Is Hidden,
This is really not complicated. EVERY major medical association and reputable medical journal has published study after study showing that the risks posed by vaccines are well below the threshold where they are something to be concerned about. Especially considering that they are responsible for the elimination and reduction of deadly diseases that have for thousands of years caused severe injury and death.
Your “risk” argument would be stronger in the case of allowing your child to be driven to school or anywhere in a car or bus, which carries considerably more risk then vaccinating and that doesn’t even protect your child from deadly diseases.You are alleging that the CDC the WHO and every other major medical organization and medical journal in every developed country on earth are involved in a giant conspiracy with giant evil corporations to poison the public in order to make money with a product that is less profitable then the treatment for the diseases they claim to preventing.
Furthermore you keep saying silly things about “toxins” like formaldehyde seemingly without realizing that a single apple contains more of that substance then is given to a child via vaccines. It is clear that you and whomever it is you are hearing this stuff from don’t have a basic clue about the biological makeup of life on this planet let alone what should or should not be considered toxic. Yet you still wonder why most people laugh at you when you claim that every major institution of Medical Science are engaged in a giant evil conspiracy and use things like this as the “proof”.
Doomsday,
Ever since early 90’s when NASA put The Hubble Space Telescope into orbit around the earth we have seen an increase in Sids and Autism. Giant mirrors in space around our planet cause Autism!! Don’t believe the evil people at NASA who say otherwise! Do you know how much money NASA gets a year???????
The World Wide Web was debuted publicly as an internet in the early 90s. Ever since then we have seen all the issues you mention! The internet Causes Autism and Sids and all that other stuff!
Ever since the United States ended its alliance with Saddam’s Iraq in the early 90’s we have seen an increase in Autism and Sids. It’s obvious that fighting with Saddam caused us to be hit with higher rates of Sids and Autism!
You see how this works? Correlation in of itself does not prove causation.
Truth is Hidden,
I’m trying to not get involved here because I have spent WAY too much time arguing with people that are ideologically or emotionally opposed to facts but I can’t hold myself back on this one point you keep trying to make for some reason!
An apple has many times more formaldehyde then an infant is exposed to via vaccines. That’s right, if you give a child an apple you are putting more formaldehyde into their body then you are while vaccinating. Again I doubt the Anti Science sites mention this.
Doomsday,
Correlation is never used as a proof in of itself. For example do you know what percentage of people who suddenly die turned on a light within hours of their death? I don’t know the exact number but I’m sure it’s way up there. The rise of Autism rates also correlates with any number of arbitrary things. That doesn’t mean those things cause it.
Without getting into the details of exactly why you are wrong the fact that EVERY single major health organization in the world, and every reputable medical organization endorses vaccines should tell you something.
Truth is hidden:
I’m trying to stay away from refuting specific points here because I simply don’t have the time to go point by point with people who are ideologically opposed to the facts, but I can’t hold myself back here. The human body naturally produces an amount of formaldehyde that is many times larger then the trace amounts of formaldehyde found in vaccines. The trace amount that comes along with vaccines is completely safe and is processed by the body along with the naturally produced formaldehyde that is already there.
I bet the antivax website you read the formaldehyde argument on didn’t mention that though.
Kavod Habriot,
It’s preventative medicine. It’s the reason the rates of many deadly illnesses such as Polio have become rare or practically disappeared in the US and other countries where vaccines are prevalent. As I said in my earlier post these are facts. Driving your child to school or putting them into a vehicle involves risk, should we not mandate that parents drive their children or otherwise have their children transported to school if this is possible for them? Vaccination involves risk as does sending your children to school or using electricity or gas to heat your home in the winter.
You know what else is risky? Living in a place where due to people not vaccinating your babies are susceptible to Polio, Measles and other deadly infections that wouldn’t exist any longer if everyone vaccinated.
The FACTS here are really very simple:
1.) We have seen drastic reductions in the occurrence of just about every disease for which vaccination has been widespread for a significant amount of time. Some like Polio have been practically eradicated where the vaccine is prevalent and Smallpox has been completely eradicated.
2.) When people stop vaccinating against a sickness those sicknesses make a resurgence. This is currently happening with Measles in areas where larger groups of people do not vaccinate.
3.) Every major health organization, medical association, and medical journal, EVERY SINGLE one without exception endorses vaccines. To posit that all these people are part of a huge conspiracy is frankly ridiculous.
4.) Whatever your beliefs in Hashem are, the one thing you can’t dispute is that the natural world without modern medicine is a brutal and terrible place; and yes, he does create physically imperfect babies and allows for people to improve on his creations through medical science. Visit the Children’s ward in any hospital or look at the rates of child mortality in countries where vaccination and modern medicine are not prevalent. Again, the natural world without modern medicine is a brutal and terrible place to live in.
As far as risks yes there are risks, in the same way that there are risks to wearing a seat-belt in a car, or having electricity in your home. There are risks to taking any kind of proactive approach to anything at all. If you DO something-anything you create some risk. However not doing anything will cause a lot more harm.
These are facts.
For Train man the strike happening in the front of the train happening first. For Platform both strikes happen simultaneously.
Train Man knows that the strike in front of the train happened first because from his perspective he is standing still and the light from both strikes traveled the same distance at the same speed and the light from the strike in front of the train hit his eyes first.
Platform man knows that they happened simultaneously. He knows this because in his frame he is standing still and the light from both strikes traveled the same distance at the same speed and hit his eyes at exactly the same moment
Meno,
It would not mean that light from the strike in front is traveling faster then the speed of light from Train mans perspective it traveled the same distance and the same speed as the strike that hit the back. It just happened first.
Meno & Doing My Best,
From the reference point of the man standing in the middle of the train, he is standing still. Yet the strike that hit the front of the train still reaches his eyes first, even though it traveled the same distance at the same speed at the strike that hit the back. The only explanation for this is that the strike that hit the front of the train happened first. In the reference frame of train man the strikes were not simultaneous.
From the perspective of the guy on the platform HE (platform man) is standing still, therefore if he measures the strikes he will see that the light from the strikes both traveled the same distance at the same speed and hit his eyes at the same time. The only explanation for this would be that the strikes were simultaneous.
Both Platform Man and Train Man will agree that the light from the bolt that hit the front of the train hit Train man’s eyes first, they will just disagree on the reason: Train man will say it is because the bolt in the front of the train happened first and Platform man will say it’s because train man was moving forward.
Doing My Best,
We are always moving in one direction through spacetime. The speed we move at is a constant 186,000 miles per second. It’s like your in a car that is stuck moving forward at a constant speed of 186,000 miles per second. This car has no break or reverse option, and the steering wheel won’t allow you to make a 360.
When due to inertia you are sitting still in the spatial dimensions all of your movement is through the time dimension. If you start moving in the spatial dimensions you pass through less time because some of your speed is diverted to the the spatial dimensions you are moving in (time passes slower for you). This is why light or any other massless thing must move through space at 186,000 miles per second. There’s nothing holding it still in any of the spatial dimensions.
When you move in one of the spatial dimensions It’s like you turned your car northeast as opposed to straight north. Your still moving forward but you will now cover less ground in the northern direction then a car going straight north. You can’t slow down or speed up this movement through spacetime. You also can’t change the direction of this movement. You can move through more of one of the dimensions or another, in the same way you can angle the car in my example a bit east but your direction in spacetime is always a straight line forward.
The train Moshol just demonstrates one of the weirder consequences of the theory of relativity known as the “relativity of simultaneity.” Practically this means is that events that are simultaneous to one person are not necessarily simultaneous to anyone else.
In the train Moshol to the guy on the platform both strikes ACTUALLY happened at the same time. He knows this because if he measured the distance traveled by the light from each strike and the speed of that light he’d see that they both traveled the same distance at the same speed and hit his eyes at exactly the same time.
For the guy on the train the strike happening on the end of the train in the direction of the trains movement relative to the platform ACTUALLY happened first and the strike that happened at the opposite end of the train ACTUALLY happened after. He knows this because if he was to measure the distance and the speed traveled by the light from the strike in the direction the train is going he would see that it covered the same amount of distance as the strike at the back of the train at the same speed as the strike that hit the back of the train (the speed of light is a constant) and the light from it still hit his eyes first.
Neither the observer on the platform or the observer on the train are wrong. On the train the strikes were not simultaneous and on the platform they were.
It’s amazingly weird and the consequences get stranger and stranger the more you think about it.
Doing my best,
I’m not sure I understand your question.
Doing my best,
The concept is actually not that complicated once you understand it although the mathematics involved can be quite complicated.
What Einstein discovered was that what we call “time” is actually another dimension in the universe in the same way the 3 spatial dimensions are dimensions. This 4 dimensional fabric is called “spacetime”. Everything “moves” through this fabric at a constant speed of 186,000 miles per second. This speed is a constant.
When you aren’t moving in any of the spatial dimensions all of your speed is through the time dimension. If you move through the space dimension you lose some of your speed through the time dimension. Practically this means that time passes slower for you. This is similar to the way that a car going northeast goes slower in the northern direction then a car going straight north. Since the speed of light is so fast when we move through the spatial dimensions the affects are not noticible. If however you managed to move through space at close to the speed of light the fact that you are passing time much slower then someone standing still who is just speeding through time will become very apparent.
Also they can’t declare a state without US (and by extension Israeli consent.
Avik,
The Iranians do have missiles that can reach Israel as do Egypt, Syria, Jordan and more countries in the area that would be more then happy to see Israel gone. They don’t attack because strategically the benefits of not attacking are stronger and attacking would be suicide.
Obviously a prerequisite to them having a state would be their recognition of Israel. In their own state they will choose their leaders for better or for worse. It wouldn’t be Israel’s problem any longer. They can do what they want in their country and if they mess with their much more powerful neighbor, well then they will get decimated. A combination of presenting the strong benefits of economic cooperation and strong downsides of attacking would be a powerful incentive to make it work.
Doingmybest,
I never said one democratic state would be best. I said I think two states would be best. I just said that I think the Arabs would be happy with one state. As far as the infrastructure involved in their state. That would be their issue to figure out. That’s the idea. Give it back to them, let them deal with it and make it very clear that attacking you is just not worth it.
Avik,
1.) Regarding Terorist attacks. Your right we have no idea. I’m not sure this is an argument for Israel keeping control of the area though. The idea is that there would be less if they had a state and something to lose by engaging in terror as opposed to trying to run a country. On the same note this is why Hamas isn’t scared to attack. It’s not because they are more brave or hateful then the Saudis or Iranians, it’s becasue the Saudis and Iranians have economic and strategic reasons to not attack, while Hamas has nothing to lose.
2.) it doesn’t matter if the British or whomever ruled them previously. It would be great for Israel if the British were still trying to rule them as opposed to Israel. The colonialism of the British empire was terrible. Not something Israel should try and emulate.
3.) BDS is horrible, counterproductive and mostly composed of actual anti semites. We probably both agree on the BDS movement. I think commerce between Israelis and Palistinians is probably the single best way to get both sides to see each other as human beings.
Winniethepooh,
1.) I disagree that the reason why their leaders show no inclination to suicide is becasue they can get the masses to do their dirty work. I think that they show no inclination to suicide becasue they like Olam Hazah as much as anyone else.
2.) They really cannot build an economy the way things are right now. Whether the situation for the Jews around the founding of the state is analogous to their current situation or not (and I don’t think it really is). The facts are that the way the Jews were being treated then by the British and the Arabs was wrong. It’s not behavior that it makes sense to emulate.
3.) I agree that living in non Jewish majority countries and being ruled by Non Jews is not ideal.
That’s why I keep saying that two states would be better then one democratic state in its place. I guess I can’t really argue with the approach of just throwing up your hands and saying “your right this is not sustainable but let’s just keep it this way until moshiach comes and figures it out for us”. But you have to realize that the situation isn’t sitting still in the meanwhile. It’s actually getting worse and worse and the fact that the state and whole this whole mess was created against the advice of just about every religious Jewish leader at the time just makes it seem like a bit of a cop out.Philosopher,
The fact that you can’t argue your points if you can’t resort to personal insults says more about the strength of your arguments then I ever could.
Avik,
You said that international law allows for the annexation of land in a defensive war. Even if this is the case the problem is that Israel did not annex the land and make the people citizens because doing so would end Israel as a Jewish state. That’s what we have been discussing.
Winniethepooh,
1.) I know very well that all those countries attacked in 1967. Since then they have not. I don’t think the reason they have not attacked and in the case of Jordan and Egypt made “peace” with Israel is because they are fighting through proxies, or actually like Israel. I think it’s because Israel showed them that it’s not worth it to fight them. Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia would like nothing more then send in bombers and or missiles and try to level Tel Aviv, they won’t because they know if they did they would be obliterated. That’s the way it should be. Contrary to what many seem to believe Arabs like being alive as much as anyone. Their leaders show no inclination to suicide.
2.) The situation right now is one where their leaders really can’t build a vibrant economy. They aren’t recognized as an independent state and can’t even trade internationally without Israel’s permission. Let alone establish relationships with other countries or do any of the other things that are essential for a country to function. I’m not saying their leadership is good. They have terrible leaders, but Israel is putting itself in a position where they are literally handing the Palistinian leadership an “out” and someone to have a legitimate grievance against, and to blame.
3.) My point with the Arabs being upset about Jews emigrating to the land is just that until they felt that they were going to be ruled over by them the Arabs in the land didn’t really have a problem with their Jewish neighbors. In fact they had way less of a problem with them then the European christians did. This should tell that it’s not that Arabs just hate Jews more then anyone else.
I actually think that one democratic state for both people Palistinian and Jewish would solve this whole issue. But then there would no longer be a Jewish state in the Middle East and that would be a shame. Its worth it to have a Jewish state. However the current status quo is not sustainable, and I think it gives the Palistinians a legitimate grievance (again NOT A JUSTIFICATION TO HURT A SINGLE INNOCENT ISRAELI)
Relying on Hashem to bail out the state, especially when it was created against the opinion of the vast majority of religious Jewish leaders of the time doesn’t seem quite right either.
Philospher,
To the best of my knowledge Egypt is not blockading Gaza from the sea. I never said that Gaza in only bordered by Israel and the ocean. My point was just that Israel could not be blockading Gaza while still keeping it’s own borders with Gaza closed.
Winniethepooh,
All of Israel is in reach of Saudi, Syrian, Jordanian, Egyptian, and Iranian missiles as well. Do you think Iranians or Syrians just naturally hate Jewish people less? They all are the same. They just know that as sovereign states attacking Israel would be suicidal, They would be bombed to oblivion and their economies would be destroyed hours after they shot a single missile, which is fine. It’s gone so far that in some cases the economic and strategic benefits of being “allied” with Israel are so strong that Jordan and Egypt actually made “peace” (a cold peace but still better then what was).
The status quo now in the territories leaves people living there quite literally with nothing to lose. You can’t destroy an infrastructure or economy that has never been allowed to develop. Give them something to lose and make it clear that attacking you is just not worth it. It’s kept the other Arab states at bay even though many of them of them are seriously more powerful then a Palestinian state could ever hope to be.Until the Jewish movement to take over the land in what is now Israel started gathering steam the Palestinian Arabs in the land treated the Jews a whole lot better then the non Jews in Europe. They actually got along quite well.
Shopping613,
If your argument is that since the territories were captured in war they are now owned by the conquering army (which is questionable, to say the least) then as I said before the Palestinians should be made citizens of the conquering state. You may be fine with a single democratic non Jewish state in the place of Israel, however all Zionists almost by definition would never be OK with this, and frankly there are serious benefits to having a Jewish state and it would be a shame to lose it. As to your point about them wanting to kill all Israelis see my points to winniethepooh above
Neville,
So your saying that what happened is that Jews were just emigrating with no intention of taking control of the land, the Arabs attacked them for this, and then they decided to declare a state after fighting back?
That’s not an accurate portrayal of what happened. You should know this.
Also, I posted a much longer response to Philospher and Avik etc the post that went up was supposed to follow it. Not sure what happened.
Winniethepooh,
Also, this is not a problem that “happened”. It’s a problem created by the formation of the State and the way things played out. Throwing up your hands and saying “We don’t have to do something, we can rely on Hashem to work out the geula.” doesn’t seem like the right kind of answer to a problem that was created by people doing something. The fact that most religious Jews at the time opposed the idea of creating this situation make that kind of religious answer to the problems it created seem even less tenable.
Avik,
Your points aren’t really relevant. All that matters from their point of view is that now they are stuck where they are living under military control against their will.
Philospher,
Gaza is on the ocean. Israel wouldn’t have to open its border to let things in and out of Gaza. Your denial of the fact that Israel controls the West Bank is easily refuted. There are Israeli settlements there and even the Israeli government doesn’t deny that it controls the area.
Of course they would like to be equal citizens. It just wouldn’t be a Jewish state any longer if there were. They definitely wouldn’t want to be citizens of a state where they didn’t have the same rights as the Jewish population.
Doing my best,
Gaza was “given back” and then blockaded in. Including on the side that opens to the ocean. While there is NO justification for shooting rockets at innocent civilians blockading them in gives them a valid grievance. It doesn’t help and it’s not sustainable to do it forever.
NevilleChaimBerlin,
Are you denying that the IDF took over those territories and controls them by force? How in your version of events did and does Israel maintain control there?
I have never used the words Jews and Evil in the same sentence. I have never said anything about it being wrong for Israel to defend itself. In fact I said that I think that giving the Palistinians a state would make it easier for Israel to defend itself should they attack. I have literally never said anything about a Palistinian army either, let alone that I’d like them to kill Jews more efficiently.
You keep saying random things that have nothing to do with anything I’m saying.
Philospher,
Literally nobody denies that the IDF controls the West Bank in practically every meaningful way. There are actually Israeli towns there. Again, you give the unfortunate impression of having never read anything against your positions ever. (You actually thought the Palistinians in those territories were Israeli citizens until Oslo). Gaza is sealed by the Israeli military as well, no one and nothing can leave or enter without the IDFs permission.
I have said nothing that condones terror or the killing of anyone. All I have said is that the status quo is not sustainable and that the only option that will keep Israel both democratic and Jewish (the only moral way to have a modern Jewish state) is a two state solution.
Avik,
The Palestinians living in Gaza and the West Bank are not Jordanian Citizens. They also were living in the West Bank and Gaza BEFORE Israel took control of those areas. How does it make sense to say that Jordan is their state when they can’t live there and have never lived there??
I’m not questioning if the Palestinian leadership failed them. I don’t think Israel’s current leaders are that great either. I am just saying that the only moral and fair solution is a two state solution with the Palestinians having their own state. I also think that most Palestinians would accept a state on 1967 borders.
Avik,
I have no doubt that making them all Israeli citizens would be great for them. I think most of them would probably take such citizenship if it gave them full equal rights and the right to vote etc. As would making them Jordanian citizens However that would end Israel as a Jewish state, Jordan is not going to take them, and no European country has any interest in taking them either.
They belong in those lands just as much as Jews and Europeans belong in New York, if you believe that Native Americans would be wrong if they came back to their ancestral homeland of New York and took away any of the rights of those who live there now, then you have to apply the same standard to the Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza.
Who they elect to rule them in their own state would be their own problem, as would any civil war. Also if they were to attack to Israel as a sovereign state they would be defeated in a single afternoon. The chances of them attempting this are actually smaller if they are an actual state. Even countries which large powerful armies in the region are reluctant to attack Israel for this exact reason.
The status quo where you have them all living stateless under Israeli military control without any say in the matter or ability to self determine as a people just produces generations of people who see the military that is controlling the lands in which they live as a mortal enemy and gives them a cause to fight for. As UNJUSTIFIED as the Methods they use are (there is NEVER EVER an excuse to harm an innocent person let alone commit the atrocities that have been committed against Israeli children etc) by controlling them with military force against their will you are giving them a legitimate grievance, and something to fight against.
Just give them their own state and let them do whatever they want with it, if they want to be ruled by religious fanatics or fight a civil war who cares? It won’t be Israel’s problem any longer. If they are stupid enough to attack Israel fro their new state then treat it as you would if Jordan, Syria, Saudi Arabia, or Iran attacked. No one has tried since 1967 and I doubt they would even attempt it though.
NevilleChaimBerlin,
I never condoned or said that killing anyone was ok for anyone. I definitely never said anyone has a right to commit acts of terror. You keep saying random things and not addressing any points I am making.
Philospher,
They had a right to refuse it because they lived in the land it affected. Do you disagree that the people who live in a land should have the right to determine who governs it?
Daas Yochid,
It definitely tells me that your dealing with people you shouldn’t try to control or govern without them wanting you to do so.
Also the 1929 massacre was a brutal, horrible and criminal act. The Zionist movement was quite strong then. It was absolutely in response to the Zionist movement there. It was a horrible and disgusting criminal act. There is no justification for it. But to say that it disproves the notion that prior to the Zionist movement gathering steam the Jews and Arabs in the land got along is false.
NevilleChaimBerlin,
Your facts are wrong. The West Bank and Gaza weren’t graciously given to the Palistinians. Israel took over them in 1967 and has kept those living there stateless under their control. That’s the status quo and that’s the issue.
The Arab population didn’t agree to the partition plan in 1948. Which was their right. But either way that’s not what we are discussing. We are discussing the territories that Israel took control of in 1967.
NevilleChaimBerlin,
How did Israel come to control the West Bank and Gaza if not by military force? What am I missing here?
ChabadShlucha,
The Palistinians that were living in what is now Israel before the Zionist movement started gathering steam had done nothing to the Jews, and the stateless Palistinians being born in the West Bank and Gaza definitely did nothing to the Jews either.
America was absolutely taken by extreme force from the Native Americans who lived there. They were literally driven out by force, were brutally and viciously massacred and had their land shamelessly stolen from them. In fact whatever crimes may have been committed against the Palistinians pales in comparison by many orders of magnitude to what was done to the Native Americans. Israel wasn’t founded by people living in the land “rising up and rebelling” against a tyrannical regime. Israel was founded by Jewish people emigrating back to their ancestral homeland after having lived other places for 2000 years. (Much longer then the Native Americans have been gone from America) I think the analogy is perfectly sound.
Find a rich country that they will want to move to that is willing to take them in and then your emigration plan can be discussed. Until then from their point of view and the point of view of the world they should be living with equal rights in the land they were living before the IDF took over.
Philospher,
The IDF has complete control over everything going in and out of Gaza. Nothing and no one leaves or enters without the IDFs permission. How is that not being controlled by the IDF.
There are Israeli settlements in the West Bank. Israelis live there. It’s completley under Israeli military control.
Again, it’s not really relevant when exactly the Palistinians now living in the West Bank and Gaza moved to the area (though for many it certainly was hundreds of years) the point is that they were living there when the IDF seized control of it.
Daas Yochid,
The Palistinians only had a problem with the Jews living there when the Jews started taking control of the land. They did live there before the land was taken over and if they were given a say in how it should be divided up I truly believe that more moderate voices would prevail. Right now you have millions of people with no say in the government that controls their lands and see the military that is controlling their land as a mortal enemy that wants them dead or gone because they are not the right ethnicity. The longer this goes on the worse the problem will become.
Avik,
So you believe that in theory people like the Native Americans have a right to come back to lands they left generations before and keep the current population under military control until another country somewhere else takes them in?
Philospher,
Of course the IDF controls the area. The Israeli military goes in and out at will and completely controls the land. There are even Jewish settlements in the West Bank. I don’t think even the most right wing people in the Israeli government really deny this.
The Palistinians in those areas were NEVER given the option of Israeli citizenship. They didn’t “turn it down” it was never offered and never will be offered, as long as Israel wants to be a Jewish and democratic state.
Daas Yochid,
The Israelis weren’t controlling E”Y until they took it over either. In my analogy the Native Americans put together a military and took control. I don’t know exactly what Native American beliefs are regarding how they came to live in America but they probably believe they had a god given right to be there too.
AviK,
The only thing that matters is that they were living there when the IDF took control. I’m not saying they have more rights then the Jews living there. I’m saying that one group of people keeping another under military control without giving them a state or equal rights is immoral and not sustainable.
Philospher,
I’m not against the idea of a Jewish state. I just think the status quo is not sustainable and the only fair solution that is practical is to give them their own state.
Shopping613,
Being ok living in a non Jewish state in the region where everyone is equal is not an option for the Israeli government. The entire point of the Zionist enterprise is to have a JEWISH state. Not just a democracy in the Middle East.
Finally I think my analogy to Native Americans (I’m comparing the Jews to the Native Americans) is perfectly sound. I’ll repeat it here for clarity: Imagine that a bunch of Native Americans put together a military and took back New York. Would it be fair for them to drive those living in New York out? Or keep all the people not of Native American descent under military control with no say in the Government?
Philospher,
You also seem to not understand that the Palistinians in the West Bank and Gaza are NOT citizens of Israel like the Israeli Arabs and were never given the option of being Israeli citizens. They are under Israeli military control without any of the benefits of Israeli citizenship, any representation in the government, and they also can’t travel freely in and out the areas where they live. Again these are just facts. Nobody denies this.
You really should take the time to read arguments of those who disagree with you sometimes.
Philospher,
The Palistinians are absolutely under Israeli military control. Literally nobody denies this. All I’m saying is that keeping millions of people under military control against their will is not practical and not right. The people who live in a land should have a say in who controls them and should have the right to self determination. I have never said anything about them having a military.
You give the impression of have never read the arguments against any of the positions your taking here.
AviK,
646 is the gematria of my first and last name.
The point is that the Palistinians living in the lands now controlled by the Israeli military don’t have a say and haven’t been given one. The Palistinians and Jews who were living there are really the only parties whos wants matter here. The British and any other country had the least rights of anyone to do anything with the land. They should never have been there in the first place. From the perspective of a Palistinian living in IDF controlled lands the British or LON giving the land to Israel would be like your neighbor giving your house to his cousin.
Also all these plans don’t explain why a Palistinian who has lived his whole life and whos family very likely lived in what is now Israel for generations would want to move anywhere. And why should any other country want to take them?
Its also just practically not realistic to expect any other country to take them in, it’s just not going to happen; and in the meanwhile the situation gets worse and worse as you have more and more people who are put in a situation where they are stateless and miserable and see the military force that is controlling their land against their will as a mortal enemy.
Philospher,
Lol. I’m a Jew from Lakewood. What are you even talking about?? Stop with the dramatic grandstanding and just make your points.
I never said anything about not having an army. They have no control over the land in which they live, and no say in the government that controls the lands in which they live. They want a state or to be citizens of the state that is controlling the land in which they live, which is Israel. Now of course if they were to become citizens of Israel they would vote and it would no longer be a Jewish state. You can’t have a democratic state also be a Jewish one unless Jews make up an overwhelming majority. So Israel will never make them equal citizens and it never gave them the option.
These are facts, not opinions. They can’t be Antisemetic.
NevilleChamberlin,
Ok. So your argument is that Israel should kill all the Palistinians in the lands it seized control over in 1967, because they are all part of “a massive terrorist enterprise”. The problem with that argument is that it simply isn’t true, there are millions of women and children who would have no bone to pick with anyone who wasn’t trying to control the land in which they live against their will. Besides they were living there BEFORE the IDF took control of the land. They want their own country or to have a say in the government that is controlling where they live. How is this unreasonable of them?
I’m just saying that I think the only moral and practical solution here is to give them their own state and be done with the whole thing.
P.S. I’m a Jew from Lakewood and have been a member here for years.
Philospher,
Your really aren’t addressing any of points. Israel seized control through military force of the land in which the Palestinians live. They won’t make them citizens of Israel and there are no other countries that will take them. The Palestinians are very upset about this because they have no say in the Government or control over the land in which they lived and are now stuck living in. These are facts. Facts cannot be antisemitic.
NevilleChaimBerlin,
I may be mistaken but it seems to me that you are advocating killing them all out, or keeping them stateless under Israeli military control indefinitely. There is no place for them to go (in spite of the wishes of people like Avik & CS no other country will take them) and your definitely not advocating making them full citizens of Israel (something that Israel has never put on the table in either case).
Advocating the killing of 4 million people, men, women and children is thankfully an extreme minority position even among the most right wing religious Zionists. Its a hard position to defend from a moral perspective. I don’t think one really needs to say much to see why this is so.Keeping them stateless under military control is just not possible forever (besides for being morally wrong and not fair, shouldn’t the people who live in a land have a say as to how they are governed?)
So without getting all hyperbolic and accusing anyone of antisemitism can you either defend one of these positions as moral and fair or explain another option that I am not seeing.