diverdee wrote:Just few notes - I do acknowledge Israls right to exist - as mandated by the U.N. & pursueant to the realtive articles.
There are concrete solutions, too lenghty to go into here - adoption & recognition of the prisoners statement & dsimantling of the apartheid wall & the stopping of building ostensibly illegal settlements in the west bank & East Jerusalme would be a start.
My analysis of the power of the military in the current Israeli administration is not actually mine, it's based on the work & opinion of much more educated & knowledgeable analysts of middle eastern & specifically Israeli affairs.
Releasing administrative detainess & the women & children locked in Israeli jails would also be a positive move.
Regarding Hizbollah within Lebanon - they ahven't been disarmed because a significant proportion of the population support them & it would likley be a prelude to a civil war, the situation there was very complex & not reducable to simplistic analysis.
Syria does not control the lebanes government, but certainly did have a great deal of influence there - the historical reasons for that are many - Israels 1982 invasion of Lebanon was certainly a contributory factor in Syrias involvement - again the situation is in reality far too complex to reduce to a few sentences on this forum.
That's great and all, and i agree with most of what you said, but none of that is going to happen as long as Israel feels threatened. It's plain simple. I don't think it's too much to ask for Hezbollah and Hamas to stop provoking Israel. If they take the route proposed by Ghandi, than Israel will have no choice but to acquiesce.
I don't agree that Israel stole the land whatever anyone says. They were always jews there. During British colonial rule, jews bought up land from the arab and ottoman owners. When the Arab nationalists started to form during the 20's, they terrorized Jews with their fedayeen (suicide groups), just like today. As M. Breqs said, they were allowed to become part of the process, but their all or nothing approach, chose not to, and now their children are paying the price. Just as the children of Ben-Gurion and Dayan are paying the price for there decisions made. There have been massive mistakes on boths sides.
I never called err-fatale an anti-semite, and haven't used that term once throughout the thread. I will say he's a hate filled bastard that hasn't offered a thing to this conversation.
Machinesworking wrote: Well from what I understand the main thing that started it was French policy of not allowing religious icons or clothing in public schools. there might have been more to it, and I'm sure most of the people roiting weren't wealthy, but to say it was because the French are not treating them right is probably a bad call.
But then again, I'm talking to somebody who uses cultural stereotypes to make blanket statements about arabs, but has been arguing any point made that makes the Israelis look bad, as being anti Israel.
You can't have it both ways IMO. You can't rationally argue against cultural stereotyping when it comes to jews, yet use blanket statements to describe the Palestinians.
You know as little about history and foriegn culture as you do about current affairs. That's not what started the riots at all. The riots were started because of the deaths of two teenager in Clichy-sous-Bois, a poor suburb of Paris.
Please, educate yourself here:
as far as this goes:
"But then again, I'm talking to somebody who uses cultural stereotypes to make blanket statements about arabs, but has been arguing any point made that makes the Israelis look bad, as being anti Israel."
I've already answered that here:
"Just because it's a negative viewpoint, doesn't necessarily mean it's completely wrong. You jumped into a thread late in the game, and have taken alot of what i said out of context. Arab society is like that. It may be negative, but it's not wrong. It's a cultural thing. Disregarding that in these types of conversation are similar to saying that in Japanese culture dominance of male over female is not conducive to discussing their cultural traits. It may be negative but it's true.
How about this? Arabs willfully admit that they feel ashamed and humiliated after a millenia of being conquered abused in there own land. I wrote this previously in this thread, and i'll rewrite it here:
stinky wrote:Let me explain quickly by stating that the entire arab nation feels disenfranchised from a millenia of assumed humiliation. First, through the crusades, then the ottomans, then britain, then the US. Each time, those hostilities add to the general feeling of humiliation that the entire arab nation feels. Again, this will never go away. If it wasn't the jews, it would be something else, most likely the christians.
And one final thing... everyone who keeps stating falsely that this conflict between muslims and jews have been going on for centuries needs to reeducate themselves. This conflict was started by the British redrawing the lines in the middle east, but that's where it ends. Prior to that, jews and muslims were living in PEACE. In fact, during the crusades, they were fighting together, helping each other from getting slaughtered by the christians. So, if you really want to blame somebody, blame the fall of the roman empire and the rise of the catholic church, and the crusades, because that was the original source of these hostilities, not the jews.
In is one characterization a stereotype and the other a cultural trait? Is it better that it's actually admitted by the population, so that it can
stinky wrote:It begs the question, where do you draw the line between cultural trait and cultural stereotype? Is it it's capacity as a negative trait that turns it into a stereotype, and something that should not be discussed rationally?
How about arabs who fully admit that their culture requires them to be aggressive because they willingfully admit taking advantage of the weak, within that culture? Are you going to call that person a rascist too?