PDA

View Full Version : Israel cf Nazi Germany



sjjs
May 19th, 2004, 03:58 AM
As I write this Israeli tanks have surrounded a township in the Gaza and are demanding all males aged over 16 should come out and surrender to Israeli soldiers. If they refuse to come out their houses will be demolished.

What will happen to these men is unknown.

Now, this act is being widely condemned by Europe and much of the rest of the world. Meanwhile George Bush says "Israel can defend itself."

Albeit on a smaller scale, does this not bear frightening resemblance to German tanks and soldiers surrounding the Warsaw ghetto? Has not Israel turned from the victim into the perpetrator?

WatsonGlenn
May 19th, 2004, 05:31 AM
Albeit on a smaller scale, does this not bear frightening resemblance to German tanks and soldiers surrounding the Warsaw ghetto? Has not Israel turned from the victim into the perpetrator?

No and here is why. If Isreal stopped fighting and laid down their weopons today Muslims would attack and kill them all tommorrow. If the Palastinians stopped fighting the conflict would be over.

Symantix
May 19th, 2004, 05:37 AM
Excellent point. :D

sjjs
May 19th, 2004, 05:58 AM
No and here is why. If Isreal stopped fighting and laid down their weopons today Muslims would attack and kill them all tommorrow. If the Palastinians stopped fighting the conflict would be over.

Too simplistic. No one is talking about Israel stopping fighting and laying down their arms; in today's world a naive and ridiculous proposal.

Talk of Palestine laying down its arms is equally ridiculous. They are fighting for their homeland so you're suggesting they give up the struggle. Would you?

At the moment Israel is exercising a form of lebensraum by continuing the eviction of Palestinians.

I am concerned here about the way in which they are going about this using methods comparable to pogroms of the past. Do you support such methods?

Apokalupsis
May 19th, 2004, 06:45 AM
Palestinians have a "homeland"? Since when?

/in best English accent: Do they have a flag?

sjjs
May 19th, 2004, 06:52 AM
Palestinians have a "homeland"? Since when?

/in best English accent: [i]Do they have a flag?[/b]

It depends on how far back you want to go. In 1947 the UN divided Palestine into two states: Jewish and Arab. Both sides rejected the idea and a war broke out.

But before this Palestinian Arabs had lived on the land for hundreds of years until the Jewish disapora took over based on a biblical promise.

So yes there is a homeland there.

sjjs
May 19th, 2004, 06:55 AM
/in best English accent: Do they have a flag?

In best US accent: Here you go, buddy.

http://flagspot.net/images/p/ps.gif

omaysis
May 19th, 2004, 07:01 AM
I agree.

How would you feel (assuming you live in the States) if, say, France came in by force (pretend they have a massive, superior military ;) ) and gave the entire eastern seaboard back to the Native Americans. New York City, Washington DC, and all.

That's about what we and the Allies did to Palestine after WWII. They have every right to be hopping mad.

Disclaimer: I am not in any way advocating or apologizing for violence. I condemn it from anyone.

Apokalupsis
May 19th, 2004, 07:20 AM
Ahhh...the problem is, like you said, it depends upon how far you go back. To be accurate about the matter, the Jews were the first inhabitants of the area.

A common misperception is that all the Jews were forced into the Diaspora by the Romans after the destruction of the Second Temple in Jerusalem in the year 70 C.E. and then, 1,800 years later, suddenly returned to Palestine demanding their country back. In reality, the Jewish people have maintained ties to their historic homeland for more than 3,700 years.

The Jewish people base their claim to the Land of Israel on at least four premises: 1) the Jewish people settled and developed the land; 2) the international community granted political sovereignty in Palestine to the Jewish people; 3) the territory was captured in defensive wars and 4) God promised the land to the patriarch Abraham.

As far as the flag, that was an inside joke known to only a few "Izzard" fans. Also, the Boy Scouts have an "official flag" as well. That won't make them a sovereign nation unfortunately.

sjjs
May 19th, 2004, 07:28 AM
Ahhh...the problem is, like you said, it depends upon how far you go back. To be accurate about the matter, the Jews were the first inhabitants of the area.

Human remains were discovered in the area dating from 600,000 BC. Are you suggesting they were Jews?

Symantix
May 19th, 2004, 07:30 AM
Human remains were discovered in the area dating from 600,000 BC. Are you suggesting they were Jews? If they weren't, are you suggesting that these remains are fighting over the land, too?

omaysis
May 19th, 2004, 07:33 AM
To be accurate about the matter, the Jews were the first inhabitants of the area.

Exactly my point about the Native Americans and what-not. And we conquered their land only a few scant hundred years ago, not thousands.


How would you feel (assuming you live in the States) if, say, France came in by force (pretend they have a massive, superior military ) and gave the entire eastern seaboard back to the Native Americans. New York City, Washington DC, and all.

That's about what we and the Allies did to Palestine after WWII. They have every right to be hopping mad.

And I forgot to add in that this hypothetical France would give massive and technologically advanced weapons to the Native Americans who now control the easter seaboard, to make sure they could protect themselves. The French would also keep military bases over here for the same reason.

And one day, the Native Americans would build a great concrete wall, keeping us out.

Sorry, I'm having fun with my imagination :p but you get the idea.... the Palestinians aren't just being ornery. They are upset for a very good reason.

WatsonGlenn
May 19th, 2004, 07:47 AM
Too simplistic. No one is talking about Israel stopping fighting and laying down their arms; in today's world a naive and ridiculous proposal.

Actually I am talking about it and many peope around the world would love it if Israel laid down their weapons. Many of them are Muslims. There has been a great deal of talk about letting the UN take over the defence of Israel.


Talk of Palestine laying down its arms is equally ridiculous. They are fighting for their homeland so you're suggesting they give up the struggle. Would you?

I am suggesting that the Palestinians are the root cause of the violence in that part of the world. The Jews do not want them all dead they simply want to be left alone. The Palastinians want to push the Israelis into the sea.


At the moment Israel is exercising a form of lebensraum by continuing the eviction of Palestinians.

The Jews need living space and they have the power to take it and more. They have shown amazing restraint. Can you think of another country that does not have to but does put up with the level of violence Israel puts up with. I can't. If Mexicans were blowing up buses in the US in order to get back Texas we would kill them all.


I am concerned here about the way in which they are going about this using methods comparable to pogroms of the past. Do you support such methods?

I support almost any efforts by Israel, including the current ones, that attempt to safeguard their country.

sjjs
May 19th, 2004, 08:03 AM
If they weren't, are you suggesting that these remains are fighting over the land, too?

Er, no. It was a rebuttal of the suggestion by Apok that the Jews were the first people on that land. They weren't.

sjjs
May 19th, 2004, 08:08 AM
I am suggesting that the Palestinians are the root cause of the violence in that part of the world. The Jews do not want them all dead they simply want to be left alone. The Palastinians want to push the Israelis into the sea.

So the fact that the Jewish state was constructed on the Palestinian homeland is irrelevant in your view.



The Jews need living space and they have the power to take it and more.

Just like Germany in WW2. Lebensraum. My point exactly; there are comparisons to be made between Israel and Germany at that time.



Can you think of another country that does not have to but does put up with the level of violence Israel puts up with. I can't.

Palestine for a start.



If Mexicans were blowing up buses in the US in order to get back Texas we would kill them all.

Yes, I expect you would.

And if Native Americans wanted their land back then I expect you'd kill them too.

After all, they're not white. They're not civilised. They're not Christian. (Well, some of the Palestinians are but we can gloss over that because they're not, well, not quite one of us.)

Symantix
May 19th, 2004, 08:18 AM
Er, no. It was a rebuttal of the suggestion by Apok that the Jews were the first people on that land. They weren't. But Apok wasn't arguing that the Jews were the first people on the land period; he was arguing that they were the first people on the land amongst those who are now fighting for it. Hence my response. ;)

Apokalupsis
May 19th, 2004, 08:20 AM
1) Now prove the "remains" are Palestinians. If they aren't, then it is irrelevant.

2) Then define "homeland" that apparently, these Palestinians have always had.

sjjs
May 19th, 2004, 08:22 AM
But Apok wasn't arguing that the Jews were the first people on the land period; he was arguing that they were the first people on the land amongst those who are now fighting for it. Hence my response. ;)

Apok wrote: Ahhh...the problem is, like you said, it depends upon how far you go back. To be accurate about the matter, the Jews were the first inhabitants of the area.

My imagination doesn't necessarily go to adding another clause or two to clarify the issue. I took what he wrote as what he meant.

Symantix
May 19th, 2004, 08:22 AM
Yes, I expect you would.

And if Native Americans wanted their land back then I expect you'd kill them too.

After all, they're not white. They're not civilised. They're not Christian. (Well, some of the Palestinians are but we can gloss over that because they're not, well, not quite one of us.) You are placing a stereotype on "us" that is no longer valid. Millions and millions of Americans are not "white" or "Christian", or even "civilised" depending upon how you define it.

Also, do some research on your own country. Don't tell me that nobody was pushed off of your land so that you could live there. I'm not saying that the practice is necessarily right, but it's certainly not isolated to particular groups of people. I might go as far as to say that everyone who lives where they are today, live there because someone else was driven out.

sjjs
May 19th, 2004, 08:24 AM
1) Now prove the "remains" are Palestinians. If they aren't, then it is irrelevant.

So I take it there is a missing clause where you meant to say that the Jews were there before the Palestinians?


2) Then define "homeland" that apparently, these Palestinians have always had.

Homeland = the land where you live

Perhaps we can refine this? How would we define the Jewish "homeland"?

Symantix
May 19th, 2004, 08:26 AM
Apok wrote: Ahhh...the problem is, like you said, it depends upon how far you go back. To be accurate about the matter, the Jews were the first inhabitants of the area.

My imagination doesn't necessarily go to adding another clause or two to clarify the issue. I took what he wrote as what he meant. We are talking about the battle between Israelites and Arabs. That's the context that you established when you started this thread. Unless we don't give Apok any credit for a certain amount of intelligence, we should assume that he is keeping within the context until it becomes obvious that he is not.

The statement he made could be taken to mean "the first period" or "the first of the parties in context". The rational conclusion is that, until proven otherwise, he is maintaining the context.

Meng Bomin
May 19th, 2004, 08:26 AM
Ahhh...the problem is, like you said, it depends upon how far you go back. To be accurate about the matter, the Jews were the first inhabitants of the area. But the Palestinians are still living on the land, while the majority of Jews were forced off long before. Some Palestinians are Jews.


The Jewish people base their claim to the Land of Israel on at least four premises: 1) the Jewish people settled and developed the land; 2) the international community granted political sovereignty in Palestine to the Jewish people; 3) the territory was captured in defensive wars and 4) God promised the land to the patriarch Abraham.I don't think that #4 is a usable argument since that is part of Judaism itself. As well, Palestinians believe themselves to be descendants of Abraham through Ishmael. They think that they have the same right to the land. The other three are usable.

I am suggesting that the Palestinians are the root cause of the violence in that part of the world. The Jews do not want them all dead they simply want to be left alone. The Palastinians want to push the Israelis into the sea.Which Palestinians and which Jews? Are you suggesting that both are collective minds?

Apokalupsis
May 19th, 2004, 08:26 AM
Apok wrote: Ahhh...the problem is, like you said, it depends upon how far you go back. To be accurate about the matter, the Jews were the first inhabitants of the area.

My imagination doesn't necessarily go to adding another clause or two to clarify the issue. I took what he wrote as what he meant.
hehe Forgive me for assuming the interjection of "common sense" to the argument.

I erroneously assumed, that it was understood, that prehistoric man is irrelevant to this discussion, so it was unnecesary to specifically state, that "prehistoric man does not count, and it is only between those in question of current 'owners' of the land, that do".

JUST to clarify for those confused about this entire debate...cavemen are not fighting over this land. The dispute is between Palestinians and Israel, and between the two, Jews were there first.

sjjs
May 19th, 2004, 08:27 AM
You are placing a stereotype on "us" that is no longer valid. Millions and millions of Americans are not "white" or "Christian", or even "civilised" depending upon how you define it.
I was talking specifically to WG. And there was just a hint of irony in there as well.



Also, do some research on your own country. Don't tell me that nobody was pushed off of your land so that you could live there.
Why would I tell you that? We've been invaded more times than the US.



I'm not saying that the practice is necessarily right, but it's certainly not isolated to particular groups of people. I might go as far as to say that everyone who lives where they are today, live there because someone else was driven out.
Exactly.

Symantix
May 19th, 2004, 08:27 AM
rofl...you're slippin', sj ;)

Apokalupsis
May 19th, 2004, 08:28 AM
We are talking about the battle between Israelites and Arabs. That's the context that you established when you started this thread. Unless we don't give Apok any credit for a certain amount of intelligence, we should assume that he is keeping within the context until it becomes obvious that he is not.

The statement he made could be taken to mean "the first period" or "the first of the parties in context". The rational conclusion is that, until proven otherwise, he is maintaining the context.
Well, good to know that the context of the debate wasn't forgotten by some. ;)

sjjs
May 19th, 2004, 08:32 AM
JUST to clarify for those confused about this entire debate...cavemen are not fighting over this land. The dispute is between Palestinians and Israel, and between the two, Jews were there first.

Is that a suitable argument to justify the current actions of the Israelis? Destroying Palestinian homes and rounding up Palestinian men for some reason?

If it is then we can only say to the Austrlian Aborigines and the Native Americans to go for it. For the pure bred Scottish and Irish and Welsh to return to England and kick out those tainted with Anglo-Saxon or Viking blood. For the Black South Africans to herd the Whites into settlements and get thier own back.

Nice scenario.

Apokalupsis
May 19th, 2004, 08:33 AM
But the Palestinians are still living on the land, while the majority of Jews were forced off long before.
Many were, but it is not true that there was no longer a predominant Jewish culture and population.

Even after the destruction of the Second Temple in Jerusalem and the beginning of the exile, Jewish life in the Land of Israel continued and often flourished. Large communities were reestablished in Jerusalem and Tiberias by the ninth century. In the 11th century, Jewish communities grew in Rafah, Gaza, Ashkelon, Jaffa and Caesarea.


Some Palestinians are Jews.
Well of course, but I fail to see the relevancy.

Andacanavar
May 19th, 2004, 08:34 AM
In reality, the Jewish people have maintained ties to their historic homeland for more than 3,700 years.

So what? The first Asians who crossed the Bering Land Bridge eventually became the Native Americans, and they've been here over 12,000 years.


The Jewish people base their claim to the Land of Israel on at least four premises: 1) the Jewish people settled and developed the land;

Like I said previous, it's irrelevant.


2) the international community granted political sovereignty in Palestine to the Jewish people;

Exactly why the Palestinians are fighting. You don't "give" somebodys home to someone else and not expect them to be uber-pissed about it.


3) the territory was captured in defensive wars

A byproduct of #3, which shouldn't of happened in the first place.


4) God promised the land to the patriarch Abraham.

Now that's a great reason. Jeez, aren't al Qaeda saying that God promised them such and such? Guess that makes them right too.

People can color this any way they want, but the reality is whatever role the ends of WWI & II had means nothing now. America simply backs up Israel because it is part of America's interest in that they need a friend in the Middle East region to keep a check on Arab/Muslim countries. It's pretty obvious, to me at any rate, without Western support for that reason, especially the United States, Israel would have been vanquished long ago.

Apokalupsis
May 19th, 2004, 08:39 AM
Is that a suitable argument to justify the current actions of the Israelis? Destroying Palestinian homes and rounding up Palestinian men for some reason?
This question doesn't make any sense. It in no way addresses what you quote.

The argument that you have quoted me saying is:

Of the two groups in conflict today (Israelis and Palestinians), Israel has had ownership of the land the earliest. They have remained in the area (see above post), and have established a sovereign state whereas the Palestinians have not. Cavemen on the otherhand...are not a part of the conflict.

In no way, does the above argument, justify any action taken by any group of people...not even cavemen beating their women folk over the head with a large femur.



If it is then we can only say to the Austrlian Aborigines and the Native Americans to go for it. For the pure bred Scottish and Irish and Welsh to return to England and kick out those tainted with Anglo-Saxon or Viking blood. For the Black South Africans to herd the Whites into settlements and get thier own back.
Fallacy of false analogy. Also, you have failed to show that Palestinians have created a sovereign nation. If it is acceptable for the US (or any other nation) to create a nation despite other races being on the land that becomes sovereign, why is it different for Jews? Why the double standard? Seems a bit like anti-semitism. Can you clarify?

Define: homeland.
Explain how Palestinians have established a sovereign nation prior to Israel, and explain how it has never been accepted by the international community.

sjjs
May 19th, 2004, 08:51 AM
This thread started by saying that I could see a resemblance between the actions of present day Israel and Nazi Germany.

Perhaps we're off at a tangent about why the fighting started.

So to return to the original suggestion:

Is present day Israel acting like Nazi Germany in the way it is treating the Palestinians?

Meng Bomin
May 19th, 2004, 08:54 AM
Is present day Israel acting like Nazi Germany in the way it is treating the Palestinians? I would say no, because the Palestinians are putting up a fight. If there were Jewish suicide bombers in Germany and Poland at the time of WWII, then there may be paralells, but not here.

sjjs
May 19th, 2004, 08:56 AM
Is is acceptable for Israel to act then in this way?

Slipnish
May 19th, 2004, 08:58 AM
Uhm... Did Poland launch any "Freedom Fighters" into Germany before they were invaded?

Apokalupsis
May 19th, 2004, 09:22 AM
Is this event a responsive attack? Or is it random, just for the sake of taking over land and subduing the inhabitants?

No, it is not comparable to Nazi Germany.

Andacanavar
May 19th, 2004, 09:27 AM
I would say no, because the Palestinians are putting up a fight. If there were Jewish suicide bombers in Germany and Poland at the time of WWII, then there may be paralells, but not here.

For that reason, and that reason alone, I must concur.

sjjs
May 19th, 2004, 11:07 AM
I guess I'm in a minority of one then on this issue. As usual.

Apokalupsis
May 19th, 2004, 11:12 AM
That reason alone, I suggest that we validate the fallacy of ad populem. It would make things so much more efficient here. ;)

sjjs
May 19th, 2004, 11:34 AM
"Being in a minority, even a minority of one, did not make you insane. There was truth and there was untruth, and if you clung to the truth even against the whole world, you were not mad." George Orwell - 1984

"Almost always, the creative dedicated minority has made the world better." Martin Luther King.

he-he

Apokalupsis
May 19th, 2004, 12:08 PM
Well, if we validate the fallacy, being the minority won't make you insane, it doesn't have a position on whether the world is a better place or not...it just makes you wrong. ;)

FruitandNut
May 22nd, 2004, 10:16 AM
The Zionist case - God has given us this land in perpetuity, so s*d off all of you Palestinians. Case closed.

Uncle Sam's Case - Well the Fundies see things the same way, and their political and financial clout coupled to the Jewish lobby are capable of giving heat and grief at election time. - Besides, Israel is the only sort of democracy in the area and there is oil in them there dunes. Oh, and petrochemical big bucks seem to oil our political election bus.

The Arab case - a/ The Sheikdoms - we will sleep with, fund, suck up to and whatever else will help to keep us in the decadent autocratic style we have become used to. b/ The dictatorships, we will do pretty much the same, only a bit less sucking up and a bit more aggro. c/ The Mullahs - we will interpret Islam and the Holy Book whichever way suits our cultural and power agends best - Allah is great - we are glad He stays Stum while we speak on His behalf. d/ The Palestinian case - a plague on all your houses, can we be allowed to go back to our heap of rubble and just survive?

Al Queda, Hammas (et al) - if we don't behave in an extreme way, we miss being on the evening news and seeming important.

chadn737
May 22nd, 2004, 03:34 PM
Hey! F&N is back! :)

mask
May 22nd, 2004, 04:27 PM
Palestinians have a "homeland"? Since when?

/in best English accent: Do they have a flag?
palestine has always been an OCCUPIED COUNTRY first by the ottomans then by
great britain, the only problem is that the english controlled it for too long they forgot it's not theirs.
and yeah they do have a flag.

FruitandNut
May 23rd, 2004, 07:11 AM
mask - most territories have ALWAYS been occupied, the question is who and when.

The Jews came powering into the area of Palestine smiting and smegging all around and knocking down their walls with the aid of convenient earthquakes - 'Oooh, an Act of God - Gott mit Uns!!!' The agrarian Cananites had to turn their plow-shares into swords, but generally being a relatively peaceful lot, stood about as much chance as Granada in repelling the US forces. (By the way, thanks for not telling us about such plans - it was after all a British Protectorate and member of The Commonwealth - just a bit of politeness perhaps?)

As for The Philistine champion Goliath, well what chance had he with his medical condition and being bolted to the spot under his weight of armour? David was a practised sling user and a well aimed shot at 600 miles an hour would have had the impact of a 9mm parabellum bullet. Gott mit Uns indeed.

Most of the 'Jewish nation' eventually migrated all over the place, particularly into Europe and Asia Minor; and between 1945 and now, pour back, expecting the arabs that have settled there for generations in the meantime, to say 'oh,thankyou', leave their ancestral land and migrate to the lush dunes of Sinai or the Negev. All in the name of Yahweh of course. - I think not.

KingCanuck
June 29th, 2004, 03:01 AM
This is not KingCanuck, but a friend (incidently Israeli) logging in under his account.

It depends on how far back you want to go. In 1947 the UN divided Palestine into two states: Jewish and Arab. Both sides rejected the idea and a war broke out.

Sorry, you've got your facts wrong. Israel accepted the proposal (receiving mostly land by the coast) -- the Palestinians rejected the proposal. The moment the British left, the Palestinians attacked the Jews. The Jews were vastly outnumbered but still won.

The Jews came powering into the area of Palestine smiting and smegging all around and knocking down their walls with the aid of convenient earthquakes - 'Oooh, an Act of God - Gott mit Uns!!!' The agrarian Cananites had to turn their plow-shares into swords, but generally being a relatively peaceful lot, stood about as much chance as Granada in repelling the US forces.

Facts here are wrong as well. The Jews first sent messangers offering peace. One of the seven peoples living in Israel, then Cana'an, accepted peace with Israel and remained untouched. I forget which they were, but I can look it up for you if you want.

A relatively peaceful lot? Riiiight. These were people of war. Seven peoples sharing a tiny little country. There were plenty of wars. Any excuse for a war was acceptable. When the Jews politely asked permission to go through one of Cana'an's neighboring lands -- promising to go on the main road, not take from the crops or wells, etc -- they were promptly attacked.

As for The Philistine champion Goliath, well what chance had he with his medical condition and being bolted to the spot under his weight of armour? David was a practised sling user and a well aimed shot at 600 miles an hour would have had the impact of a 9mm parabellum bullet. Gott mit Uns indeed.

*twitch* This is irrelevant. Philistine attacked the Jews. Lucky Jews happened to have this kid who could use the sling well.

Most of the 'Jewish nation' eventually migrated all over the place, particularly into Europe and Asia Minor; and between 1945 and now, pour back, expecting the arabs that have settled there for generations in the meantime, to say 'oh,thankyou', leave their ancestral land and migrate to the lush dunes of Sinai or the Negev. All in the name of Yahweh of course. - I think not.

The Jews did not migrate. x.x They were exiled. Over and over again, because they kept coming back, and multiplying. The Jews NEVER completely left Israel. And now, when they're finally allowed to come back without being killed, they're returning.

Btw, the Arabs also conquered Israel. x.x 4-600 years ago. Again, I can look up the specifics.

FruitandNut
June 30th, 2004, 04:50 AM
KingCanuck's Israeli friend. I trust you are familiar with the concept of, and excuses for, the pre-emptive strike. This being so, would it be so outrageous for the Arabs to have thought things through? 1/ Coastal strips are a useful part of a country's economic and defence demography. 2/ A small coastal strip of land would only suffice Jewish needs for a short while. 3/ Jewish Zionists would demand the whole shebang of Judea-Sumaria etc. by 'Gods ordinance'.

If we are going to play historic precedence, over one spot, why not the rest of the world? That little exercise could get very interesting. Perhaps Uncle Sam will care to give back the US of A to the native indian tribes?

ps. Since Christianity is a child of Judaism, and Christians have never entirely left the 'Holy Land', do I, as a Christian, have an automatic 'right' as well to find my bit of 'lebensraum' there?

pps. The 'historic/political record of the Jews always waging war in defence only is interesting. Are there any records from the losers as to the circumstances surrounding these battles? (If you look at Holbein's painting of Richard III, he looks a shifty eyed, hunchbacked, villian of a character). Recent historic enquiry and an X-ray of the photograph (you can see the artistic editing), now throw a new light upon 'Uncle' Richard. The painting was touched up by order of the incoming Tudors, as part of a general discrediting of the outgoing Plantaginets, allowing the spotlight to shift from their own questionable actions.

Perhaps the historic record in regard to the 'Old Testament' and the other writings, contain a similar agenda?