Israeli/Palestinian Conflict MEGATHREAD

[jrrtoken]

There is a cold and dark reality to the 21st century. We have no more room to grow. We have no more islands to explore; thus, the expansion of freedom is now limited to isolated pockets of Earth.

No, it's not. Ever seen Soylent Green? That is overcrowding.

Democracy can't afford to sleep when so much is to be lost. Isreal's position is the new thinking of tomorrow.

Killing people for territory? That's hardly new, and like hell if that's democracy in action. That's more imperialist than anything else.

I read a article recently by someone from NASA and Space.com. Its message woke me up to a deep truth about the future. Democracy is destined to fail if there is no more room for rebellion.Expansion is important for the survival of all civilization; thus, Isreal is looking to survive in a world flexing.

Yeah, that sounds democratic, kicking people out for more land. Freedom in action

Their inaction in a chaotic world will only cost more lives. The needs of the many must outway the needs of the few. 400+ deaths is nothing to sneeze about; however, their loss means nothing if you don't give them purpose. Take why they died away, and you are left with meaningless deaths.

400 people lost? And they're utterly meaningless? What if you apply the same thing to the number of lives lost in 9/11? Would they be specks of dust, too?

Why do you think civilians die in wars? It happens all the time. Give them meaning. I do. People need to wakeup. Life is not Star Wars, and diplomacy is not always welcomed. Reality stinks. There is no starting over. There is no such thing as waving a white flag. There is no more room to expand. Isreal is right to protect itself and it's way of life.

I don't think you understand. Israel if compeltely qualified to defend itself from a few rocket attacks, I mean, they have U.S. weapons that have been tested to be usually effective. They do not need to send in a major ground force to capture a small, densely populated strip of land.

[Yar-El]

...

 

 

what the hell are you on about

 

i saw something about democracy, so in case you didn't know, palestine is a democracy. you should probably learn the facts about what you're discussing beforehand instead of trying to use some "big picture" argument to sound deep and philosophical (you didn't fyi).

 

Democracy from whose perspective?

 

The January 2006 parliamentary elections, deemed free and fair by international monitors, led to the formation of a Hamas dominated government. As the Bush administration refused to deal with Hamas, however, it has consequently undermined the legitimacy of any call it may make for democracy.

 

This especially holds true for Nasir Al-Rayis, a Palestinian legal advisor to Al-Haq, a West Bank-based human rights organisation.

Wait until the next election cycles comes, and we will talk about Palastine's new version of democracy.

[True_Avery]

Wait until the next election cycles comes, and we will talk about Palastine's new version of democracy.

So, they democratically elected themselves away from Democracy?

 

Isn't that democracy in action?

[Det. Bart Lasiter]

Democracy from whose perspective?

 

 

Wait until the next election cycles comes, and we will talk about Palastine's new version of democracy.

an objective perspective? your own source says it was deemed "free and fair", what are you trying to get at

[Yar-El]

I have a few questions for jmac and Avery. When did philosophical discussion die? When did we abandon the questioning of facts? When did we stop asking why 1 + 1 = 2?

 

Some of the stuff I said can be taken harshly; thus, I edted the post and placed it into a spoiler. I'm not trying to tell anyone how to act or think. I apologize if it came off that way.

 

Intelligent people look at the evidence, and then present their own philosophical resolutions. Regurgitating information from a book or articles is primitive. Creating a philosophical hypothesis from established knowledge is being inquisitive and responsible.

 

I like you both. You bring out the best in others; however, you seem to stop looking beyond what is in black and white. Trusting any reference in print or online alone is being reckless. I don't want to hear scripted facts from intelligent people such as yourselves. Give us something from your own philosophical conclusion about world events and life.

 

 

400+ people dying due to war is horrible; however, how should we look at them? I don't see their deaths as being meaningless. We can say the same thing about Iraq. Hundreds of Iraqi's died for a purpose. What did we learn about Vietnam? Nobody dies for nothing. People were killed because someone was fighting for something.

 

Historical evidence shows there is a biblical reason behind these wars; however, there is also something else beneath this whole chaos. There is a psychological need not only for ownership of religous land, but for surviving in a part of the world that does not take them serious. Isreal is a democracy built in a part of the world where it has heavy opposition. Terrorism and dictatorships built homes around them. Do you wait until someone attacks you?

 

You can't win a war by trying to save everyone.

 

 

...

 

what the hell are you on about

 

i saw something about democracy, so in case you didn't know, palestine is a democracy. you should probably learn the facts about what you're discussing beforehand instead of trying to use some "big picture" argument to sound deep and philosophical (you didn't fyi).

 

an objective perspective? your own source says it was deemed "free and fair", what are you trying to get at

Go in sequential order. Take a step back and look at what you originally posted. You do this all the time. Look very closely to what I said in between. You get into arguments about your own arguments. I came back with Palestine was not a democracy. They may have tried it at one point; however, everything keeps staying in motion. Reading into the article clearly says Palestine is no longer a democracy. The election may have gone free and clear; nevertheless, does that mean Palestine is still a democracy? Nope.

[Det. Bart Lasiter]

I have a few questions for jmac and Avery. When did philosophical discussion die? When did we abandon the questioning of facts? When did we stop asking why 1 + 1 = 2?

go start a philosophy thread about why you think 1+1 should equal 3 then i'm sure everyone could use a laugh after discussing little kids being bombed.

 

Intelligent people look at the evidence, and then present their own philosophical resolutions. Regurgitating information from a book or articles is primitive. Creating a philosophical hypothesis from established knowledge is being inquisitive and responsible.

mentioning facts is isn't primitive. numbers don't lie. your interpretation of the word "debate" is questionable at best.

 

I like you both. You bring out the best in others; however, you seem to stop looking beyond what is in black and white. Trusting any reference in print or online alone is being reckless. I don't want to hear scripted facts from intelligent people such as yourselves. Give us something from your own philosophical conclusion about world events and life.

a grayscale includes both black and white. i'm not trusting just any source. stop playing forum psychologist and philosophizing, once again, this is a thread about the israel/palestine conflict, not philosophy.

 

You can't win a war by trying to save everyone.

whelp, guess we should just give up and let militants on both sides get people killed

 

Go in sequential order. Take a step back and look at what you originally posted. You do this all the time. Look very closely to what I said in between. You get into arguments about your own arguements. I came back with Palastine was not a democracy. They may have tried it at one point; however, everything keeps staying in motion.

again, stop playing forum psychologist. secondly, you have no evidence to back up your assertion that hamas will end democracy in palestine whereas i have evidence that palestine is a democracy (they had an election).

[True_Avery]

I have a few questions for jmac and Avery. When did philosophical discussion die? When did we abandon the questioning of facts? When did we stop asking why 1 + 1 = 2?

Why?

 

Because 1+1= ****ing 2. Thats why.

 

You want to make a thread discussing otherwise? Then go make one as we laugh at the comparison you are trying to make.

 

As for me, I have better things to do than argue irrelevant drivel.

 

Intelligent people look at the evidence, and then present their own philosophical resolutions. Regurgitating information from a book or articles is primitive. Creating a philosophical hypothesis from established knowledge is being inquisitive and responsible.

No, it makes you look like a tool. It makes your opinion subjective, and most likely incorrect.

 

You can argue that 1+1=3. The thing is, you would be wrong no matter how much you believed in it.

 

Thus, the difference between fact and opinion.

 

Hell, you could argue that your lungs work off of water. You could "read between the lines" and question why we breath air.

 

Know what would happen when you try to prove that?

 

You die.

 

End of discussion.

 

I like you both. You bring out the best in others; however, you seem to stop looking beyond what is in black and white. Trusting any reference in print or online alone is being reckless. I don't want to hear scripted facts from intelligent people such as yourselves. Give us something from your own philosophical conclusion about world events and life.

Facts -are- black and white!

 

I'm sorry, but 1+1=2. You breath oxygen, not cardboard. That is hair on your head, not a raccoon.

 

Don't accuse me of being black and white when you are the one pulling a horrid argument out of your head to make up for the fact you don't want to debate the point of this thread.

 

Sources, on the other hand, are shades of Grey. But, again...

 

What does this have to do with anything? Stop being the forum psychologist.

 

Go in sequential order. Take a step back and look at what you originally posted. You do this all the time. Look very closely to what I said in between. You get into arguments about your own arguments. I came back with Palestine was not a democracy. They may have tried it at one point; however, everything keeps staying in motion. Reading into the article clearly says Palestine is no longer a democracy. The election may have gone free and clear; nevertheless, does that mean Palestine is still a democracy? Nope.

Ok, just stop there.

 

No, really. Just stop.

 

You just called me and Jmac unintelligent for trusting facts, while you are calling yourself a philosopher by repeating something you read in an article.

 

Your article called it "free and fair". What is there to argue? They democratically decided by a majority that they didn't want to be who they were anymore. Just because they don't want to conform to your world view doesn't make them wrong. Don't be so arrogant.

 

This conflict is not about democracy. It is about a religious war that these people fight because they think the land is holy with irrational reasoning, and thus they kill each other over it. They think the other side is evil, and they believe themselves to be right with god on their shoulder.

 

They fight like this with or without democracy. The only thing they should be afraid of outside of their country is America coming in, assassinating their leader, and putting a proxy leader in place.

[Astor]

Israel means to end all wars? Nah, overkill is a little over the top. Its a small defensive move.

 

And what, exactly, is the only recourse many Palestinians have when Israel controls all access to Palestinian land from Land, Sea and Air, as well as control of food supplies? They respond in the only way that will make the world take notice - they fight.

 

It doesn't make it right, But if Israel had tried to be understanding from the beginning (And I mean 1947, when they decided they didn't need the UN and that they could take on the world themselves), then it's possible none of this would have happened.

 

EDIT: Also, why has no-one heard from the Middle East Envoy for the UN, EU, US and Russia? Surely this is exactly the type of situation where Tony Blair should, no, must speak out?

[Det. Bart Lasiter]

welp

[Yar-El]

Article - Israeli forces bisect Gaza, surround biggest city

 

You don't want to read through the lines? Here you go -

The ground operation is the second phase in an offensive that began as a weeklong aerial onslaught aimed at halting Hamas rocket fire that has reached deeper and deeper into Israel, threatening major cities and one-eighth of Israel's population.

 

Hamas emerged as Gaza's main power broker when it won Palestinian parliamentary elections three years ago. It has ruled the impoverished territory since seizing control from forces loyal to Abbas in June 2007.

There are always two sides to the story.

 

Article - The history behind Israel's Gaza strikes

 

What's Hamas?

The organization was created in 1987 at the start of the first intifada — a Palestinian uprising against the Israeli occupation of Gaza and the West Bank. Hamas maintains that it will never agree to a permanent cease-fire while Israel occupies Palestinian land. Its stated aim is the destruction of Israel.

 

The United States, EU and Israel consider Hamas a terrorist organization. It has links to Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, and members carry out suicide bombings and periodically hit the south of Israel with rockets to protest settlement building and to avenge the killings of its Hamas leaders. The organization also operates schools and clinics and has gained the trust of many who were disappointed by the corrupt secular Palestinian Authority.

 

Parliamentary elections swept the Hamas government of Ismail Haniyah into power in January 2006, and Fatah and Hamas created a unity government, but pitched battles between Fatah and Hamas supporters led to the dissolution of the coalition in 2007. Tensions between the two groups erupted into a virtual civil war, but despite this Hamas has been launching rockets into Israel and mortar attacks on Israeli army border posts.

 

[Det. Bart Lasiter]

Article - Israeli forces bisect Gaza, surround biggest city

 

 

 

 

There are always two sides to the story.

 

Article - The history behind Israel's Gaza strikes

abbas lost the election and tried to maintain power because he had the support of the u.s. and israel, the fact remains that he lost and hamas was forced to remove him from power. also msnbc fails to mention that most of hamas' operations and 90% of its budget are put towards humanitarian usage, many israelis don't recognize palestine and want it wiped off the map, and that bombing people from an f-16 is no more moral than a suicide bomber killing people. maybe before you give your two sides to a story thing you should find sources that give an accurate picture of both sides.

 

http://www.cfr.org/publication/8968/

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=360533&contrassID=2&subContrassID=1&sbSubContrassID=0&listSrc=Y

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/feb/29/israelandthepalestinians1

 

you're also neglecting the fact that hamas' rocket attacks were in retaliation to israel killing palestinians last month, as i've stated multiple times.

[Astor]

You don't want to read through the lines? Here you go -

 

I find that attitude (that we're not going to read the source) insulting, and hardly conducive to discussion.

 

There are always two sides to the story.[/Quote]

 

Which no-one has denied - Hamas and Israel are just as bad as each other - but that's no reason for Israel to treat other Palestinians in such a manner.

[Yar-El]

My comments are focused towards jmac and Avery's posts. Everyone else just ignore my comments. I mean not to offend.

[Det. Bart Lasiter]

My comments are focused towards jmac and Avery's posts. Everyone else just ignore my comments. I mean not to offend.

what? no. you posted that mess, now defend it.

 

Please refer to members by their name and don't accuse them of being banned members -- j7

[Adavardes]

No, it makes you look like a tool. It makes your opinion subjective, and most likely incorrect.

 

You can argue that 1+1=3. The thing is, you would be wrong no matter how much you believed in it.

 

Thus, the difference between fact and opinion.

 

Hell, you could argue that your lungs work off of water. You could "read between the lines" and question why we breath air.

 

Know what would happen when you try to prove that?

 

You die.

 

End of discussion.

 

There are things I agree and disagree with on this point. First, it's important to realise what Philosophy and debate really is. Philosophy is essentially the art of writing an opinion with such an eloquence and in such a fully-encompassing way as to transfer the entire mental and emotional connotations of the opinion to another individual, so that the opinion of one individual becomes the shared opinion of more than one individual. Sometimes, however, shared opinions clash, and the perspectives of individuals differ. Thus disagreement is born, and in order to better understand and grow into a more comprehensive understanding of other perspectives and opinions, we debate, and contest our ideologies against those that oppose us.

 

Absolute facts do not exist, simply because the matter of individual perspective is always a factor. Opinion is always subjective, even when at its most objective form, and no single opinion is more valid than others. It's difficult to break the world down into black and white, when all manners of science and math are human concepts, and are thusly subjective and flawed at the core of what they are. 1+1=2, yes, but who's to say the Arabians had that whole math thing absolutely right? Sure, it's close to being an absolute, but still, it's no cigar. There are varying shades of philosophical involvement in debate, and varying levels of opinion involved. When talking about religion, for example. But all debate, which is what this is, has a basis in opinion, subjectivity, and philosophy, however small that basis is.

 

Yar-El, however, was rambling on about what I can only guess was some sort of Manifest Destiny rhetoric that made no sense in context with what this particular debate is about. Are the current actions of Israel and/or Palestine, which are considered factual occurances, justified? It's obviously reason for disagreement of opinion, and so we argue. Consequentialists against Humanists, Conservatives against Liberals, whatever you want to call it, this is a matter of philosophy. However, don't mistake what Yar-El was doing as some sort of philosophical discussion, but more like inane rambling. There's a definite difference.

[Det. Bart Lasiter]

There are things I agree and disagree with on this point. First, it's important to realise what Philosophy and debate really is. Philosophy is essentially the art of writing an opinion with such an eloquence and in such a fully-encompassing way as to transfer the entire mental and emotional connotations of the opinion to another individual, so that the opinion of one individual becomes the shared opinion of more than one individual. Sometimes, however, shared opinions clash, and the perspectives of individuals differ. Thus disagreement is born, and in order to better understand and grow into a more comprehensive understanding of other perspectives and opinions, we debate, and contest our ideologies against those that oppose us.

 

Absolute facts do not exist, simply because the matter of individual perspective is always a factor. Opinion is always subjective, even when at its most objective form, and no single opinion is more valid than others. It's difficult to break the world down into black and white, when all manners of science and math are human concepts, and are thusly subjective and flawed at the core of what they are. 1+1=2, yes, but who's to say the Arabians had that whole math thing absolutely right? Sure, it's close to being an absolute, but still, it's no cigar. There are varying shades of philosophical involvement in debate, and varying levels of opinion involved. When talking about religion, for example. But all debate, which is what this is, has a basis in opinion, subjectivity, and philosophy, however small that basis is.

 

Yar-El, however, was rambling on about what I can only guess was some sort of Manifest Destiny rhetoric that made no sense in context of what this particular debate is about. Are the current actions of Israel and/or Palestine justified? It's obviously reason for disagreement of opinion, and so we argue. Consequentialists against Humanists, Conservatives against Liberals, whatever you want to call it, this is a matter of philosophy. However, don't mistake what Yar-El was doing as some sort of philosophical discussion, but more like inane rambling. There's a definite difference.

1+1=2 is not close to being an absolute, it is absolute, adding one object to another object of the same type makes two objects, adding 0.999 objects to 0.999 objects yields 1.998 objects. math like this is an example of absolute fact. when used to symbolize something it can be inaccurate, however this is an issue of its usage and not the concepts themselves.

[Adavardes]

1+1=2 is not close to being an absolute, it is absolute, adding one object to another object of the same type makes two objects, adding 0.999 objects to 0.999 objects yields 1.998 objects. math like this is an example of absolute fact. when used to symbolize something it can be inaccurate, however this is an issue of its usage and not the concepts themselves.

 

Mmmk, and what are those symbols, my friend? What do they mean? They are the means by which we quantify things, but who's to say that there are two of something, or that there is only one? The concepts are human, made by multiple perspectives, but still, do not encompass a fully objective, absolute perspective in its construction. Therefore, it can never be an absolute fact. To claim otherwise is rather foolish. When you can bring me proof that math is an absolute fact without the slightest hint of opinion, which you yourself cannot do, as you are subjective and have an opinionated perspective, then we'll talk.

 

But we're getting off-topic. I was merely trying to say that naming what Yar-El was doing philosophical and claiming that it has no place in debate isn't really correct. What he was doing has no place in this particular debate, yes, but philosophy is present in all debate. The clashing of philosophies is the very definition of what debating is.

[jonathan7]

Call members by their names, any further instances of anyone calling a member the name of a former member will result in a 'Kavars Cool-off' being issued -- j7

[Det. Bart Lasiter]

Mmmk, and what are those symbols, my friend? What do they mean? They are the means by which we quantify things, but who's to say that there are two of something, or that there is only one? The concepts are human, made by multiple perspectives, but still, do not encompass a fully objective, absolute perspective in its construction. Therefore, it can never be an absolute fact. To claim otherwise is rather foolish. When you can bring me proof that math is an absolute fact without the slightest hint of opinion, which you yourself cannot do, as you are subjective and have an opinionated perspective, then we'll talk.

 

But we're getting off-topic. I was merely trying to say that naming what Yar-El was doing philosophical and claiming that it has no place in debate isn't really correct. What he was doing has no place in this particular debate, yes, but philosophy is present in all debate. The clashing of philosophies is the very definition of what debating is.

lol ok man, attack human perception as a way to make this foolishness sound deep and ethereal. the fact remains that i can prove 1+1=2, and our eyes can perceive light, and you can offer no evidence to the contrary.

[Adavardes]

lol ok man, attack human perception as a way to make this foolishness sound deep and ethereal. the fact remains that i can prove 1+1=2, and our eyes can perceive light, and you can offer no evidence to the contrary.

 

How do you know my eyes can perceive light the same way yours do? What if to me, green is red? What if to me, 1 is 2? Are you me; can you say that my perspective, which is unique from your own, is exactly like yours? No, you can't, because, again, you are one inidividual with your own perspective. And that's the wonderful thing about humanity. Each of us are unique.

 

Oh, and please don't mock me, it's kind of bothersome. Just use the correct words for the correct situations, and we'll be good. What Yar-El was saying had nothing to do with actually being philosophical. Maybe trying, but no, that wasn't really what that was. I'm not trying to sound deep and ethereal, maybe it seems that way to you, but I'm just clearing up a mistake you made in your wording.

[Yar-El]

My plan was to make a statement about not taking things at face value. Facts presented in articles and newspapers shouldn't be taken as absolute. I translate articles by seeing through what is presented. I brought up math as a poor example. 1 + 1 = 2 only through mathamatical sciences; however, there is no explination as to why it does. It just does. Math is not a truth, but a trusted system of measurement. It was a horrible and convoluted example. I failed. I was trying to get you to open your eyes to wagging the dog; however, it resulted in a ramble of a sorts. I apologize for the lack of simplicity.

[EnderWiggin]

Why?

 

Because 1+1= ****ing 2. Thats why.

 

Well put.

I'm sorry, but 1+1=2. You breath oxygen, not cardboard. That is hair on your head, not a raccoon.

 

Except in my dreams, Yar, where there actually is a raccoon on your head.

Your article called it "free and fair". What is there to argue? They democratically decided by a majority that they didn't want to be who they were anymore. Just because they don't want to conform to your world view doesn't make them wrong. Don't be so arrogant.

 

Damn straight.

 

abbas lost the election and tried to maintain power because he had the support of the u.s. and israel, the fact remains that he lost and hamas was forced to remove him from power. also msnbc fails to mention that most of hamas' operations and 90% of its budget are put towards humanitarian usage, many israelis don't recognize palestine and want it wiped off the map, and that bombing people from an f-16 is no more moral than a suicide bomber killing people. maybe before you give your two sides to a story thing you should find sources that give an accurate picture of both sides.

 

http://www.cfr.org/publication/8968/

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=360533&contrassID=2&subContrassID=1&sbSubContrassID=0&listSrc=Y

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/feb/29/israelandthepalestinians1

 

you're also neglecting the fact that hamas' rocket attacks were in retaliation to israel killing palestinians last month, as i've stated multiple times.

 

I agree - especially with the last sentiment. Hamas isn't really the aggressor this time around. America needs to stop playing policeman in the world.

 

Absolute facts do not exist

Sorry, but no.

 

Achilles, if you'd please?

 

_EW_

[Adavardes]

Sorry, but no.

 

Achilles, if you'd please?

 

_EW_

 

Facts are concepts, which are inevitably created by men, and thusly are inevitably flawed. This isn't to say that they can't be true for every perspective in existence: they can, but that doesn't mean they're absolutely true. There is mitigating proof to back up most facts, and evidence that consequentially makes it less subjective and flawed than others, but it still remains that human concepts are flawed concepts, because humanity is subjective, emotional, and individualistic.

 

I'd prefer if everyone would get back to the topic at hand, which is Israel and Palestine. If you'd like to start a thread on human perceptions, where we can discuss this further, be my guest. I've said all I feel needs to be said.

[Achilles]

Israel shells near UN school, killing at least 30

[Det. Bart Lasiter]

Israel shells near UN school, killing at least 30

at least it wasn't white phosphorous?