BF2S Forums WOW!!!!!!!!..........Is This The First Real Step To Peace In The M.E

Mekstizzle wrote:

So fucking what if people have a "who cares about Jews" attitude? Fuck you, why should I fucking give a shit. I don't care about Africans, or generally anyone else either. Or is it only Jews you care about because they're supposed to be special. To whoever said that bullshit comment about us "not caring about Jews" yeah, so fucking what? What the fuck are you going to do, besides calling me an anti-semetic, just because I don't care (and therefore you automatically assume that I hate)

Fuck 'em all man who cares

We get it. You're self centered. Fuck, fuck, eat a dick, fuck, bullshit, fuck, ... these (mostly random) rants aren't doing it for me anymore.

Sincerely, White Bread American.

Pug wrote:

They've certainly violated their borders, but at the same time one could argue that the other side did not adhere to their side of the agreement either.

The other side never agreed to anything, they had Israel imposed on them.
There is no need to abide by an agreement if you weren't party to the negotiations and did not sign it.

Pug wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Pug wrote:

They've certainly violated their borders, but at the same time one could argue that the other side did not adhere to their side of the agreement either.

The other side never agreed to anything, they had Israel imposed on them.
There is no need to abide by an agreement if you weren't party to the negotiations and did not sign it.

Which one did they not sign?

The WWI peace treaty?
or
The Six Day War peace treaty?

So Israel is still at war?

Treaty schmeaty... at the end of the day as far as the Palestinians are concerned as of 1948 they have had a country plopped on top of them. They are understandably annoyed, as would anyone else be. As far as we're all concerned we simply pick the side that appeals to our sense of morals... I'm Irish, I have seen what happened in the North and therefore the Palestinian cause speaks directly to me; if you are an American, a descendant of a settler from a foreign land and an ally to the Israeli state you will most likely side with Israel. If you are familiar with the facts and the history and have already chosen a side then there is only so much point in arguing with someone on the other side of the fence... the fundamentals of the argument are too polarised to allow for any wiggle room.

A two-state solution with full recognition of each other's statehood and human rights is the only viable option imo.

Braddock wrote:

rdx-fx wrote:

I'm not playing any victim card here.  I'm not Jewish, nor am I Israeli.  But, as you also pointed out, the Jews got screwed over by continental Europe during and after World War 2. Yes, carving a chunk out of Germany would've been appropriate - but none of the continental European nations could be bothered with making things right for the Jews. Apathy was the best the Jews could expect from continental Europe at the time.

Incorrect my good friend, the Jews were screwed over by Nazi Germany and Germany does not constitute continental Europe. The rest of Europe owed nothing to the Jews - before or after WW2. There was no obligation on any European nation to do anything for the Jewish population of another country... why would there be? Why should Britain or Greece or Poland have to 'atone' for the actions of the Nazis? It should have been up to the German people to make things right for the Jews and they should have paid the price with their own land. Just look at how prosperous modern Germany is now while Palestine is picking up their tab.

It wasn't about atonement or being held accountable. It was about helping out a people that got the shit kicked out of them.

There is a difference between doing something from an obligation of responsibility - and doing something simply because it's the right thing to do, and you have the ability to.  Let me list a couple examples of the latter;

The USA wasn't responsible for Hitler trying to take over Russia and Europe - yet we were shoveling money, arms, and supplies to Russia and the Allies (long before Pearl Harbor). We weren't responsible for the mess - but we helped anyways, because it was the right thing to do.

Just as we helped rebuild our former adversaries after World War 2.  Japan and Germany were the primary opponents in WW-2, yet we spent years of effort and a great deal of money to help them rebuild into healthy allies.  (Rather than the "grind them into the ground" punising treaty inflicted on Germany after WW-2, which definitely helped lead to WW-2)

Braddock wrote:

rdx-fx wrote:

England, however, went out of it's way to make things right for the Jews.  England, being part of Europe but not part of the mainland continent of Europe.  Hence my distinction between the two.

You have a romantic view of England mate. They showed just as mush irresponsible apathy as everyone else in allowing an unchecked flow of refugees into the holy land, it wasn't a proactive effort to do right by the Jewish world... then when things got too messy they dropped it like a hot potato! And what about doing right by the indigenous Palestinian people? Who was there to do right by them?

It's not about any 'romantic notions'.  Plain and simple, England was the major sponsor of Israeli statehood.  Again, they had no obligation to do so. I make the distinction between England and continental Europe particularly for that action. 

The nations of continental Europe, on the other hand, have a fairly spotty record of repatriating the Jews that Hitler had carted off to various death camps.  Tersely put, Hitler had done the heavy lifting for them - and the continental Europeans weren't in any real hurry to take back those Jews that Hitler had carted off for them.

Braddock wrote:

rdx-fx wrote:

The jab at "Irishmen on BF2S" was directed at the general handful of "Irishmen on BF2S" who seem to hold far different world-views than myself, and apparently delight in argument for the sake of argument (as opposed to trying to convey information or ideas).

Argument for the sake of argument? Give examples of this please or kindly be quiet. I can't think of any Irishmen on here who waste time arguing without at least making some sort of point or conveying some sort of information.

Okay, here, have one;
Invitation to a pissing contest, not a rational discussion.

Cameron Poe wrote:

Fuck George W. Bush and fuck his administration. As the protestor shouted: "This is the end". Fuck him and fuck everyone who had the macho ignorance (Team America fuck yeah!)/sheer stupidity to ever have supported his military actions outside of Afghanistan. Fitting that one of the supreme Arab insults - of attacking someone with your shoe - seen when the Saddam statue was toppled - was used in anger against this evil cunt too.

Now, if you could, find me an example of 'one of your Irishmen' giving up a point, or significantly revising their argument and agreeing that their position was in error.  My observation is that the Irish here generally tend to Lecture and Argue, in place of Discuss and Debate.

rdx-fx wrote:

And, again, "playing the victim card again?" ?  Seriously, WTF?  This is a thread about the middle east.  Israeli history is appropriate here.  If you want to start a thread about the various "we got screwed" moments in Irish history - go nuts.  There's plenty.

Braddock wrote:

What do you think the world would say if the Irish Government expelled all Protestants in the North after Irish unification? It would unfeasible and acceptable and the world would be rightfully appalled. There comes a point when ancient history can no longer be used as an excuse for things; that's also the reason why I think a two-state solution is necessary now in Israel, there are too many innocent second-generation Israelis in the region now and it would be unfeasible to demand that they leave and go elsewhere now. Israel's 'crime' was committed at its inception but there is a new reality that must now be dealt with.

I can agree with the general sentiment you put forth, save for two points;

First, the formation of Israel wasn't a 'crime'.  That, however, can (and has) been argued to death .. then the dead horse was turned to glue, and argued over who owns the glue..

Second, I would be in support of a new Palestinian state being patially carved out of one of the other middle eastern states, and partly out of the existing claimed territories.  Again, not because it's their (non-Israeli M.E.)  fault  - but because it would go a great way towards helping out their 'brothers'.  This Israel/Palestine co-mingled state will not work as there is far too much bad blood between them.




But.. What i think is irrelevant.  Israel exists.  Israel will continue to exist as long as it can defend itself.  And the 'poor, downtrodden masses' of Palestinians will continue to be used as a dagger in Israel's proverbial side  by the rest of the middle east.  To be clear - the rest of the middle east seems far far more interested in using Palestinians as a weapon against Israel, than of settling the issue and helping Palestinians live a peaceful life. 

Cries for justice and fairness will only be used as long as the anti-Israelis have the weaker military position.  If not for the backing of the USA, a great many middle eastern countries would've 'wiped Israel off the map'  - international opinions of fairness and justice be damned.



(Note:  FFS, took 10 minutes to track down an errant /quote on the above mess)

And what of the question you ignored?

fair nuf

ceding land as a concession to a war.  remember the first big one?  nevermind continue...

Braddock wrote:

As regards continental Europe and moral obligations...

Europe and the US eventually dug in and defeated the Nazis, primarily out of self interest and then possibly, on a secondary or tertiary level, on the grounds of moral obligation. Now one can argue the mechanics of how things came to pass but the fact is their combined intervention saved the Jewish population of Europe and for that maybe certain people should be a bit more appreciative. Beyond that the Allied nations have no more obligation to the Jewish race than they have do to Zimbabweans suffering from cholera or Sudanese victims of terror and genocide... why should one race get preferential treatment and bigger headlines? Granted, you could argue that the holocaust was on Europe's own doorstep unlike the other examples but I still don't believe the rest of Europe was in any way duty-bound to clean up after the Germans... should the US be held responsible for the mess in Haiti? And again I must stress why should the Palestinians be the ones picking up the tab? Why should we help kick the shit of one set of people just because another have had the shit kicked out of them? The Palestinians are entirely blameless when it comes to the modern day persecution of the Jews.

It's not always about obligations of duty, fairness, or morality.  Sometimes it's about "We can help, we like these guys, and/or we can relate to them". 

Also;
We could've stuck Germany with the cleanup bill for WW-2, and the cause of WW-3 may have ended up being same as the cause of WW-2 -- hell of a return on investement for a single Serbian revolver bullet (i.e, a trigger point for WW-1 being a serbian revolver bullet).

Braddock wrote:

On the issue of English imperialism...

Okay, so you have a rosy view of English imperialism around the world. I'm afraid our opinions differ in this regard. You look at Britain as brave benefactors of the Israeli state... when I think of British imperialism I think of Ireland/Northern Ireland, India/Pakistan, Israel/Palestine and Zimbabwe to name but a few. All the shitspots of the world directly linked in some way to the British empire... coincidence? Well, that's a matter of opinion I suppose.

Actually, I was ignoring the issue of English imperialism for the moment.  As an American, I guess I'm able to separate that out from the topic with more ease than an Irishman.
(NOT intended as an insult.  More of a contrast of perspectives.  Both our countries histories are very much tied to English imperialism, but in vastly different ways.  I think this difference in perspective is worth mentioning insofar as it helps define our relative perspectives on Israel/Palestine.).

Braddock wrote:

On the issue of sweeping generalisations about Irish people on this forum...

You appear to have taken one post from my brother and presented it as some sort of proof that he never actually debates facts and ideas in an argument. I lived with the guy for about 16 years, I know exactly how he argues and if you look through this forum you'll find many, many logically and rationally constructed arguments from him. Everyone here has a good old rant from time to time... shall I judge all American's debating abilities on the likes of usmarine or Major Spittle?

Arguing an Irishman, invading Russia in the winter, and starting a war with an Arab.  Three things you should never do if you ever expect to see an end to it. (/humor)

CamPoe does make points, does provide logical arguments - but, having known him for 16 years, how often have you seen him give any ground, concede a point, or try to build a consensus of agreement?  that is the Irish method of argument I'm used to - no compromise, just escalation until people are getting red in the face.

That is the difference I see between Argument and Debate.

You, in contrast, seem able to find points of agreement.  So, I'll put away my wide brush.

Braddock wrote:

On the issue of a two-state solution and the role of Arab neighbours...

The legality or illegality of Israel is a matter of pure subjectivity... truth and fact can be a slippery fish in International politics. What can't be argued is that they do indeed have the requisite level of International recognition to be regarded as a 'real' State, I'll give you that. At least we see eye to eye somewhat on the issue of a two-state solution and the necessity of an actual Palestinian State, though I don't see why other nations should have to give up land while Israel keeps the majority of its land (much of which is Internationally recognised as stolen). A return to pre-war borders is a must in my opinion. I do agree with you that the Arab nations are a huge obstacle in the Israel/Palestine saga. They get a lot of mileage out Israel being 'the big bad guy' and I don't believe they truly have the Palestinian people's needs at heart.

Unfortunately, I doubt the tempers prevalent in the middle east are likely to ever agree on what constitutes a just, logical, and lasting peace.

Trick is to get the sides separated long enough that they get used to the idea of not killing each other as the norm.
Then, and only then, could those using the situation for their own propaganda/agenda be shown for what they are.
(akin to a bloodthirsty spectator who continutes to yell and cheer at a boxing match after the bell has rung to end the round)


I had the half-formed idea of illustrating England/Ireland as a template for how Israel/Palestine could come to a resolution.  I almost as quickly shit-canned the idea as having too many disparate details, and too much potential for stirring up a shit storm.

Braddock wrote:

A two-state solution with full recognition of each other's statehood and human rights is the only viable option imo.

QFT. Hamas is the only relevant party that rejects that inevitable conclusion.

san4 wrote:

Braddock wrote:

A two-state solution with full recognition of each other's statehood and human rights is the only viable option imo.

QFT. Hamas is the only relevant party that rejects that inevitable conclusion.

Hamas is in touch with the Palestinian people... but sadly out of touch with reality.

Turquoise wrote:

The problem is that Israel is so self-centered that they've somehow convinced us that it's in our best interests to look after theirs.

Theres going to be a hell of a big bang if the US ever realises how they've been played.

Actually, come to think of it, is there anything in the New Testament which says you have to pay any attention to the Old Testament?
Why do the NT Christians give a crap about Israel (as opposed to OT Godians).

lowing wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

The problem is that Israel is so self-centered that they've somehow convinced us that it's in our best interests to look after theirs.

Theres going to be a hell of a big bang if the US ever realises how they've been played.

Actually, come to think of it, is there anything in the New Testament which says you have to pay any attention to the Old Testament?
Why do the NT Christians give a crap about Israel (as opposed to OT Godians).

As a nation we don't, we just recognize the realization that without someone on their side the Jews in this world will never stand a chance. Or are you missing the fact that everyone wants Israel destroyed in comparison to Israel, who just wants everyone to leave them the hell alone?

First things first....  The reason why a lot of evangelicals put so much emphasis on Israel is because they've decided to throw in their lot with a crazy guy named John Darby.  Dispensationalism is much of the basis for Christian Zionism.

Second, while I agree that much of the world hates Israel, they've clearly shown that they want far more than just people to leave them alone.  Remember the recent "practice" air strike they did with regards to Iran?  They tend to be a rather aggressive country, so they really can't fall back on the defense argument.

Granted, I'm not saying I like the Palestinians or Arabs either.  They've fucked plenty of things up in their own right.

lowing wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

lowing wrote:

As a nation we don't, we just recognize the realization that without someone on their side the Jews in this world will never stand a chance. Or are you missing the fact that everyone wants Israel destroyed in comparison to Israel, who just wants everyone to leave them the hell alone?

First things first....  The reason why a lot of evangelicals put so much emphasis on Israel is because they've decided to throw in their lot with a crazy guy named John Darby.  Dispensationalism is much of the basis for Christian Zionism.

Second, while I agree that much of the world hates Israel, they've clearly shown that they want far more than just people to leave them alone.  Remember the recent "practice" air strike they did with regards to Iran?  They tend to be a rather aggressive country, so they really can't fall back on the defense argument.

Granted, I'm not saying I like the Palestinians or Arabs either.  They've fucked plenty of things up in their own right.

Do you blame Israel for their posturing given all of the threats openly made by Iran and others? Israel is sick of this shit and will probably take the gloves off and take the fight to Iran that they have been begging for. Soon enough, however, they will begging for someone t opull Israel off of them.

I'll put it this way.  I'd shed no tears if they all just killed each other -- it would spare the rest of the world their troubles.

The only reason we even give a shit about this region is because of oil.  If they didn't have that, only the religious people would probably care.  Otherwise, it would be just as interesting to us as one of the many massacres in Africa.