Israel and Hamas trade blows yet again; may possibly escalate into a ground war [Archive]

Hooahguy

11-15-2012, 17:14

Im pretty shocked that there isnt a post on this yet.

Hundreds of rockets have been launched at Israel, and 3 Israeli civilians have been killed so far (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-20336811).
Also, 16 Palestinians have been reported killed.

The Iron Dome interceptor system seems to be working pretty well so far- Israel reports that 145 of the around 200 rockets have been intercepted.

Im not surprised at all of this, but Im wondering if peace will ever be possible.

I get why the Palestinians feel the need to send rockets over even though they dont do all that much to convince Israel to change their mind, so I think its more for PR and to get them on the front page of CNN and BBC.

Fragony

11-15-2012, 17:21

There isn't a post about the hundreds of rockets because people who read quality media actually think they are being informed.

gaelic cowboy

11-15-2012, 17:25

This is merely and attempt to distract Israel and the rest of the world from degrading Iran's freedom of action in Syria/Lebanon.

Sir Moody

11-15-2012, 18:31

I think it is more to do with the fact we are all so used to these two bickering like children with explosive hardware - it doesn't have any shock value anymore and the discussion will always be the same

Hopefully there wont be any ground action this time or we may then have something to discuss...

Idaho

11-15-2012, 18:50

Gaza isn't a functional state. It doesn't have normal political or economic rights. Israel just wants it to dissappear.

Sarmatian

11-15-2012, 22:13

IIRC, this happened because Israel took out of the leader of Hamas' military wing. Not at all surprising, and as usual I sympathize with both sides. :shrug:

I don't sympathize with either side. I sympathize with normal people on both sides. The clique on both sides should commit mass suicide and just maybe allow people to live normal lives.

+ points if they film it and release it on youtube.

HoreTore

11-15-2012, 23:14

The Israeli extremists truly believe they have a right to the land, and they've defended it valiantly for decades now. The Palestinian extremists believe the same. It is easy for people to say that they can't sympathize with militarists, jihadists, or whatever--but when pushed far enough you sometimes have to embrace violence to achieve your goals. The people truly in need of sympathy are indeed the normal folks, but I am not so high and mighty as to pretend the motivations of the 'bad guys' on both sides are foreign to me.

Nationalists are nationalists.

Anyway, back to the current situation:

I believe the Israelis and Palestinians are adding the situation in Syria into account when deciding what to do. Just how they assess the Syrian factor isn't something I claim to know, but here's a few ideas of what they may be thinking:

- Israel wants to reach their objectives(whatever that may be) before the Syrian situation is resolved. They believe the jihadi focus is currently on Assad, and wants to get things done before they can turn their eyes on Israel again.
- Israel wants to play it cool for the moment, not provocing a major conflict. They believe the Jihadis now engaged in Syria might spill over if they escalate the situation. Worst case scenario here would be a hostile Assad still in power combined with more jihadis in Palestine.
- The palestinian militants wants to do business while the iron is hot. They believe now is the time to strike because they are likely to gain assistance from the militants in Syria.
- the palestinians want a low intensity struggle, to keep things going until the jihadis win Syria, at which time they expect the jihadis to come to their aid full-force.
- With security council eyes on Syria, Israel/Palestine recons they can get away with things easier than previously. Thus, they will try to achieve minor objectives now.

Seamus Fermanagh

11-16-2012, 04:59

Nationalists are nationalists.

Anyway, back to the current situation:

I believe the Israelis and Palestinians are adding the situation in Syria into account when deciding what to do. Just how they assess the Syrian factor isn't something I claim to know, but here's a few ideas of what they may be thinking:

- Israel wants to reach their objectives(whatever that may be) before the Syrian situation is resolved. They believe the jihadi focus is currently on Assad, and wants to get things done before they can turn their eyes on Israel again.
- Israel wants to play it cool for the moment, not provocing a major conflict. They believe the Jihadis now engaged in Syria might spill over if they escalate the situation. Worst case scenario here would be a hostile Assad still in power combined with more jihadis in Palestine.
- The palestinian militants wants to do business while the iron is hot. They believe now is the time to strike because they are likely to gain assistance from the militants in Syria.
- the palestinians want a low intensity struggle, to keep things going until the jihadis win Syria, at which time they expect the jihadis to come to their aid full-force.
- With security council eyes on Syria, Israel/Palestine recons they can get away with things easier than previously. Thus, they will try to achieve minor objectives now.

Syria is an escalation of problems for Israel regardless of outcome. Either Assad will be deposed and another government will form -- almost certainly following the tone set by Egypt of being less tolerant of Israel -- OR -- Assad will crush the rebellion and those fighters will be pushed out into the Bekaa. Either way, Israel "wins" more militants (recently trained) on its border.

Major Robert Dump

11-16-2012, 06:11

I'm pretty sure that Obama can fix this. The muslims really like him since that one speech fixed everything, so if only he would like go over there and talk to them and stuff, maybe get both sides to do a fist bump, we can fix this situation and put it off for another 12 weeks until it flares up again.

Hooahguy

11-16-2012, 06:24

I feel really apathetic to the whole situation in Israel/Palestine. Maybe because last time this happened I was the only one of my friends who really took an interest in what was happening. My friends and I were in our 2nd year of high school and foreign issues, even of a massive one that involved Israel, wasnt such a big deal for most of my age group since we had bigger things on our minds. So now that my friends are all grown up and seem to care more about certain issues, they are all freaking out over facebook and all this "I stand with Israel" crap that everybody and his/her 2nd cousin is posting and raising a big commotion about, I just cant care less for the situation. I only posted a topic here about it since there wasnt one already. Im just so jaded and tired from the last string of debates we had on this. The original thread when Cast Lead happened had 922 posts in it, and there were probably a dozen more threads after it was locked. I remember that it went on so long that the mods actually banned Israel/Palestine topics for a few months.

And for some reason, it feels great not to care. Ive got bigger things on my mind. Classes, social life in college, stuff like that. But Israel is not one of them.

Point is, pretty much every Jew I know is freaking out about this and I find myself wonderfully apathetic.

a completely inoffensive name

11-16-2012, 07:30

I'm tired of the back and forth, even the Cold War ended, let one side annihilate the other already and lets move on.

Sarmatian

11-16-2012, 08:45

Ironside

11-16-2012, 10:50

IIRC, this happened because Israel took out of the leader of Hamas' military wing. Not at all surprising, and as usual I sympathize with both sides. :shrug:

Had some prehistory. Appearently some non-Hamas salafi militia killed Israeli soldiers in some border skirmish. Since it's Hamas' responsibillity to control those (Hamas being the goverment in Gaza) and they haven't done so, Israel got fed up (the situation in Syria probably influenced greatly) and took out that Hamas leader.

And fed up covers the issue pretty much.

Fragony

11-16-2012, 11:12

Had some prehistory. Appearently some non-Hamas salafi militia killed Israeli soldiers in some border skirmish. Since it's Hamas' responsibillity to control those (Hamas being the goverment in Gaza) and they haven't done so, Israel got fed up (the situation in Syria probably influenced greatly) and took out that Hamas leader.

And fed up covers the issue pretty much.

It probably even wasn't Hamas but Islamic Jihad who are much worse, that is also the difficulty Hamas is facing, even if they wanted to form a government more radical elements won't allow it. It ain't going to happen, Hamas will have to control even more radical factions if they try to be reasonable and become a target itself.

Idaho

11-16-2012, 13:39

No country or province in the world that is subject to blockade and military strkes is going to have a moderate and non-militarised political structure. Can you imagine the kinds of political front runners you would get in texas if Mexico locked down it's borders and sent in the occasional air strike?

Hooahguy

11-16-2012, 16:04

Lemur

11-16-2012, 22:48

A good question: What is Israel's long-term strategy? (http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/11/the-iron-dome-press-bias-and-israels-lack-of-strategic-thinking/265360/)

Short-term, I understand: No state can agree to have its civilians rocketed. But long-term, do Israeli leaders believe that they possess a military solution to their political problem in Gaza? There is no way out of this militarily. Israel is not Russia, Gaza is not Chechnya and Netanyahu isn't Putin. Even if Israel were morally capable of acting like Russia, the world would not allow it. So: Is the goal to empower Hamas? Some right-wingers in Israel would prefer Hamas's empowerment, because they want to kill the idea of a two-state solution. But to those leaders who are at least verbally committed to the idea of partition, what is the plan?

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

11-17-2012, 00:17

I hate my fellow Jews so :daisy: much. Cant stand them. In an effort to show why the Palestinians might just be a bit angry at Israel I posted this image:

https://i.imgur.com/rqOJI.jpg

with the caption: "It is important in this conflict to try to see both sides of the issue."

Oh boy did that open a :daisy:storm.

I got three messages calling me a terrorist sympathizer and a storm of angry comments. Just ended up deleting the picture.

And people wonder why I am anti-Zionist.

I long ago separated "Jews" and "Israelis" - Israelis are screwed, long term, unless they give Palestinians equal rights and end Apartheid.

Jews are just people - but some of them think they're the same as Israelis, when really they're not.

Montmorency

11-17-2012, 00:27

The only short-term solution? Any old casus belli will do, I suppose.

TinCow

11-17-2012, 00:32

Point is, pretty much every Jew I know is freaking out about this and I find myself wonderfully apathetic.

I join you in apathy. If anything, I'm more pissed off with Israel than anything else. I don't know how it's possible to look at this situation and conclude that Israel isn't the aggressor. They struck first and they're hammering the Palestinians 100 times as hard as they're getting in return. If I was living in Gaza, I'd sure as hell be trying to shoot back. When you're the big boy on the block with all the fancy toys, you don't get to play the victim. Israel has no one but themselves to blame if their relations with Egypt got to pot over this.

Montmorency

11-17-2012, 00:32

As is the assassination of a high-ranker. :shrug:

But proportionality is not a concern when the goal is to obviate negotiations.

Montmorency

11-17-2012, 01:11

Do you believe that we should attack with military force the Mexican state over the actions of the cartels?

Kralizec

11-17-2012, 01:22

Rockets were coming in before the assassination. Don't get me wrong, Israel is largely responsible for the strategic situation as it exists, but i cannot fault them for what they're doing right now.

Yes, but then again, rockets have been fired intermittenly throughout the entire year.

To little effect, mostly.

I'm not saying Israel shouldn't respond to them. But all things considered I don't see how their policies at large, with so many Palestinian deaths as collateral damage, can be considered a proportionate response.

Montmorency

11-17-2012, 01:29

Does it? The cartels are doing demonstrable harm to the country, and the Mexican government has failed to curtail them. You don't think this would serve as cause to launch ordnance at Mexican urban centers? Don't forget that it was the jihadists (http://www.jpost.com/Defense/Article.aspx?id=291550)who claimed to have launched the tendentious rockets.

But I do see a missing element - we're not blockading Mexico nor actively attempting to prevent the recognition of Mexico as a state-peer by the world. Though there's something interesting to be said concerning our occupation of the "Western territories". :beam:

1. Ending the rocket attacks, this means sending in the army.

2. Achieving a lasting piece. This means making political concessions to the Palestinians.

What if #2 is the most effective means for achieving #1 available?

TinCow

11-17-2012, 01:52

1. Ending the rocket attacks, this means sending in the army.

The problem is, sending in the army won't stop the rocket attacks. They did that not too long ago and the rockets came right back. Military action will only reduce the rockets, not stop them; not unless they fully occupy Gaza, and that would be so costly in lives and money that Israel couldn't sustain it.

I just fail to see what the Israeli end-game is here. It looks like they're going to lose far more than they're going to gain.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

11-17-2012, 01:56

Define proportionate? Israel has two responsibilities:

1. Ending the rocket attacks, this means sending in the army.

2. Achieving a lasting piece. This means making political concessions to the Palestinians.

In that order, if they're smart.

*Cough* IRA *Cough* Good Friday.

Ending the Rocket Attacks means giving the Palestinians rights.

Montmorency

11-17-2012, 02:31

Plus, your vague 'demonstrable damage' is a far cry from missiles landing in a major city.

Not in monetary terms.

The Cartel is a group of powerful outlaws even in their own country.

The cartels are Law in wide swathes of Northern Mexico, and beyond. They extend political patronage and benefaction all over the place, for sure.

Can't happen unless one or both sides agree to stop fighting. Israel is in a better to position to destroy the power structure of Hamas than vice versa. But in an ideal world, yes--the Israelies would stop treating the Palestinians like crap, and Hamas would stop trying to kill Israeli civilians.

The onus is entirely on Israel. Hamas has done its bit to reform. The only way to silence radical elements who would like Israel to become an Islamic state is to permit a legitimate, unfettered Palestinian state to develop.

It would be bloody and costly, but they could certainly blitzkrieg the region and put a proper end to Hamas. Following that, they could be magnanimous in victory and make real political concessions to the palestinians.

A new Hamas would arise, with a vengeance. Israel would become even less popular, thus reinforcing the sort of security concerns you're willing to use to justify further crackdowns... This may just be the cycle that the Israeli hawks have in mind.

But Hamas has to be dealt with first.

Hamas is not a real barrier to peace.

Montmorency

11-17-2012, 02:40

Well, I disagree with you. Now we're just down to throwing opinion at eachother.

Israel has occupied Gaza before. The situation did not improve.

Israel can not fight its way out of this.

HopAlongBunny

11-17-2012, 02:41

It is a very complex dynamic.

Politically (internal), the Israeli gov't has little to gain from settling the dispute. As it is they have a marginalized segment of population that is easily exploited; less of a factor with the influx of labour from E. Europe; and an essentially "open frontier" for expansion or settlement. Any solution removes both resources. The beauty of the present situation is Israel keeps options and advantage "open", essentially forever. The slow incremental extermination of the Palestinians allows then to appear both moderate and even generous, while expansion is merely the necessary outcome of a real need for security. This is only one view of course, perhaps a little cynical; it seems to fit the facts.

Montmorency

11-17-2012, 02:44

Politically (internal), the Israeli gov't has little to gain from settling the dispute. As it is they have a marginalized segment of population that is easily exploited; less of a factor with the influx of labour from E. Europe; and an essentially "open frontier" for expansion or settlement. Any solution removes both resources. The beauty of the present situation is Israel keeps options and advantage "open", essentially forever. The slow incremental extermination of the Palestinians allows then to appear both moderate and even generous, while expansion is merely the necessary outcome of a real need for security. This is only one view of course, perhaps a little cynical; it seems to fit the facts.

Perhaps it is even the prevailing view among the government, but it is short-sighted. How can engendering civil/ethnic strife and aggravating international relations be, in the long-term, conducive to security?

I'm not saying they should strictly fight their way out of the situation. I'm saying they should go into Gaza, kill every last militant in sight, and then reach out with a real olive branch and real political concessions to the palestinian people. Militants dead. Political solution achieved. Unfortunately it would require the Israelis to be both militarily surgical and politically flexible at the same time. If you think Hamas is not an obstacle to peace, then I just flat-out disagree with you.

Do you really conceive of Hamas as entirely a militant organization, each and every member ready to reach out for an assault rifle to strike at Israel at a moment's notice? Destroying Hamas is only possible with massive collateral damage, but even if an arrow were to pierce every member's heart simultaneously it would not be enough to bring about the conditions necessary. Why can Israel not reach out with an olive branch right now? The solution rests with Israel, and Israel alone.

HopAlongBunny

11-17-2012, 02:58

Perhaps it is even the prevailing view among the government, but it is short-sighted. How can engendering civil/ethnic strife and aggravating international relations be, in the long-term, conducive to security?

Yes. It is a real-world example of the dynamics of the "security dilemma". I just find it ironic that the few times a solution seemed close, the peacemakers end up marginalized or dead.

Montmorency

11-17-2012, 03:02

That prompted the air strikes

Won't you acknowledge that Hamas did not launch the first rockets? That was a foreign jihadist group - unless you're willing to dispute their claim?

HopAlongBunny

11-17-2012, 03:26

--the last thing they want is actual peace.

Which is true of camps on both sides. Pockets are lined and dreams are fulfilled or forever "just within sight". Peace will impoverish some and close/set frontiers. That the dream and coin are false has never stopped a magic show from pleasing an audience.

Hooahguy

11-17-2012, 03:42

I long ago separated "Jews" and "Israelis" - Israelis are screwed, long term, unless they give Palestinians equal rights and end Apartheid.

Jews are just people - but some of them think they're the same as Israelis, when really they're not.

1) Theoretically yes, there is a difference between your average Israeli and your average Jewish person, but a lot of these people are going to eventually move to Israel and spread more radical thinking. For example, an acquaintance of mine is an American immigrant to Israel and truly believes that all Palestinians are vermin and should die:
https://i.imgur.com/fbWLj.png
Green is the immigrant in question, yellow is a close friend of mine who is atheist, and red is some other moron. I chose not to partake in this argument. I was talking to a more secular Israeli who actually agrees with us that Israel's treatment of the Palestinians needs to change, and he said that its a big worry of the more liberal Israelis that most of the immigrants coming in are extreme Zionists, which doesnt look good for the future.

2) That wont happen, not as long as most Israelis/Jews hold onto the idea that Israel belongs to the Jews.

I join you in apathy. If anything, I'm more pissed off with Israel than anything else. I don't know how it's possible to look at this situation and conclude that Israel isn't the aggressor. They struck first and they're hammering the Palestinians 100 times as hard as they're getting in return. If I was living in Gaza, I'd sure as hell be trying to shoot back. When you're the big boy on the block with all the fancy toys, you don't get to play the victim. Israel has no one but themselves to blame if their relations with Egypt got to pot over this.
Well, rockets have been flying from Gaza for a long time now, even after Cast Lead. Im more surprised that Israel killed the Hamas military head and didnt seem to expect a huge amount of anger. Though they must be getting more accurate with their rockets- they actually hurt people this time around.

Its been said already, but I dont know what the point of this operation is. I would say Cast Lead was more intense than this up until now, and that clearly failed, so whats the point? Why kill and destroy even more if it doesnt do anything?

Jolt

11-17-2012, 04:35

I'm not saying they should strictly fight their way out of the situation. I'm saying they should go into Gaza, kill every last militant in sight, and then reach out with a real olive branch and real political concessions to the palestinian people. Militants dead. Political solution achieved. Unfortunately it would require the Israelis to be both militarily surgical and politically flexible at the same time. If you think Hamas is not an obstacle to peace, then I just flat-out disagree with you.

As long as the Likud is in power, especially in coalition with the Ultra-Orthodoxes, (Those who'd want nothing better than to have an Israel stretching from the Euphrates to the Nile), no advances are going to get made in relation to the peace process. Besides, the status quo clearly favours Israel. They are the ones dominating Palestine, they are the ones slowly expelling Arabs from Jerusalem and replacing them with Jews and they are the ones slowly building a great deal of settlements in Palestinian West Bank. And they very clearly state that they will never strike a peace deal that involves removing the settlements from West Bank. So they will keep at it until the Palestinians accept being an utterly rump state, not even allowed to control their own borders.
And this is if there's some peace-minded folks running Israel. If its the Likud and their Ultra-Orthodox buddies they'll just keep things as they are, since the Palestinians are a very convinient Carthage for Israel's own internal problems. I'd almost like to see the Ultra-Orthodox parties get an overwhelming majority in the Israeli parliament, just to see how close to the Nazis they would come in military aggression and ethnical discrimination.

Hooahguy

11-17-2012, 04:49

As long as the Likud is in power, especially in coalition with the Ultra-Orthodoxes, (Those who'd want nothing better than to have an Israel stretching from the Euphrates to the Nile), no advances are going to get made in relation to the peace process. Besides, the status quo clearly favours Israel. They are the ones dominating Palestine, they are the ones slowly expelling Arabs from Jerusalem and replacing them with Jews and they are the ones slowly building a great deal of settlements in Palestinian West Bank. And they very clearly state that they will never strike a peace deal that involves removing the settlements from West Bank. So they will keep at it until the Palestinians accept being an utterly rump state, not even allowed to control their own borders.
And this is if there's some peace-minded folks running Israel. If its the Likud and their Ultra-Orthodox buddies they'll just keep things as they are, since the Palestinians are a very convinient Carthage for Israel's own internal problems. I'd almost like to see the Ultra-Orthodox parties get an overwhelming majority in the Israeli parliament, just to see how close to the Nazis they would come in military aggression and ethnical discrimination.

Moshe Feiglin is a prime example of this. Guy is nuts. Won 23% of the vote in the last election, and I wouldnt be surprised if that rose in the upcoming election.

HoreTore

11-17-2012, 10:43

Hamas and various other militants are a major obstacle to peace.

But there's another obstacle just as big on the other side, the settler loonies.

If Israel or anyone else wants peace, they will have to whack(figuratively, not literally) both groups.

Montmorency

11-17-2012, 15:27

Oh yes, I'm sure those rockets were launched without any support or help at all from Hamas or the 'authorities' in Gaza.

How much support? Hamas does also hound and torture jihadists in Gaza.

Anyway, it seems the real reason for the Israeli strike, and subsequent escalation, was the acquisition by Hamas of long(er)-range rockets - which have now been fired off at Jerusalem and Tel-Aviv, by the way. :wacky:

Tellos Athenaios

11-17-2012, 20:25

I'm not saying they should strictly fight their way out of the situation. I'm saying they should go into Gaza, kill every last militant in sight, and then reach out with a real olive branch and real political concessions to the palestinian people. Militants dead. Political solution achieved. Unfortunately it would require the Israelis to be both militarily surgical and politically flexible at the same time. If you think Hamas is not an obstacle to peace, then I just flat-out disagree with you.

Even leaving everything else aside, Israel has demonstrated time and again that they care as much about surgical precision as a nuclear warhead. They don't mind the fallout too much either.

At present, if you want them to be at peace you'll have to force them to, because there is no incentive for Israel the state or for its politicians and little for its people to reach out for a peace agreement. It's easier from their standpoint to bulldoze Palestine until it no longer exists, and more or less that's exactly what Israel has been doing since its foundation.

So to make them settle for peace you would have to ostracise both Israel and Palestine from international affairs, trade; impose sanctions on those who would circumvent the ban etc. etc., possibly send in the blue helmets even. That is probably not feasible, it's doubtful various Western powers would have the stomach to pursue even economic sanctions let alone enforce them.

Sarmatian

11-17-2012, 22:37

Oh yes, I'm sure those rockets were launched without any support or help at all from Hamas or the 'authorities' in Gaza. :rolleyes:

Look, I'm perfectly willing to acknowledge that Israel is the ultimate bad guy here, but that's big picture stuff. In the end the violence won't stop until Israel is willing to treat the palestinians like real people. But Hamas has aligned themselves with groups that do not deserve to be treated like real people, and Jihadists thrive on conflict--the last thing they want is actual peace. Either way, the militants have to die.

I somehow think that Israel is inviting those rockets.

The way I look at the situation, Palestinians have absolutely no other means to get their point across. They can not compete industrially/economically with Israel, they can not compete in conventional military terms, they can not raise the issues in international fora (cause Israel and its backer block it), can't win in a propaganda war and Israeli lobby is way, way more powerful, better organized and better funded than theirs.

The only thing left for those people is to fire that rocket, and the more Israel encroaches their homes and the more desperate they become, more rockets are gonna fly. Israel can't kill off militants because Israel basically created a conveyer belt for militants. The only way for militants to disappear is to remove all Palestinians, and I believe that's Israel's long-term goal.

lars573

11-18-2012, 00:04

Of course wiping out the "Palestinian" people is Israel's long term goal. It's fairly obvious.

HoreTore

11-18-2012, 00:10

Of course wiping out the "Palestinian" people is Israel's long term goal. It's fairly obvious.

Israel is a democracy, and as a democracy they've switched goals a zillion times over the years.

"Long term" is not a word in the democratic vocabulary.

lars573

11-18-2012, 00:26

Depends on the state, some can and do switch tracks and ideals. Israel however has shown that it wants to wipe out any chance of an Arab palestinian state. Even if it started as a political move, now it's morphed into a slow genocide. And there's nothing anyone can do to stop it.

Idaho

11-18-2012, 00:45

Israel is a democracy, and as a democracy they've switched goals a zillion times over the years.

"Long term" is not a word in the democratic vocabulary.

It's not a democracy at all. Not all those under the power of the Israeli government have a vote.

HoreTore

11-18-2012, 00:48

It's not a democracy at all. Not all those under the power of the Israeli government have a vote.

Irrelevant to my point. And generally.

rvg

11-18-2012, 02:12

Irrelevant to my point. And generally.

It's very relevant. Israel is no more of a democracy than the Apartheid South Africa was.

Fragony

11-18-2012, 02:25

lol, lefties and muzzies are beyond comforting again and are protesting in Amsterdam. It isn't like Syria kills more in a week than Israel does in it's existance but that isn't interesting to them. Non-jews killing muslim civilians with barrels with TNT is clearly not as horrible as jews attacking rocket launchers placed in urban area's, because when Syria does so they are united in absolute silence. But of course they aren't antisemites.

HopAlongBunny

11-18-2012, 09:41

Gah! Reports from the looney-sphere are painting this as preliminary groundwork for a strike on Iran. Worst part is, I can see the logic; but really!? war with Iran!!?? Not a walk in the park by any means...

HoreTore

11-18-2012, 11:11

It's very relevant. Israel is no more of a democracy than the Apartheid South Africa was.

And that's relevant to my point that Israels stateform makes it change policy often due to leadership change how...?

lol, lefties and muzzies are beyond comforting again and are protesting in Amsterdam. It isn't like Syria kills more in a week than Israel does in it's existance but that isn't interesting to them. Non-jews killing muslim civilians with barrels with TNT is clearly not as horrible as jews attacking rocket launchers placed in urban area's, because when Syria does so they are united in absolute silence. But of course they aren't antisemites.

Yes frags, noone has protested against Assad. Sure. Go back to sleep now, adults are talking.

Sarmatian

11-18-2012, 11:26

And that's relevant to my point that Israels stateform makes it change policy often due to leadership change how...?

You're too old to believe that all democracies are true democracies. Israeli settlements in the West Bank started appearing half a century ago, and how many governments and how many prime ministers Israel changed in that time period?

Obviously, there's a greater general consensus about the issue since every government has continued the policy of the previous government, changes were more or less cosmetic.

Fragony

11-18-2012, 11:34

Yes frags, noone has protested against Assad. Sure. Go back to sleep now, adults are talking.

Not here, absolute utter totalsilence, non-jewish violence don't activate the great outrage

Hax

11-18-2012, 22:18

Yes, because anti-semitism is so popular nowadays.

Fragony

11-19-2012, 07:33

Well yeah

rory_20_uk

11-19-2012, 11:39

The problem is, sending in the army won't stop the rocket attacks. They did that not too long ago and the rockets came right back. Military action will only reduce the rockets, not stop them; not unless they fully occupy Gaza, and that would be so costly in lives and money that Israel couldn't sustain it.

I just fail to see what the Israeli end-game is here. It looks like they're going to lose far more than they're going to gain.

I think that Israel operates on a different time scale to us in the West. Walls and communities are slowly throttling the palestinian land, and this goes on in the background. This is the Final Solution - remove all Palestinians completely. It might take decades if not longer, but given Jews were waiting 2,000 years for their land to be returned, this is no time at all.

~:smoking:

Myth

11-19-2012, 11:54

Conradus

11-19-2012, 11:59

Well, the USA wasn't a supporter of Israel in the beginning. France and the UK backed them though. What was to become Israel was already in part in Jewish hands in the first half of the 20th century. Ever since WWI Jews had been leaving Europe and going to Palestine. Bear in mind that no independent Palestine ever existed as well. The claim of the Jews living there already in 1948 was as good as those of the Palestinians that got evicted. (And a lot of those were refugees because of the wars that the Arab nations started against that newly formed state.

The conflict is way too difficult to place the blame on one party. Saying that Israel is an illegal state doesn't make it any better. Nor is there any certain legal proof for it.

Myth

11-19-2012, 12:06

Saying that there was no clear ruler and that the Palestinians did not have a better claim does not justify sending boatloads of jews and guns there to take it. If two kids are arguing about a basket of apples you don't send a thug with a baseball bat to beat them so he can have a stronger claim on said apples! Israel is an illegal state, an illegal corporation if you will. There is no legal backing into forcefully removing people from their homes and saying that their land belongs to someone else just because some number of people used to live there anyway. The Jews never had a country and they live all around the world. If it's proven that there's a lot of Jews living in London and the region would it be OK to ship a few hundred thousand of them there and have them set up walls, turrets and missile defence systems and slowly work for grabbing more English soil and depopulating the brits?

Idaho

11-19-2012, 13:03

Israelis seem fairly comfortable with the idea of an apartheid state.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/oct/23/israeli-poll-majority-apartheid-policies?cat=world&type=article

rvg

11-19-2012, 14:13

HoreTore

11-19-2012, 14:16

Jews are entitled to have the State of Israel and live in that state by the virtue of fighting and winning the 1947-48 war. They have earned their right to call that land theirs.

Might is Right, eh?

Anyway, is it impossible for a thread on Israel/Palestine to stay focused on the current event? Will it inevitably derail into the same old discussion we've had for years? Should we make a new Goodwin?

Sarmatian

11-19-2012, 14:17

Jews are entitled to have the State of Israel and live in that state by the virtue of fighting and winning the 1947-48 war. They have earned their right to call that land theirs.

So, entitlement = whoever has the biggest stick at the moment?

rvg

11-19-2012, 14:19

So, entitlement = whoever has the biggest stick at the moment?

Of course. It's how it's always been from the dawn of time up until the end of the Cold War. Now it has changed in a sense that the biggest stick doesn't matter as much as the biggest pile of cash does.

Myth

11-19-2012, 14:24

I say let's give the Moroccans tanks and guns and have them take over half of Spain because MOORISH CALIPHATE.

rvg

11-19-2012, 14:26

Oh, they can try to take over half of Spain. The emphasis being on "try".

HoreTore

11-19-2012, 14:26

I say let's give the Moroccans tanks and guns and have them take over half of Spain because MOORISH CALIPHATE.

Failure to understand rvg's argument: check.

He's not arguing for historical presedence, but rather the classical understanding of justification of war.

Ronin

11-19-2012, 14:39

Might is Right, eh?

when it comes to international relations, this is and always has been the case.
there is no real "outside" authority to impose any other kind of rule...so it is what it is.

Myth

11-19-2012, 14:40

I knew what he was talking about, I was merely illustrating the absurdity of the situation. If biggest guns and being white are the only justifications we need so that the people remain docile then we're pretty much screwed as a society.

rvg

11-19-2012, 14:44

I knew what he was talking about, I was merely illustrating the absurdity of the situation.
There's nothing absurd about it. In fact, it's perfectly logical.

If biggest guns and being white are the only justifications we need so that the people remain docile then we're pretty much screwed as a society.
Being white? What the heck does that have to do with anything? Oh, and no, we're not screwed. We're doing just fine.

Myth

11-19-2012, 14:55

OK let me explain. A state of white skinned, rich and crafty people is assembled, loaded with guns by the western allies and plunged into Muslim territory. They take the land by force of arms and the financial and military backing of western great powers. All is fine.

Now imagine a similar situation - let's say that China finances Morocco to go and reclaim Cordoba and southern Spain. They load them up with russian guns and missiles and support them financially. Not so hard to take over Spain now is it? Don't tell me that Egypt and Palestine fought Israel alone. They fought the cash of jewish banking families and corporations, the western media propaganda and of course, the military technology of the big three - UK/France/USA (those who have nukes in NATO basically). If Russia and China financed a poor state like Morocco and loaded them up with guns would the west let them take Spain? No. But if the west does it and makes that proxy called Israel it's fine.

If Bulgaria and Romania want to expel the roma (gypsy) population from their borders it's "oh noes, the human rights, the madness, the Sparta, think of the children!!!11 one" but Israelite Zionists purging Palestinians - that's fine, they're terrorists. See the absurdity of it?

HoreTore

11-19-2012, 14:59

when it comes to international relations, this is and always has been the case.
there is no real "outside" authority to impose any other kind of rule...so it is what it is.

It was, but the world is changing.

A large amount of people do not believe in that justification anymore, after the two world wars. They now want other justifications, as illustrated by vietnam and the last gulf war. While not strong enough to actively prevent war, the sentiment is still strong enough to influence politics. In order to invade Iraq, for example, Bush needed to play the wmd-card, he couldn't just state "we want Iraq's oil because we're strong enough to take it", which would've worked 200 years ago.

HoreTore

11-19-2012, 15:03

rvg

11-19-2012, 15:11

Now imagine a similar situation - let's say that China finances Morocco to go and reclaim Cordoba and southern Spain.
Spain has powerful friends who will grind Morocco into dust with or without the Chinese intervention.

Don't tell me that Egypt and Palestine fought Israel alone. They fought the cash of jewish banking families and corporations, the western media propaganda and of course, the military technology of the big three - UK/France/USA (those who have nukes in NATO basically).
And? What's the problem?

If Russia and China financed a poor state like Morocco and loaded them up with guns would the west let them take Spain? No. But if the west does it and makes that proxy called Israel it's fine.
Exactly. Morocco can't do anything because nobody will let them. I see nothing absurd about it.

If Bulgaria and Romania want to expel the roma (gypsy) population from their borders it's "oh noes, the human rights, the madness, the Sparta, think of the children!!!11 one" but Israelite Zionists purging Palestinians - that's fine, they're terrorists. See the absurdity of it?
No, I don't see any absurdity. The gypsies unlike the Palestinians aren't fighting to destroy the Bulgarian or Romanian state.

Myth

11-19-2012, 15:16

Of course they're fighting, the Israelites have invaded and occupied their land! Should they just bend over and take it? Anyway, whomever has the biggest guns and friends wins, right? I can see that. I can't see why you are so comfortable with that fact.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

11-19-2012, 15:18

Jews are entitled to have the State of Israel and live in that state by the virtue of fighting and winning the 1947-48 war. They have earned their right to call that land theirs.

Jews =/= Israelis

The Israeli state deliberately incentivises the immigration on non-Israeli Jews whilst discouraging all others, and they are running out of space - hence the occupation of Gaza and the West Bank. Israel only exists because the British despaired of Jewish terrorists that kept trying to kill British Peace Keepers -Hamas are just doing what those Jewish terrorists did 60 years ago.

Oh, and the Israelis are aiming for a Holocaust - by the way:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1580339/Israeli-minister-vows-Palestinian-holocaust.html

Andres

11-19-2012, 15:18

Israel is an artificially formed state. It is not legal and true jews, especially rabbis, condemn Israel and radical Zionism. I have nothing against your average Jew, no matter where they live or what they do. However this travesty that is the "nation" of Israel has none of my sympathy or support.

They are claiming this land and Jerusalem as their own, on what grounds? That they are the "chosen" people in the Bible? Or that they used to live there thousands of years ago? By that right ethnic Italians are entitled to almost the entirety of Europe of and the Middle East, because the Roman Empire used to own that land for a few centuries? Artificially created, armed to the teeth and backed up by the USA, they plopped down a bunch of people there after WW2 and are waging war against the Palestinians. It's like me giving modern tanks, helicopters and guns to a bunch of rednecks and making the Southern states a sovereign country called the Confederacy. How would you like that?

All of that is irrelevant. We're anno 2012; if you look at the history of most current states, you'll probably find stuff that is ugly enough to start hating them. But raking up mistakes and dirty historical facts is not what you should do if the goal is peace.

If you want peace, you need to forget the past. It doesn't matter. Israel is there here and now and according to the definition in internal law, Israel is a state. Just like the State of Palestine is a state according to international law. Regardless of history and how righteous or just this or that was, you have two states existing there.

I have no idea what needs to be done to get there, but imo, the only real solution for the conflict between the states of Israel and Palestine is to put them together in a (con)federal state, the obvious choice for a capital would be Jerusalem.

But that's the easy part. The more difficult part is figuring out how to get them to lay down arms and form such a confederal state. Once they're in that structure, they can wage their wars with words in a parliament.

rvg

11-19-2012, 15:19

Of course they're fighting, the Israelites have invaded and occupied their land! Should they just bend over and take it?
And whose land was it before that? And before that? And before that? Ancestral claims to land are pointless. I have lots of issues with Israel, but its existence isn't one of them.

Anyway, whomever has the biggest guns and friends wins, right? I can see that. I can't see why you are so comfortable with that fact.
It's reality and I accept it as such.

Myth

11-19-2012, 15:31

Ronin

11-19-2012, 15:36

It was, but the world is changing.

A large amount of people do not believe in that justification anymore, after the two world wars. They now want other justifications, as illustrated by vietnam and the last gulf war. While not strong enough to actively prevent war, the sentiment is still strong enough to influence politics. In order to invade Iraq, for example, Bush needed to play the wmd-card, he couldn't just state "we want Iraq's oil because we're strong enough to take it", which would've worked 200 years ago.

First of all...I was talking strictly in an international relationship level.
you are talking internal politics, and while yes, they connect on some points, they follow separate rules.

Internationally might is right....Internally you must have popular support, in the old days you could simply force this, now you must win it, or at least con your way into it.

rvg

11-19-2012, 15:38

Ancestral claims aren't pointless, they're the foundation of today's nations.
The USA for instance isn't founded on any ancestral claims. Ancestral claims are nothing but an anachronism.

If China goes and occupies Japan would you stand for it?
Who will let them?

Or if Russia takes over Finland, Sweden and Norway?
Once again, who will let them? Russia and China won't do what you suggest they'd do, and it's not because that would be immoral. It's because they can't.

What is the price for peace? Obedience? Obliviousness? Or must we all drink Coca Cola and watch Big Brother 24 and Lady Gaga and shut up and pay our taxes and the interest on our loans? Where do you draw the line? The status quo is such until it is changed. We haven't had any world wars for a while now, all thanks to the nuke. I'd say that the world is more peaceful now than it has been in centuries. And it's not thanks to enlightenment, it's thanks to power. Power of the Alliances and power of the Nukes.

Myth

11-19-2012, 15:54

Do you really think the USA and friends will risk thermonuclear war over Scandinavia? Because Putin is batshit enough to release the nukes and I wouldn't bet my arse on that shield thing. Russia won't take them over because they have nothing Russia wants, not because they can't. After a brief war of half a year tops they would be conquered and the most I'd expect are embargoes and sanctions and talks and discussions. Still plenty of buyers for Russian petrol and gas left. But it's not worth the hassle. So no, it's not like no one would let them. If they want something, they take it. Same with china. No one has fired the nukes over Tibet now have they?

Andres

11-19-2012, 16:00

Ancestral claims aren't pointless, they're the foundation of today's nations. If China goes and occupies Japan would you stand for it? Or if Russia takes over Finland, Sweden and Norway? Their land has been theirs only for 1 millennium, it was surely someone else's before then!! And this time both countries have nukes so the western dream-team can't go waving their peckers around like they do versus poor third world goatherds. Would you accept that?

Ancestral claims are an obstacle to peace (assuming that is the goal) and as such, we need to get rid of that line of thinking.

Would it be OK if in 60 years some kid says it doesn't matter that Japan and Scandinavia used to be sovereign states but are now owned by China and Russia, and that that's not the main issue but having peace in the region is?

Yes.

What is the price for peace? Obedience? Obliviousness? Or must we all drink Coca Cola and watch Big Brother 24 and Lady Gaga and shut up and pay our taxes and the interest on our loans? Where do you draw the line? The status quo is such until it is changed.

What do you prefer? Living your life in a country that is devestated by war, seeing your beloved ones die or get injured and generally living a hopeless and miserable life for the glory of some sort of vague greater good or, help, an ancestral claim dating back a few hundreds of years? Or go to work every day, pay your loans and taxes, drink Coca Cola, watch Big Brother and Lady Gaga and complain about teh evil government? I prefer the latter.

rvg

11-19-2012, 16:02

Do you really think the USA and friends will risk thermonuclear war over Scandinavia?
Do you think Russia and friends (oh wait, Russia has no friends) will risk a thermonuclear war over Scandinavia? Because I can guarantee that in a conventional war they'll get whipped.

Because Putin is batshit enough to release the nukes and I wouldn't bet my arse on that shield thing.
I think you're underestimating that man's intelligence. Putin is nothing short of a political genius, and he's anything but "batshit". The man is a cold, calculating technocrat.

Russia won't take them over because they have nothing Russia wants, not because they can't.
They have plenty of what Russia wants. Russia just can't have 'em.

After a brief war of half a year tops they would be conquered and the most I'd expect are embargoes and sanctions and talks and discussions.
Oh, you'll be in for a surprise...

Still plenty of buyers for Russian petrol and gas left. But it's not worth the hassle. So no, it's not like no one would let them. If they want something, they take it.
Let's see them try... Let's see them try.

Same with china. No one has fired the nukes over Tibet now have they?
Of course not. Who cares about Tibet? Attacking a NATO member or a country that hosts US military bases would be whole different story.

Myth

11-19-2012, 16:17

Andres one world government it is then? Let's avoid suffering and war and national identity and even personal identity and all be happy and content (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgia_Guidestones). I see you like the human farming (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xbp6umQT58A) model.

rvg I personally admire the Manertheim defensive line in WW2 but I have no delusions that the three Scandinavian countries can do diddly versus Russia. I'm not sure who is more eager on the nuke button, but I'm thinking western societies have not been castrated enough yet so that the governments can do whatever they want with the nuclear arsenal. Russia is Putin's own little plaything and he can do whatever he wants. He is not batshit like the guy in the park who talks to the pigeons but he wiped out a whole newspaper team for publishing bad press on him. You've never heard of that because it never made the media, but I actually know someone from Russia who had a friend who used to work for that newspaper. So as far as furthering his own goals and protecting his interests I think he will go farther and faster than the western countries in which the voice of the people can still be heard (on occasion).

Andres

11-19-2012, 16:23

Andres one world government it is then? Let's avoid suffering and war and national identity and even personal identity and all be happy and content (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgia_Guidestones). I see you like the human farming (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xbp6umQT58A) model.

Pray, tell me, how will Israel and Palestine ever come to peace if they're going to constantly whine about ancestral claims and what horrible and cruel things one party did to the other?

How will your peace negotations ever succeed if all you'll do is talk about the past?

The first thing you have to do when negotiating for peace (assuming you really want peace) is to let go of the past and look at the future: how are we going to organise ourselves? which structure will we adopt? how will we guarantee legal protection of each group? what legal procedure will we follow when we don't get to a compromise for a certain problem? Etc, etc. That's what you need to do when you really want peace. Not dwelling on the past. If that makes me a tree hugging hippy, fine. Good luck finding peace through a comparison of ancestral claims and cruelties from the past.

rvg

11-19-2012, 16:27

rvg I personally admire the Manertheim defensive line in WW2 but I have no delusions that the three Scandinavian countries can do diddly versus Russia.
Oh, it won't be Russia vs Finland, it would be Russia vs NATO. Big, big difference.

I'm not sure who is more eager on the nuke button, but I'm thinking western societies have not been castrated enough yet so that the governments can do whatever they want with the nuclear arsenal.Nukes are there mostly as a deterrent. Nobody expects to actually have to use them.

Russia is Putin's own little plaything and he can do whatever he wants. He is not batshit like the guy in the park who talks to the pigeons but he wiped out a whole newspaper team for publishing bad press on him.Sure, Russia is his plaything and he would like to keep it that way. In case of a thermonuclear war there will be no Russia for Putin to play with. Hardly a good scenario for him.

You've never heard of that because it never made the media, but I actually know someone from Russia who had a friend who used to work for that newspaper. So as far as furthering his own goals and protecting his interests I think he will go farther and faster than the western countries in which the voice of the people can still be heard (on occasion).How would getting nuked further his interests? That's the thing... if you nuke them, they'll nuke you right back. Nobody likes getting nuked, which is why I rule out nukes as a realistic scenario. Barring nukes Russian military would be taught a very harsh lesson by the NATO.

rory_20_uk

11-19-2012, 16:37

Pray, tell me, how will Israel and Palestine ever come to peace if they're going to constantly whine about ancestral claims and what horrible and cruel things one party did to the other?

How will your peace negotations ever succeed if all you'll do is talk about the past?

The first thing you have to do when negotiating for peace (assuming you really want peace) is to let go of the past and look at the future: how are we going to organise ourselves? which structure will we adopt? how will we guarantee legal protection of each group? what legal procedure will we follow when we don't get to a compromise for a certain problem? Etc, etc. That's what you need to do when you really want peace. Not dwelling on the past. If that makes me a tree hugging hippy, fine. Good luck finding peace through a comparison of ancestral claims and cruelties from the past.

You grind them out of existence. You take away their land, their water, their ability to trade. Everything else is words. All that matters is the land itself. Get families onto it, and then protect them as who wouldn't protect their own people?

It won't happen overnight but it'll eventually work. Most other Western countries don't have the stomach for this sort of thing any more (and Israel does so like to say it is a Western, democratic country - one of us).

~:smoking:

Beskar

11-19-2012, 16:44

Well, it is kind of Egypt's and Jordan's fault for annexing the Early Palestinian state. What should happen if that the Palestinians recieve Jordan citizenship in the West Bank and Egyptian Citizenship in Gaza, and Israel pays a lump sum of compensation for anyone who leaves, and simply merge those areas into Israel proper.

This would ensure the people there get the best deal.

The 'Two State, One Land' solution doesn't work.

Fragony

11-19-2012, 16:45

You grind them out of existence. You take away their land, their water, their ability to trade. Everything else is words. All that matters is the land itself. Get families onto it, and then protect them as who wouldn't protect their own people?

It won't happen overnight but it'll eventually work. Most other Western countries don't have the stomach for this sort of thing any more (and Israel does so like to say it is a Western, democratic country - one of us).

~:smoking:

Doesn't look all that bad to me really

http://www.google.com/search?num=10&hl=nl&authuser=0&site=imghp&tbm=isch&source=hp&q=gaza+swimming+pool&oq=gaza+swimming+pool&gs_l=img.12...3239.11250.0.12785.20.7.1.12.13.0.123.681.4j3.7.0...0.0...1ac.1.J6DC5HaA-eQ&biw=1024&bih=644&sei=mVOqUO3mEemo0QXTjYCQCg

http://www.google.com/search?hl=nl&tbo=d&authuser=0&biw=1024&bih=644&site=imghp&tbm=isch&sa=1&q=gaza+market&oq=gaza+market&gs_l=img.3...71459.77583.0.78423.19.17.0.2.0.0.171.1478.11j6.17.0...0.0...1ac.1.V5oegJyxJ0A

Yet

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=f3WSb56Uq_w they grow up so fast, who doesn't remember his graduation?

She's so cute http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=nhbHVEGnYD8

Myth

11-19-2012, 16:46

rvg it's a rock paper scissors nuke match I guess. Nukes are a deterrent, but for whom? Would they deter Russia from attacking NATO or vice-versa? I agree that if we are talking about conventional warfare the USA alone would stomp Russia with it's massive navy and air force. But a land occupation is a whole 'nother kind of beer.

Russia has oil and gas but the USA can't take it precisely because of the nukes, but even without them I think they'd be hard pressed to go in and occupy and keep such a territory. But that's military theory and not really a part of the original topic (though I do find it an interesting though exercise).

Andres the best and most peaceful solution is to simply remove Israel from that geographical position. They have enough money - they can buy a piece of land in Africa dirt cheap. They don't have to stay and massacre people there to enforce their right to stolen land.

rvg

11-19-2012, 16:53

rvg it's a rock paper scissors nuke match I guess. Nukes are a deterrent, but for whom? Would they deter Russia from attacking NATO r vice-versa?
Nukes exist on both sides to make sure that neither side uses them. That's all they're for. As far as conventional warfare goes, in a Russia vs NATO match I would bet against Russia.

I agree that if we are talking about conventional warfare the USA alone would stomp Russia with it's massive navy and air force. But a land occupation is a whole 'nother kind of beer.We'll beat Russians back to their borders, that's good enough.

Russia has oil and gas but the USA can't take it precisely because of the nukes,
We don't need their oil and gas. The US is poised to become self-sufficient in terms of energy by 2030.

but even without them I think they'd be hard pressed to go in and occupy and keep such a territory.
Yes, yes. Do not march on Moscow and never fight a land war in China. Everyone knows that, and nobody's trying to conquer Russia. It's simply not needed.

Andres

11-19-2012, 16:54

Andres the best and most peaceful solution is to simply remove Israel from that geographical position. They have enough money - they can buy a piece of land in Africa dirt cheap. They don't have to stay and massacre people there to enforce their right to stolen land.

So your solution is to deport all Jews from the region? :inquisitive:

And then let them take land in Africa, because surely, no African would ever care about a few millions of Jews starting their own state on their territory. And who cares about what Africa thinks anyway? I thought allowing a few million people to take some land and start a new state from one day to the other was what got us here in the first place?

Beskar

11-19-2012, 16:54

http://www.google.com/search?num=10&hl=nl&authuser=0&site=imghp&tbm=isch&source=hp&q=gaza+swimming+pool&oq=gaza+swimming+pool&gs_l=img.12...3239.11250.0.12785.20.7.1.12.13.0.123.681.4j3.7.0...0.0...1ac.1.J6DC5HaA-eQ&biw=1024&bih=644&sei=mVOqUO3mEemo0QXTjYCQCg

The Swimming Pool that no longer exists?

rory_20_uk

11-19-2012, 16:55

Doesn't look all that bad to me really

They've no control over their land, sea or air borders. They can't get any contruction materials. A foreign, hostile power collects most of their revenue and gives it out of they feel like it. Land has been increasingly annexed over the last 50 years.

Merely finding some have a pool doesn't mean all is hunky-dory, any more than a few pictures of rich Russians means that Russia is a wonderful, corruption-free place.

~:smoking:

Fragony

11-19-2012, 16:58

They've no control over their land, sea or air borders. They can't get any contruction materials. A foreign, hostile power collects most of their revenue and gives it out of they feel like it. Land has been increasingly annexed over the last 50 years.

Merely finding some have a pool doesn't mean all is hunky-dory, any more than a few pictures of rich Russians means that Russia is a wonderful, corruption-free place.

~:smoking:

Yes they can but not if it arives in a Flotilla

Fragony

11-19-2012, 17:02

The Swimming Pool that no longer exists?

Plenty left, and who closed that big fat swimming pool? Exactly. Try plural 'gaza swimming pools' there are a lo of them you see.

Nice mall by the way
http://www.google.com/search?hl=nl&tbo=d&authuser=0&biw=1024&bih=644&site=imghp&tbm=isch&sa=1&q=gaza+mall&oq=gaza+mall&gs_l=img.3..0i24.4073.10998.0.11736.11.10.0.1.1.0.136.956.6j4.10.0...0.0...1ac.1.K_M-eURtlc0

rory_20_uk

11-19-2012, 17:06

Yes they can but not if it arives in a Flotilla

And why is that? What other states have a different country policing their borders?

Where can they get materials? via the illegal tunnels (illegal as far as Israel is concerned)? Israel blocks anything that could have a military purpose such as... concrete.

How long would it be before another country's population got miffed if all access was blocked by an external power? All protests were ignored and all demonstrations crushed. Not long, I imagine.

~:smoking:

Fragony

11-19-2012, 17:10

And why is that? What other states have a different country policing their borders?

Where can they get materials? via the illegal tunnels (illegal as far as Israel is concerned)? Israel blocks anything that could have a military purpose such as... concrete.

How long would it be before another country's population got miffed if all access was blocked by an external power? All protests were ignored and all demonstrations crushed. Not long, I imagine.

~:smoking:

Nope, concrete aplenty it's even delivered to them free of charge as long as it's delivered in Israel. Things aren't all that bad there, that is why they are the second fattest people in the universe and surroundings. You would expect to find pics of puppy-eyed round bellied children, try it.

I have payed to go to places like this, they are getting payed for it, que http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=DU5NmRkaIt4

Idaho

11-19-2012, 17:11

What kind of an argument is that Fragony? A few nice pics and the existence of some swimming pools means that Gaza is a functional state with few problems? Are you serious?

Andres

11-19-2012, 17:13

Nope, concrete aplenty it's even delivered to them free of charge as long as it's delivered in Israel. Things aren't all that bad there, that is why they are the second fattest people in the universe and surrounds. You would expect to find pics of puppy-eyed round bellied children, try it.

And you honestly think that a small country with fat and rich inhabitants who live in wealth and luxury would fire rockets into a neighbouring state that has a powerful and well trained army equipped with top notch high tech?

Why would prosperous and rich people do that for? That's absurd. Surely if the choice is between drinking cocktails at your swimming pool and firing rockets at Israel resulting in them crazy Israeli's ruining your nice villa with swimming pool, the choice is to quietly enjoy your cocktails?

Idaho

11-19-2012, 17:15

Nope, concrete aplenty it's even delivered to them free of charge. Things aren't all that bad there, that is why they are the second fattest people in the universe and surrounds. You would expect to find pics of puppy-eyed round bellied children, try it.
Leave no misconception or logical fallacy unused Fragony. Obesity is a symptom of malnutrition. It doesn't correlate to wealth.

Fragony

11-19-2012, 17:24

Leave no misconception or logical fallacy unused Fragony. Obesity is a symptom of malnutrition. It doesn't correlate to wealth.

So that is why they have a higher life-expectancy than let's say, Turkey? If they don't get killed because they shoot rockets that is

Fragony

11-19-2012, 17:38

And you honestly think that a small country with fat and rich inhabitants who live in wealth and luxury would fire rockets into a neighbouring state that has a powerful and well trained army equipped with top notch high tech?

Why would prosperous and rich people do that for? That's absurd. Surely if the choice is between drinking cocktails at your swimming pool and firing rockets at Israel resulting in them crazy Israeli's ruining your nice villa with swimming pool, the choice is to quietly enjoy your cocktails?

Well yeah why would they, maybe because they must kill them wherever they find them? Just a guess

Andres

11-19-2012, 17:48

Well yeah why would they, maybe because they must kill them wherever they find them? Just a guess

So, all this mess is because of spoiled rich Palestinian kids living in luxurious palaces with Olympic swimming pools throwing rockets at Israel out of sheer boredom, under the guise of their religion?

I always thought Palestinians threw rockets because they were angry with their neighbour cutting them off of supplies, but apparently, I was wrong...

rvg

11-19-2012, 17:50

Just a thought... When was the last time Israel bombed the West Bank? It might have something to do with the fact that the West Bank is being run by more reasonable people. I could be wrong, but I suspect that the fact that Fatah isn't launching rockets at Israel proper might be a factor.

rory_20_uk

11-19-2012, 17:53

rvg

11-19-2012, 17:56

That is a fair point. Israel is merely building settlements in the West Bank.

~:smoking:

True, but that's an alltogether different problem.

Lemur

11-19-2012, 17:56

Meh. There is so much cupidity, dishonesty, stupidity, myopia, and self-inflicted infection on both the Israeli and Palestinian sides, I don't see how a reasonable person can pick one over the other.

Whenever there's a threat of peace, you can depend on lunatic Israelis and/or lunatic Palestinians to do something horrible to prevent an outbreak of reason.

Everyone in that region is operating in bad faith. I'd give my complete opinion, but I don't want to lower the language standards.

Viking

11-19-2012, 18:10

The solution to this conflict is love-making. If there are no more Jews and Arabs in the future ME, but only Jewrabs, they can't hate each other's guts anymore.

Fragony

11-19-2012, 18:12

So, all this mess is because of spoiled rich Palestinian kids living in luxurious palaces with Olympic swimming pools throwing rockets at Israel out of sheer boredom, under the guise of their religion?

I always thought Palestinians threw rockets because they were angry with their neighbour cutting them off of supplies, but apparently, I was wrong...

Why don't you look up the Hamas manifest and read what they stand for

drone

11-19-2012, 18:21

The solution to this conflict is love-making. If there are no more Jews and Arabs in the future ME, but only Jewrabs, they can't hate each other's guts anymore.

You are forgetting the Abrews, the Jewrabs' mortal enemies!

Hax

11-19-2012, 19:25

The solution to this conflict is love-making. If there are no more Jews and Arabs in the future ME, but only Jewrabs, they can't hate each other's guts anymore.

A friend over in the Jewish and Hebrew studies department said the exact same thing. There's merit to that idea.

Myth

11-19-2012, 19:27

Lemur

11-19-2012, 19:30

The main thing is to remember that if a Palestinian representative or Israeli politician is speaking, we should assume they are lying until proven otherwise.

Saves a world of hurt.

rvg

11-19-2012, 19:39

Vladimir

11-19-2012, 19:42

Kralizec

11-19-2012, 19:50

Why don't you look up the Hamas manifest and read what they stand for

Why don't you look up the Likud charter and see how they think about Palestinian self rule.

Fragony

11-19-2012, 19:57

Why don't you look up the Likud charter and see how they think about Palestinian self rule.

It's war that has been going on for decades why would they be in favour of it. It isn't getting better than this it will simply not be allowed.

Sarmatian

11-19-2012, 20:18

Of course. It's how it's always been from the dawn of time up until the end of the Cold War. Now it has changed in a sense that the biggest stick doesn't matter as much as the biggest pile of cash does.

The problem I have with this is that every time balance of power changes there's gonna be wars, and the bigger the changes, the bigger the conflict.

We kind of spent the better part of the last century trying to prevent exactly that.

Montmorency

11-19-2012, 20:21

Nukes are there mostly as a deterrent. Nobody expects to actually have to use them.

Except the Warsaw Pact in the 60's. :wink:

VERY late but this exceptionally clear statement should be reposted.

The reason I say that Hamas is not an obstacle to peace: any solution to this business must be from Israel's power. Israel could create a condition of peace in an instant by making large concessions, even if contingent on the expulsion of jihadist elements. That Israel would never countenance such concessions - which for the long-term stability of the region and satisfaction of the Arab peoples must necessarily be of great magnitude - is not related to the existence of Hamas, but is a consequence of rightist policy within Israel. At any rate, the elimination of Hamas would merely create an opening for more extreme factions, thus rasing the concessional threshold that might be required.

My point is basically that thinking Hamas' anti-Israeli doctrine is what hinders Israel from making the move for peace right now. It's certainly possible, however, that a less militant dominant force in Gaza (let's not forget the jihadists on the wings) would ultimately demand lesser concessions should Israel ever come to that point. Is that clear?

rvg

11-19-2012, 20:25

The problem I have with this is that every time balance of power changes there's gonna be wars, and the bigger the changes, the bigger the conflict.

We kind of spent the better part of the last century trying to prevent exactly that.

I disagree. Globalization means that military engagements are no longer the best way of conducting a power struggle. Look at Germany, it now owns the Eurozone without ever firing a shot. World wars are soooo 20th century.

Except the Warsaw Pact in the 60's. :wink:
It's good that we don't live in the 60s.

Kralizec

11-19-2012, 20:55

It's war that has been going on for decades why would they be in favour of it. It isn't getting better than this it will simply not be allowed.

You seem to think that their position is that the Palestinians must stop their violence before they can get their state. It's not.

The Likud's position is that the Palestinians should not have self-determination, ever.

a completely inoffensive name

11-19-2012, 21:44

It's good that we don't live in the 60s.

What if the starting point of the calendar is changed and 2012 becomes 1962?

drone

11-19-2012, 21:45

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o7MQrL_ABE0

Vladimir

11-19-2012, 22:46

The reason I say that Hamas is not an obstacle to peace: any solution to this business must be from Israel's power. Israel could create a condition of peace in an instant by making large concessions, even if contingent on the expulsion of jihadist elements. That Israel would never countenance such concessions - which for the long-term stability of the region and satisfaction of the Arab peoples must necessarily be of great magnitude - is not related to the existence of Hamas, but is a consequence of rightist policy within Israel. At any rate, the elimination of Hamas would merely create an opening for more extreme factions, thus rasing the concessional threshold that might be required.

My point is basically that thinking Hamas' anti-Israeli doctrine is what hinders Israel from making the move for peace right now. It's certainly possible, however, that a less militant dominant force in Gaza (let's not forget the jihadists on the wings) would ultimately demand lesser concessions should Israel ever come to that point. Is that clear?

I hope you understand that the only acceptable concession is the dissolution of the state of Israel. Even if Hammas were, by some miracle, accept Israel's right to exist, Iran wouldn't and Israel will still be under attack.

Montmorency

11-19-2012, 22:52

I hope you understand that the only acceptable concession is the dissolution of the state of Israel.

So you buy into Hamas' rhetoric? Israel holds the keys here. I think you would be surprised at how amenable the Palestinians would be when facing a better deal than almost anyone could have imagined possible.

Even if Hammas were, by some miracle, accept Israel's right to exist, Iran wouldn't and Israel will still be under attack.

Iran is attacking Israel? You buy into Iranian rhetoric? Oh boy...

Anyway, Israel can stand a geopolitical rival or two. Though it might not have too much ill will to deal with after showing such magnanimous...

Hax

11-19-2012, 22:53

Iran wouldn't and Israel will still be under attack.

Ahmadinejad is not Iran. Khamenei is not Iran.

There is a long way to go, but I think that Palestinian self-determination is actually the only reason Iran is still going on about Israel right now. If the Palestinians and Israelis figure it out, the Iranian regime is left without ammunition.

a completely inoffensive name

11-19-2012, 22:58

Anyway, Israel can stand a geopolitical rival or two.

This is refreshing to hear for me. People set up the conflict as something which demands a victor eventually. Even if Israel achieves complete hegemony, why would that be good unless you are naive enough to think that Israeli politicians are nothing but crusaders for peace.

Everyone needs a rival to be aware and cautious of. The US has gone without for a few decades and look how arrogant and obnoxious our culture has become in many ways.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

11-19-2012, 23:53

One cannot casually dismiss history as unimportant. I expected more from patrons on a site dedicated to a series of historical strategy games.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5VWd8bV3MHA

Andres there is plenty of uninhabited land in Africa which (as you apparently missed that part) could be bought by the Israelis fair and square. With enough money you can turn a desert into an oasis, just look at Dubai or... well, Israel.

That's an American-centric view of history that ignores, among many other things, the vast material and manpower reserves of the British Empire and the actual text of the Balflour declaration, which merely states that HM Government views tee establishment of a homeland for the Jews in Palestine positively, provided it does not impinge upon the existing population.

i.e. the document is nothing more than a useless platitude.

Andres

11-20-2012, 00:08

One cannot casually dismiss history as unimportant. I expected more from patrons on a site dedicated to a series of historical strategy games.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5VWd8bV3MHA

Andres there is plenty of uninhabited land in Africa which (as you apparently missed that part) could be bought by the Israelis fair and square. With enough money you can turn a desert into an oasis, just look at Dubai or... well, Israel.

I have to confess that I didn't bother watching seeing it has "Rothshild" and "Illuminati" in the title. I love the Deus Ex games and Dan Brown writes books that are good to read during a lazy sunny holiday, but that's as deep as I want to get into Illuminati conspiracy theories :shrug:

rvg

11-20-2012, 00:10

That's an American-centric view of history ...

That's the least of the problems with this... I don't even know what to call it. I'm quite surprised that someone would parade this drivel as some kind of evidence.

Fragony

11-20-2012, 11:10

You seem to think that their position is that the Palestinians must stop their violence before they can get their state. It's not.

The Likud's position is that the Palestinians should not have self-determination, ever.

Hamas doesn't want a state

Idaho

11-20-2012, 11:54

Yeah Fragony, Hamas just wants to go on a crazy killing spree. They are like the baddies in some generically plotted computer game.

Noteworthy letter to the Guardian:

Ashkelon mayor Roni Mehatzri asks (Hamas rockets bring Israeli city in range, March 5): "What did we do that we deserve to live with only 20 seconds warning to take shelter?" It's astonishing that he does not know his town's history. Before 1948 Ashkelon was called Al-Majdal and had 10,000 Arab residents. In 1948 those who had not fled the Zionist offensive were penned into a barbed-wire ghetto in the town and put under military guard. They were forcibly transferred in 1950 to Gaza while Jewish immigrants were brought in and given their homes. Those now firing rockets at Israeli towns are the descendants of some of the 750,000 Palestinians ethnically cleansed from more than 530 villages and a dozen large towns in 1948. It seems highly unlikely - unless that injustice is addressed - that the unwitting residents of towns like Ashkelon can enjoy their sea views and pleasant apartments while its former inhabitants live in a squalid ghetto 10 miles away.
Antony Adshead
Shipley, West Yorkshire
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/mar/07/israelandthepalestinians

Myth

11-20-2012, 12:02

Well ignoring the title and the tinfoil hat agenda, the history is for the most part right on the spot. Andres, watch it and perhaps skip the last minute or so, you'll find some food for thought. I always take any information with a grain of salt, and while I do admit i symphatise with some conspiracy theories, I draw a clear line. Basically I don't trust the good intent of the large players, because I know people usually don't have good intent. rvg I'm curious what non-drivel evidence must be supplied that Israel's lack of historical backing is a problem? If not for you, it certainly is a problem for the arabs, which makes it a problem for everyone who wants peace.

Fragony

11-20-2012, 12:20

Yeah Fragony, Hamas just wants to go on a crazy killing spree. They are like the baddies in some generically plotted computer game.

Hamas is just one of the various factions, if they get a state Islamic Jihad will attack them in the same way Hamas attacked Fatah. I am just being realistic. Nobody really wants this to end, so it won't.

Idaho

11-20-2012, 12:39

Hamas is just one of the various factions, if they get a state Islamic Jihad will attack them in the same way Hamas attacked Fatah. I am just being realistic. Nobody really wants this to end, so it won't.

How does one achieve political power in Gaza or the West Bank Fragony? Through peaceful municipal elections? There was an election, and Hamas were voted in overwhelmingly. Why was that? Because all Gazans are rabid war dogs, hell bent on violence? Or was it because of the large network of social support and community based programmes that Hamas organised compared to the corrupt and nepotistic tendancies of Fatah - an organisation long accustomed to political leadership and the management of a large donation coffers?

I realise that trying to reason with you on this is a little like banging my head against a brick wall, but I'll carry on just in case anyone else is interested.

In any political situation, it is worth holding in your head these two contradictory principles:

1) Everyone's motivations in life are much like your own. People want prosperity, respect, self-determination (of some sort)
2) Everyone's motivations are a little different and are coloured by their life experiences and their culture (arguably a collective response to a society's life experience)

You are under the misapprehension that the situation is simple, all Gazans need do is stop firing rockets, vote in some kind of Israel friendly party, and then sit round their swimming pools, rubbing their large content bellies while prosperity returns. Israel will, of course, respond to these overtures by immediately removing the blockade and allowing Gaza to normalise it's relations with the rest of the world.

This, I am afraid, is total lunacy. It's wrong in it's comprehension of the past, present and possible futures of the current situation.

https://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_ljc09cbaPk1qf4rwdo1_500.jpg

Fragony

11-20-2012, 12:55

The blockade is there to stay mia muca and I am perfectly fine with that. If they stop shooting rockets they won't get killed and that is as good as it gets.

Vladimir

11-20-2012, 13:59

So you buy into Hamas' rhetoric? Israel holds the keys here. I think you would be surprised at how amenable the Palestinians would be when facing a better deal than almost anyone could have imagined possible.

Iran is attacking Israel? You buy into Iranian rhetoric? Oh boy...

Anyway, Israel can stand a geopolitical rival or two. Though it might not have too much ill will to deal with after showing such magnanimous...

I really suggest you educate yourself on Mideast geopolitics.

rvg

11-20-2012, 14:11

rvg I'm curious what non-drivel evidence must be supplied that Israel's lack of historical backing is a problem?
I'm not sure such evidence exists. I just don't see it as an issue.

If not for you, it certainly is a problem for the arabs, which makes it a problem for everyone who wants peace.
I'm pretty such that the Israelis also prefer peace, but yet do not see what you describe as a problem.

Idaho

11-20-2012, 14:31

The blockade is there to stay mia muca and I am perfectly fine with that. If they stop shooting rockets they won't get killed and that is as good as it gets.

No moral concerns eh? Well you appear to be in good company with much of the rest of Israel and the US.

Myth

11-20-2012, 14:49

The Israeli people maybe want peace but their leaders sure don't seem to.

komnenos

11-20-2012, 15:06

Some Muslims in Palestine make cruel actions aginst Israeli and it will be harmful for themselves and other Muslims.But Israeli should be patient.

Hax

11-20-2012, 15:30

The Palestinian-Israeli conflict is not religious.

rvg

11-20-2012, 15:48

The Palestinian-Israeli conflict is not religious.

And further complicated by the fact that it can't be solved by killing all the brown people in the area.

Fragony

11-20-2012, 15:54

No moral concerns eh?

Not really no.

HoreTore

11-20-2012, 16:06

The Palestinian-Israeli conflict is not religious.

I'd say it's both.

It didn't start out that way, but over the last couple of decades we've definitely seen a shift towards "religiousification" of the conflict.

Hax

11-20-2012, 16:10

Myth

11-20-2012, 16:10

And further complicated by the fact that it can't be solved by killing all the brown people in the area.

Then we must simply kill ALL the people in the area, comrade!
http://www.gendercide.org/images/pics/stalin1.jpg

rvg

11-20-2012, 16:12

Then we must simply kill ALL the people in the area, comrade!
http://www.gendercide.org/images/pics/stalin1.jpg

Death solves all problems. No man -- no problem.

Idaho

11-20-2012, 16:13

Not really no.

You don't base your judgements on morals or logic (if past comments are anything to go by). So what basis do you have for the prodigious words of wisdom you offer in this forum?

Fragony

11-20-2012, 16:46

You don't base your judgements on morals or logic (if past comments are anything to go by). So what basis do you have for the prodigious words of wisdom you offer in this forum?

Which ones

HoreTore

11-20-2012, 16:57

I totally disagree. Yes, religion has been used by both sides in order to justify their claims to the land, but the roots of the conflict are non-religious in order. The expression of anti-Israeli sentiment on the Arab side has been mostly in terms of nationalism.

The shift towards more religious dialogue coincides with the failure of pan-Arabism and nationalism within the greater Arab world, but this does not at all mean that the conflict is religious in nature. It is far more complex than that.

I'd say the bolded word sums it up for both sides.

And might I remind you that that I said it started non-religious, which you also claim(roots of the conflict), so.... How's that for "totally disagreeing", hax? ~;)

komnenos

11-20-2012, 18:06

But It's said that it's religious conflict first.If no so what was the root of that?

Fragony

11-20-2012, 18:31

But It's said that it's religious conflict first.If no so what was the root of that?

Most will agree on it being arab nationalism, started in the twenties or so, jewish nationalism earlier though. But it's a bit of both, religious nationalism really

HoreTore

11-20-2012, 21:12

But It's said that it's religious conflict first.If no so what was the root of that?

I'd say the root cause is Europe's treatment of its jewish minority in the 19th century(and earlier).

If jews hadn't been persecuted harshly, zionism simply would not have existed.

And rememer that zionism was created out of the secular aim of a safe haven somewhere(it wasn't Israel until much later) where jews no longer faced persecution. It was not motivated by the predominately christian right-wing aim of establishing a jewish Israel.

Religion didn't even dominate back when Israel was created. For the arab side, palestine was regarded in a nationalist light, and the post-1948-situation has followed the standard dynamic of a refugee population. Israel was was dominated by various socialist groups back then(kibbutz movement), and that was the main political idea(besides the standard ones you find in any country). That's one of the reasons why Israel had a lot of support from the european social democratic parties back in the day, and the decline of the kibbutz movement is also one of the reasons why that support has faltered.

komnenos

11-20-2012, 21:22

Oh, I got it.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

11-20-2012, 22:57

I totally disagree. Yes, religion has been used by both sides in order to justify their claims to the land, but the roots of the conflict are non-religious in order. The expression of anti-Israeli sentiment on the Arab side has been mostly in terms of nationalism.

The shift towards more religious dialogue coincides with the failure of pan-Arabism and nationalism within the greater Arab world, but this does not at all mean that the conflict is religious in nature. It is far more complex than that.

I would say it is religious in the sense that Israeli identity is constructed along Biblical lines and given Biblical Justification - remember that their Rabbi's go to war alongside them. The fanaticisation of the Arabs is a result of a need to keep up the same kind of fervour, without a religious justification they would have wound down by now. This a conflict which is already twice as old as the 30 years war, only the enmity between Britain and France bears real comparison in the last 1,000 years.

Conradus

11-20-2012, 22:59

Or the Crusades and the Eighty Years War?

Hax

11-20-2012, 23:10

The conflict between Jews and Arabs is not age-old, contrary to what both sides will try to tell you. Also, I'm looking forward to the time where Jews and Arabs can make light-hearted jokes at the expense of one another. We already do that here, though.

I'd say the root cause is Europe's treatment of its jewish minority in the 19th century(and earlier).

If jews hadn't been persecuted harshly, zionism simply would not have existed.

Basically this, but with one addition: Theodor Hertzl's writings (which, interestingly were based on the same concepts of racial identity that were later used in national-socialist groups) were had a lukewarm reception in western Europe, where the Jews had integrated into society quite well. In the eastern part of Europe, especially Russia, where Jews were subject to violent pogroms from time to time, there was a much warmer reaction. Many of these Jews later either emigrated to the US or to Israel.

HoreTore

11-20-2012, 23:13

I would say it is religious in the sense that Israeli identity is constructed along Biblical lines and given Biblical Justification - remember that their Rabbi's go to war alongside them. The fanaticisation of the Arabs is a result of a need to keep up the same kind of fervour, without a religious justification they would have wound down by now. This a conflict which is already twice as old as the 30 years war, only the enmity between Britain and France bears real comparison in the last 1,000 years.

That's quite the bullseye IMO. For both sides.

The historical facts we have is of a secular organization that started in the 1800's, who turned religous when evry option but Israel was exhausted. Then Israel was formed as a secular state. With religious influence, but still quite the secular state. After X years of war and shaky peace, the religious aspects gain more and more ground.

Although it should be noted, that the rise of the religious aspect has also been caused by a weakening of the secular organizations, like when Arafat's secular PLO was shot down and Hamas rose to power. But then again, you could argue that it was Hamas who filled the power vacuum, not a different kind of secular power. It seems quite clear that the palestinians have turned to religion and religious organizations, turning down secular organizations.

HoreTore

11-20-2012, 23:15

The conflict between Jews and Arabs is not age-old, contrary to what both sides will try to tell you.

Define "age-old". 60 years earns that label in my book, at least.

Hax

11-20-2012, 23:21

Thousands of years. 1,400 to be precise.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

11-21-2012, 00:02

Or the Crusades and the Eighty Years War?

No, not really, they were quite different conflicts. The Crusades were a series of military campaigns which fit into the overarching narrative of the largely failed attempts by Christians to hold the line against the advance of Islamic armies and the 80 Years War was a dynastic feudal revolt.

Hax

11-21-2012, 00:22

Western European history isn't really my strong suit, but I though the Crusades were more or less the Byzantine Emperor's request for assistance that pretty much got out of hand?

Kralizec

11-21-2012, 00:23

I would say it is religious in the sense that Israeli identity is constructed along Biblical lines and given Biblical Justification - remember that their Rabbi's go to war alongside them. The fanaticisation of the Arabs is a result of a need to keep up the same kind of fervour, without a religious justification they would have wound down by now. This a conflict which is already twice as old as the 30 years war, only the enmity between Britain and France bears real comparison in the last 1,000 years.

The "Britain versus France" meme was mostly an afterthought, inflated by nationalist sentiments centuries later. It was more of a dynastic fight than anything else, in which the Capetians managed to unify the rest of France. Very much to the point: Burgundy was alligned with the English through much of the conflict.

I'm also not really sure that we can conclude that the Palestinian - Israeli conflict as we know it was a continuous struggle since 1947. It's always been my impression that it only truly started when Israel annexed more and more Palestinian lands as a result of the wars with Syria and Egypt, and really kicked off with the first intifada.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

11-21-2012, 00:47

Western European history isn't really my strong suit, but I though the Crusades were more or less the Byzantine Emperor's request for assistance that pretty much got out of hand?

At the time they were seen as defensive wars, campaigns to liberate the Christians under the Muslim yoke. Remember, 2/3 of Christendom and about 3/4 of the known world had been swallowed up by the Caliphs, Iberia, North Africa and the Levant were seen as Christian lands under occupation - their liberation was a necessity.

Hax

11-21-2012, 00:55

1.) A particularly crazy Muslim ruler in the holy land burned down a prominent Christian church, which gave the Pope a sort of cassus belli.

I assume you mean the Caliph al-Hakim of the Fatimid dynasty. He's an interesting fellow, but was subjected to some very negative press after his death. I wonder..

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

11-21-2012, 01:27

Kind of. The schism between Orthodox and Catholic had already occured at this point, and many of the Crusaders considered the Byzantines to be only one step above the Muslims from a religious standpoint. There were two main factors that caused the crusades:

1.) A particularly crazy Muslim ruler in the holy land burned down a prominent Christian church, which gave the Pope a sort of cassus belli.

2.) The Feudal system in Europe was at its most violent and chaotic, with roving bands of unlanded knights causing trouble all over the place. The Pope wanted to direct their energies at foreign enemies, and not fellow christians.

I'm sorry GC - but that's mostly a huge oversimplification. The Chronicles make it clear that the Western Catholics largely considered the Eastern Orthodox as in error, heresy was much less of a big deal at the time. When your brother, however ne'r do well, is having the stuffing kicked out of him by a bigger, nastier and generally reprehensible individual, you help him. The Crusaders clearly felt they were helping their brothers ina Holy War they were losing.

Yes, at the upper levels of the Church there was much disagreement but just below that you have bishops and priests mixing freely and generally getting on very well.

As to the instability of Europe, the problem was not robber knights, it was feuding Counts and Dukes - this was the period that spawned men like William the Bastards, the Godwins, and Sicilians Normans. Reading the chronicles makes it clear how shocking the internal strife was for some people, this is a period when Chroniclers still refer to "the Emperor" - we're really seeing the last gasp of the idea of the Western Empire in this period.

Fragony

11-21-2012, 04:04

At the time they were seen as defensive wars, campaigns to liberate the Christians under the Muslim yoke. Remember, 2/3 of Christendom and about 3/4 of the known world had been swallowed up by the Caliphs, Iberia, North Africa and the Levant were seen as Christian lands under occupation - their liberation was a necessity.

Oddly enough not really, the first crusade wasn't even percieved as a military expedition, think of it as an armed pilgrimage. It wasn't an army marching but all sorts of fragmented groups moving towards Jeruzalem with the Temple order as protectors.

Tellos Athenaios

11-21-2012, 05:46

At the time they were seen as defensive wars, campaigns to liberate the Christians under the Muslim yoke. Remember, 2/3 of Christendom and about 3/4 of the known world had been swallowed up by the Caliphs, Iberia, North Africa and the Levant were seen as Christian lands under occupation - their liberation was a necessity.

Well yes, but that is looking from the Catholic perspective -- not that of the Byzantine emperor. From the perspective of the Byzantine emperor it was a request for some forces to aid his planned reconquest of Nicaea and surroundings, for something not unlike the mercenary forces Byzantium had employed for ages...

... Not the peasant pilgrims, and then the massive army. ... Nor what followed after Seljuks agreed to let Byzantine forces take over control of Nicaea...

Fragony

11-21-2012, 06:12

Want to buy some imsomnia TA

Ironside

11-21-2012, 11:54

Oddly enough not really, the first crusade wasn't even percieved as a military expedition, think of it as an armed pilgrimage. It wasn't an army marching but all sorts of fragmented groups moving towards Jeruzalem with the Temple order as protectors.

The temple orders are later. The pilgrimages started to florish after the crusades, but the region was still too unstable, so the templar orders were formed for protection.

I don't remember how far those treaties stretched, but alot of the terriotory were supposed to be relinquished to the Byzantine Emperor. Some did this, but there was a lot battling between the Byzantines and the lords (dukes whatever) who kept the conquered lands as their own.

Fragony

11-21-2012, 13:14

The temple orders are later. The pilgrimages started to florish after the crusades, but the region was still too unstable, so the templar orders were formed for protection.

I don't remember how far those treaties stretched, but alot of the terriotory were supposed to be relinquished to the Byzantine Emperor. Some did this, but there was a lot battling between the Byzantines and the lords (dukes whatever) who kept the conquered lands as their own.

Not sure if that is true as there are vows to protect pilgims way before the conquering of Jeruzalem; receiving the white cross, there are countless records of allowances to go to the holy land but none to conquer it, not untill the second. Maybe it wasn't an 'official' order by then, I don't know, but it was a holy duty for all men able to free the routs towards. I'll look it up

Myth

11-21-2012, 13:42

The call to arms was indeed to defend the holy lands and the pilgrims going there. Turkish raiders were harassing pilgrims and Orthodox believers. The terms "crusade" as well as "Byzantine" are both modern. At the time of the first Crusade the men involved actually believed they were doing God's work. Remember, this was a time when the Catholic church was at the heights of it's power and if the Pope promised you absolution from sin and entry into God's kingdom for going and defending your fellow Christians from the Turks, you believed it.

Later on the Templars and Hospitaliers were formed and they become filthy rich and corrupt, and the later nobles and Kings who commissioned or joined these Crusades were more interesting in grabbing land than doing God's work. The individual European warrior however, did have the beliefs, as did the smallfolk.

Conradus

11-21-2012, 13:45

While there have always been pilgramages to the Holy Land, even after the Arab conquest of Jeruzalem, the Orders founded to protect those pilgrims date from (after) the First Crusade. The Knights Hospitaller were founded (as a military order) in 1099 after the conquest of Jerzualem. The Knights Templar in 1119.

HopAlongBunny

11-21-2012, 13:55

The wealth and corruption of the holy orders seems largely overplayed. The end of the Templars did not result in massive treasure finds, and gave an ironic caste to the term "Holy Sacrifice".

On topic, it is not so much what happened as the narrative that has surrounded the events. I am sure that the history of brave knights doing god's work which many ppl are spoonfed as soon as elementary school in the West, gets a much different treatment in the cultures of the Middle-East. To see the present situation in terms of some created narrative rooted in a contentious interpretation of history is to just miss the point. I support Israel's "right to exist"; legitimate or not it is a fact. I do not support any right to "cleanse" the area and create a "greater" Israel.

How do you balance the fact of Israel's existence with the (very) legitimate claims of the people(s) who call the land "home"?

komnenos

11-21-2012, 14:08

Oddly enough not really, the first crusade wasn't even percieved as a military expedition, think of it as an armed pilgrimage. It wasn't an army marching but all sorts of fragmented groups moving towards Jeruzalem with the Temple order as protectors.

But don't make mistake that also Byzantine Empire wanted to free christian residents of Turkey from control of Seljuk Turks. So, first of all they should conquer Nicaea and then other lands in order to bring safety for them-selves. Their purpose wasn't only capturing it and expanding their empire.

rvg

11-21-2012, 14:09

But don't make mistake that also Byzantine Empire wanted to free christian residents of Turkey from control of Seljuk Turks. So, first of all they should conquer Nicaea and then other lands in order to bring safety for them-selves. Their purpose wasn't only capturing it and expanding their empire.
It's not really conquest if you're just taking what was yours in the first place. It's more of a reconquista kind of thing.

komnenos

11-21-2012, 14:48

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

11-21-2012, 14:54

Fragony

11-21-2012, 15:05

You are wrong on point 2, it wasn't

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

11-21-2012, 15:11

You are wrong on point 2, it wasn't

No, I'm not.

The core of the First Crusade were the Knights, they were separate to the peasant horde that followed them (and was ultimately wiped out).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Crusade

Edit: Beg pardon - the peasant horde went first.

Myth

11-21-2012, 15:20

Oh I give up on this blasted forum software - Short version.

1. The Templars were not heretics or corrupt, they were ultimately cleared of all charges.

2. The first Crusade was an organised military campaign followed by a mob of fanatics.

3. A One-State Solution is the only hope for peace in Palestine.
The term heretic is very narrowly defined within Catholic canon. That they kept knowledge from the ancient Mystery Religions and that they had some members rival the wealth of Geneoese merchants is fact. I'm not saying all the knights were idol worshipping scrooges, but the truth lies in neither extreme as far as I'm concerned.

Pope Urban II was a shrewd man. The first Crusade was the most successful one mainly because that the western countries had a lot of potential energy stored and ready to burst forth - they had the men, the tools of war and the desire to use them. Urban simply presented a righteous cause. As far as the military aspect is concerned, the Arabs and Turks were taken largely by surprised by a storm of western steel, destriers and crossbow bolts pouring off the ships and sweeping across the (rather poorly defended) levantine settlements such s Antioch, Edessa, Acre and Jerusalem. Once those were secured, and the Crusaders could add a steady supply base to their list of advantages along with superior weaponry and elite professional soldiers, it became a much different situation.

Fragony

11-21-2012, 15:23

No, I'm not.

The core of the First Crusade were the Knights, they were separate to the peasant horde that followed them (and was ultimately wiped out).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Crusade

Edit: Beg pardon - the peasant horde went first.

Knights may have been I dunno but there is a little bit more about it, it was basicly a broader movement

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

11-21-2012, 15:29

The term heretic is very narrowly defined within Catholic canon. That they kept knowledge from the ancient Mystery Religions and that they had some members rival the wealth of Geneoese merchants is fact.

There is no evidence for either of these claims - while there may have been individual corrupt Templars who extracted funds from Chapter House banks there is absolutely no evidence of any kind of organised or consistent corruption or "Mystic" heresy, although there is some evidence that Templars in the 14th Century lacked theological sophistication, as they had no prominent Doctores in their ranks at the time.

Nor was the term "heretic" particularly narrowly defined at the time.

As I said, the Templars were acquitted of heresy, and all "confessions" were extracted under torture where the Monks in question demanded confessions to a list of predefined sins. The whole three-headed idol and the spitting on the cross stuff is, so far as we know, pure invention just like the charges leveled against the Wycliffites and Hussites a generation or so later.

Hooahguy

11-21-2012, 15:34

Apparently a bus blew up in Tel Aviv. Nobody killed and only a few injured.

Still laughing at my friends on facebook calling it "the worst thing ever."

Fragony

11-21-2012, 15:35

It's their custom to call Jihad against non-Muslims and kill them only to promote Islam and expand Islam world by way

hehe, hear it from someone else than me orgahs.

How are things there, sorry for you, normal Iranians will never lose my sympathy

Arjos

11-21-2012, 15:37

Pope Urban II was a shrewd man. The first Crusade was the most successful one mainly because that the western countries had a lot of potential energy stored and ready to burst forth - they had the men, the tools of war and the desire to use them. Urban simply presented a righteous cause. As far as the military aspect is concerned, the Arabs and Turks were taken largely by surprised by a storm of western steel, destriers and crossbow bolts pouring off the ships and sweeping across the (rather poorly defended) levantine settlements such s Antioch, Edessa, Acre and Jerusalem.

The professionalism and superiority of the west is honestly a myth...
The Muslims were simply fragmented politically, and like any other group in history, they often preferred to side with the foreigner, than with an arch enemy...
It was thanks to their infighting, that the Christians were able to establish those "beach head" dominions...

As for the poor defenses, again, not completely true: Antioch, was quite difficult, and the Crusaders, had terrible supply lines (when they were lucky and had any at all!). It was successful, due to cooperation from inside of the city...
Later, the counter attack, was "miraculously" repelled, mostly because there wasn't a clear leadership in the muslim army...
Edessa, iirc, was even "inherited", because the local ruler adopted a knight, who promised to help fight off Arabs...

With massacres and treaties not respected, the Muslims, found themselves with a common cause and unified front, all they needed was a clever leader, to figure that and concentrate their efforts. After that, those professionals were, frankly, dealt with quite easily...

As for the OP and solution, I wonder if Uganda might've worked, the Holy Land and its history, is something too strong and irresistible for any believer's imaginary...

Hax

11-21-2012, 15:58

And Byzantine Empire(or it's better to say Eastern Roman Empire) should defense christian people against Sunni Muslims. Because Sunni Muslims(esp. turks who were zealous) were dangerous not only for christianity but also for other religions of Islam like Shiite. It's their custom to call Jihad against non-Muslims and kill them only to promote Islam and expand Islam world by this way. Therefore Byzantine Empire was a dam against them to prevent them from the future dangerous events.

From what we know of the early conquest of Islam is that they were not particularly religiously inspired. The notion of "spreading Islam by the sword" is actually a dangerous myth. Although forced conversion reportedly did happen, it happened mostly in isolated cases and there was no ideal (at least in the first few centuries) of spreading the faith.

Furthermore, Islam in its early period was regarded as an Arabic religion for Arabs. Interestingly, there is a verse in the Qur‘an that says: "The Arabs are the worst in disbelief" (ar: al-‘a’râb aššadu kufran wa nifaqan) (9:97), which is commonly translated as "the Arabs of the desert". I think that being Arab had more to do with being part of a clan than with being of a certain ethnic group.

In any case, in order to convert to Islam during the Umayyad period, you actually had to become an "honorary Arab" so to speak: this usually meant that you became part of a tribe.

I would also advise caution when it comes to the dichotomy of the Shi‘a-Sunni split. Even though there are important differences between the two groups, figures revered by the Shi‘a are also revered by Sunnis.

komnenos

11-21-2012, 15:58

As you know in during the crusade first, Fatimids capture Jerusalem and made Seljuk Turks weaker. But they don't treat christian people in Jerusalem like the Turks. But some crusaders continued to fight against them. I think the war must finished in that time. Because Christian residents were in safe, but they shall be ready for any dangers there. And it was Latin soldiers fault because byzantine army didn't follow them.

Myth

11-21-2012, 17:02

HoreTore

11-21-2012, 17:05

Sarmatian

11-21-2012, 17:34

NO NO NO AND NO!

I'm sorry but I won't stand for this crap. It is no myth - read up on the Ottoman conquest of Bulgaria and the ERE. Bulgarians were forced to convert to Islam or be butchered! Women were raped and impregnated by turks so their children become Muslim! Newborn boys were taken forcefully as the infamous "blood tax" to be trained as janissaries in Anadola, and then released back to butcher Bulgarians for the fun of it! Churches were razed to the ground and until the 1700 no church could be higher than ground level. Numerous acconts can be found of forceful conversions and that you would say otherwise offends me.

You have to admit that Ottoman cruelty in the Balkans is kind of exaggerated.

If people were forced to convert en masse, how come most of Bulgaria, Serbia and Greece is still Orthodox? Majority of muslims in the Balkans were Turks or other muslim subjects of the empire, like an occasional Arab or two. Only people who converted more numerously to Islam are Bosnians and Albanians, and both countries today are almost 50% Christian.

Also, what we call "blood tax" was really a way to provide good soldiers and smart bureaucrats for the empire. It's nothing new, every single country did something similar since the Romans. Those boys weren't treated poorly, they were given a great education or great military training and pushed into prominent positions in the hierarchy. At the least two Serbs who converted to Islam were given the position of Grand Vizier, including Sokollu, arguably the most powerful Grand Vizier in the history of the Ottoman Empire.

Church were rarely razed to the ground, for proof I point out to still standing numerous medieval Serbian churches and monasteries, many possessing decrees of the Sultan himself explicitly allowing monks to practice their religion and forbidding anyone, even himself from doing any harm to them. Greek, Serbian and Bulgarian monasteries on Mt. Athos still stand and they've enjoyed a great autonomy during the Ottoman rule.

Most of the Ottoman bad reputation come from later, 18th-19th century, when the general anarchy and weakened central power contributed to local lords doing whatever they pleased.

rvg

11-21-2012, 17:38

NO NO NO AND NO!

Actually, Hax is correct. Outside of Arabia forced conversions did not happen until a few centuries after the initial muslim conquest. Originally muslims didn't even want any converts, and it wasn't because muslims were pious or good-hearted. The reason was because muslims weren't allowed to mistreat other muslims. The moment a conquered person or nation became muslim, they had to be treated as equals and could no longer be looted/plundered/ravaged.

HoreTore

11-21-2012, 17:45

...and when you can't loot and pillage, you take all the fun out of an invasion...

rvg

11-21-2012, 17:46

...and when you can't loot and pillage, you take all the fun out of an invasion...

Exactly. You do it for the money, otherwise you stay home.

HoreTore

11-21-2012, 17:50

Exactly. You do it for the money, otherwise you stay home.

I think "compensating for short willies" have to be including as a major driving force, in addition to that.

Nothing says "male insecurity" louder than having thousands of men kill each other with long, pointy penis-shaped objects.

rvg

11-21-2012, 17:54

I think "compensating for short willies" have to be including as a major driving force, in addition to that.

Nothing says "male insecurity" louder than having thousands of men kill each other with long, pointy penis-shaped objects.

Which goes to show once again that Vikings did it right: go in, find a fat, rich monastery, loot it dry, kill a few monks, rape a few nuns, then go home and live like a king (or jarl).

Hax

11-21-2012, 17:54

You know when rvg agrees with me that something is really wrong.

NO NO NO AND NO!

I'm sorry but I won't stand for this crap. It is no myth - read up on the Ottoman conquest of Bulgaria and the ERE. Bulgarians were forced to convert to Islam or be butchered!

Take it easy.

In any case, if you look at my phrasing, I explicitly mentioned "the early years of the conquest", with which I mean the era in which Egypt, Syria, Iraq, North-Africa and Greater Iran were conquered.

The reason was because muslims weren't allowed to mistreat other muslims.

I prefer "tax", but that's a matter of interpretation, I suppose. In any case, mistreating a majority is almost never a good idea. And in that particular time, non-Muslims were the majority.

Sarmatian

11-21-2012, 18:00

Which goes to show once again that Vikings did it right: go in, find a fat, rich monastery, loot it dry, kill a few monks, rape a few nuns, then go home and live like a king (or jarl).

All the while wearing horned helmets...

Helloooo, compensating for something aren't we...

komnenos

11-21-2012, 18:18

Actually Myth is right.I completely agree with Myth.

HoreTore

11-21-2012, 18:24

All the while wearing horned helmets...

Helloooo, compensating for something aren't we...

They also had drinking horns...

So I wouldn't rule out the possibility that it was "kiling a few nuns, raping a few munks" instead...

rvg

11-21-2012, 19:53

So, looks like it's over (http://www.cnn.com/2012/11/21/world/meast/gaza-israel-strike/index.html?hpt=hp_t1). Thank God.

Hooahguy

11-21-2012, 19:58

For now its over. But if rockets continue then it will start all over again, Ill assure you that. This same :daisy: happened in 2009 with Cast Lead. Dont see why it will change now.

Seamus Fermanagh

11-21-2012, 22:20

rvg

11-21-2012, 22:25

One USA radio entertainer (political pundit type) asserts that this kind of spat will repeat endlessly until one side or the other gathers the werewithal to break the other party's will and/or ability to continue the struggle. In short, that the only means of resolving this dispute is to fight it to a conclusion. What say you?

According to the terms of the ceasefire, Israel will allow maritime trade (though all vessels will be subject to Israeli inspection). This might just be good enough for Gaza to breathe easier and have more interest in preventing further escalations.

Montmorency

11-21-2012, 22:38

One USA radio entertainer (political pundit type) asserts that this kind of spat will repeat endlessly until one side or the other gathers the werewithal to break the other party's will and/or ability to continue the struggle. In short, that the only means of resolving this dispute is to fight it to a conclusion. What say you?

The real question is, would it come to regional war if there were a generalized uprising by the Palestinians throughout Israel that the state suppressed with brutal force? An uprising is what it may come to if decades follow with further land appropriation and no visible economic improvement. An extended cease fire would even exacerbate the sort of tensions that may give rise to a revolt, thus making episodes of fighting and destruction desirable for Israel, in some way.

Sarmatian

11-21-2012, 22:46

Jolt

11-21-2012, 23:24

Israel's power depends on USA support, so actually Israel can only keep this as long as US is sanctioning it.

That depends on who's in charge in Israel. If its the religious nutjobs or ultra-orthodoxes, they may just well say to a cut in US aid: "Then :daisy: off, this is our land, we do what we goddamn want with it."

Montmorency

11-21-2012, 23:38

Sarmatian's right in that the USA's implicit guarantee towards Israel's security keeps the Arab states in the area on their better behavior.

I just don't see an American president who isn't very much pro-Israel getting elected, though I can certainly see less level-headed, more populist types, rising to power in the Arab states at some point.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

11-22-2012, 00:41

From what we know of the early conquest of Islam is that they were not particularly religiously inspired. The notion of "spreading Islam by the sword" is actually a dangerous myth. Although forced conversion reportedly did happen, it happened mostly in isolated cases and there was no ideal (at least in the first few centuries) of spreading the faith.

Furthermore, Islam in its early period was regarded as an Arabic religion for Arabs. Interestingly, there is a verse in the Qur‘an that says: "The Arabs are the worst in disbelief" (ar: al-‘a’râb aššadu kufran wa nifaqan) (9:97), which is commonly translated as "the Arabs of the desert". I think that being Arab had more to do with being part of a clan than with being of a certain ethnic group.

In any case, in order to convert to Islam during the Umayyad period, you actually had to become an "honorary Arab" so to speak: this usually meant that you became part of a tribe.

I would also advise caution when it comes to the dichotomy of the Shi‘a-Sunni split. Even though there are important differences between the two groups, figures revered by the Shi‘a are also revered by Sunnis.

I attended a lecture today about Muslims and sex in Iberia - did you know that between the 8th and 10th centuries all the Caliphs were born to slave-concubines, mostly Christian ones?

Then there's the whole business of slaughtering all the Christian men and taking their women as slaves, which was standard practice for much of the expansionist period of Islam.

Norway was converted to Christianity in much the same way(viking style). But does that fact justify a claim that christianity was "spread by the sword"?

Edit: also, please explain how what you described differs from a standard subjugation of a conquered people.

Er, wasn't Norway converted byEnglish missionaries by the Norse Emperor Cnut? From what I recall he was keen on all his subjects being like his good English ones, Christian literate and civilised.

All the while wearing horned helmets...

Helloooo, compensating for something aren't we...

Excuse me, we did not wear horned helmets, that would be stupid. You don't want the monks or nuns to have something on your head to grab on to.

HoreTore

11-22-2012, 01:03

Er, wasn't Norway converted byEnglish missionaries by the Norse Emperor Cnut? From what I recall he was keen on all his subjects being like his good English ones, Christian literate and civilised.

Short version: no.

We were converted by Olav, in the viking way.

Edit: and Håkon Gode and Olav Tryggvason before that of course; more viking, but less successful.

Edit2: Cnut was a bloody dane.

Edit3: and of course, the christianization was continued by Harald Hardråde(meaning "harsh ruler"). Snorre is silent about domestic issues, choosing to spend his words detailing the glorious pillaging of Denmark, but given how Hardråde solved disputes, it's not hard to imagine how he would treat someone resisting his religion(torture and death, all the way to the bank).

Hax

11-22-2012, 01:19

I attended a lecture today about Muslims and sex in Iberia - did you know that between the 8th and 10th centuries all the Caliphs were born to slave-concubines, mostly Christian ones?

Then there's the whole business of slaughtering all the Christian men and taking their women as slaves, which was standard practice for much of the expansionist period of Islam.

The first matter is in fact, well-known.

The second part sounds fairly unlikely and I would like to see a source for that.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

11-22-2012, 01:26

Short version: no.

We were converted by Olav, in the viking way.

Edit: and Håkon Gode and Olav Tryggvason before that of course; more viking, but less successful.

Edit2: Cnut was a bloody dane.

Interesting how our histories differ, isn't it?

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

11-22-2012, 01:31

The second part sounds fairly unlikely and I would like to see a source for that.

I forget the name, but he was a Muslim Iberian poet at Cordoba writing in the 980'-1000's for Al-Mansur and his son, relating how after defeating Christian defenders in sieges the Muslims beheaded the men and carried the women and children off into slavery, Al-Masur's total haul being some 160,000 captive in his campaigns, supposedly.

HoreTore

11-22-2012, 01:34

Interesting how our histories differ, isn't it?

Well, there's the right one, and the not-so-right one.

The Battle of Sticklestad is the final showdown between those who opposed and those who promoted christianity. Olav was the leader of the side promoting it, thus he is remembered as the one who christianized Norway.

Tore Hund was the leader of those opposing christianity, a pagan viking from an island outside Harstad in Northern Norway. Guess who Ture Hund was allied with? Yes, your so-called missionary Cnut.

Now... How can the man supposedly responsible for bringing christianity to Norway support the pagan leader of a movement determined to kill off this christian nonsense? Your story has holes, man.

HoreTore

11-22-2012, 01:36

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

11-22-2012, 01:47

Well, there's the right one, and the not-so-right one.

The Battle of Sticklestad is the final showdown between those who opposed and those who promoted christianity. Olav was the leader of the side promoting it, thus he is remembered as the one who christianized Norway.

Tore Hund was the leader of those opposing christianity, a pagan viking from an island outside Harstad in Northern Norway. Guess who Ture Hund was allied with? Yes, your so-called missionary Cnut.

Now... How can the man supposedly responsible for bringing christianity to Norway support the pagan leader of a movement determined to kill off this christian nonsense? Your story has holes, man.

*Shrug* Cnut was a great king, he could afford to support the Pagans and then convert them once his power was secure. Certainly he did send English missionaries to the Norse and Swedes, that is recorded in our chronicles.

I did not say he brought Christianity to Norway, I said he was responsible for converting the populace via English missionaries. Given how hard it was to Crush thor here I would imagine it was doubly hard and took doubly long in Scandinavia.

So... You have one source covering a limited time period in a limited area, and yet you choose to generalize it to cover a much larger area and time period...?

Your professors would have your arse.

Hax wanted a source, it was a 40 minute paper, and I've been drinking since - I think remembering that much is quite impressive - also, I was talking about standard practice in Iberia during the period I referenced. Which is not to say that there aren't plenty of accounts of similar things happening elsewhere, Balian supposedly prevented Saladin from doing exactly that to the defenders of Jerusalem by threatening to destroy the Dome of the Rock if the knights were not allowed to be ransomed free.

Edit: If you want more details you'll have to ask the man himself, Prof. Simon Barton - http://humanities.exeter.ac.uk/history/staff/barton/

HoreTore

11-22-2012, 01:57

*Shrug* Cnut was a great king, he could afford to support the Pagans and then convert them once his power was secure. Certainly he did send English missionaries to the Norse and Swedes, that is recorded in our chronicles.

I did not say he brought Christianity to Norway, I said he was responsible for converting the populace via English missionaries. Given how hard it was to Crush thor here I would imagine it was doubly hard and took doubly long in Scandinavia.

Knut was an irrelevant king, with a very short hold on the Norwegian crown - and even in that short time he only ruled through allies(ladejarl).

He is not considered a king of Norway.

I wasn't arguing against a claim that he was the first one to bring christ to Norway - that's blatantly wrong and I know you have enough knowledge to know that. I am arguing against the claim that he converted the population.

Sure - he sent missionaries, but they did not convert the population. Again, a short version:

Through torture and butcher, the top dogs were converted or killed. The royal lineage, now christian, gained firm control of the country. Then they brought in the priests to convert the masses. This is where the english missionaries come in - but only as one of many. Priests were brought in from London to Constantinople, and they all played a part.

Fragony

11-22-2012, 07:49

Lolthat didn't last very long

HopAlongBunny

11-22-2012, 10:24

Much of the posting here illustrates the exact problem. Violence leads to violence justifying ... more violence.

It's nice to note we can track this cycle back to the beginning of time, and apply it over a huge range of different cultures. It leaves unanswered the important question of how to get beyond the cycle of violence. It has been done in different contexts so : How do we apply a solution in this context?

We already know (I think) that it takes both sides to resolve the issue. Is there any hope of that?

Kadagar_AV

11-22-2012, 15:35

All the while wearing horned helmets...

Helloooo, compensating for something aren't we...

Vikings never wore horned helmets... The image of the horned viking was church propaganda, to make the vikings look more like the devil. It's totally off topic, but I just wanted to correct this popular but incorrect view on the vikings :)

Fragony

11-22-2012, 15:54

Some did, National Museum of Denmark, Copenhagen http://www.google.com/search?hl=nl&tbo=d&authuser=0&biw=1024&bih=644&site=imghp&tbm=isch&sa=1&q=viking+priest+horns&oq=viking+priest+horns&gs_l=img.3...67838.70249.0.71305.6.1.0.5.0.0.348.348.3-1.1.0...0.0...1ac.1.iDxsXROQF-4#biv=i|47;d|hIEpmwOXJfeKeM:

HoreTore

11-22-2012, 15:59

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

11-22-2012, 16:13

Kadagar_AV

11-22-2012, 16:14

Ceremonnial.

Yeah, there might be some evidence of horned helmets for ceremonial purposes. But that is of course a far cry from it being a fashion, or even ever appearing on the battle field.

The vikings can be accused of many things, but not of being bad fighters. They were actually very professional in their pillages. And I think anyone who has trained martial arts or had combat practice can attest to the fact that no, you do not want something sticking out from your helmet that the opposition can grab.

Fragony

11-22-2012, 16:22

Ceremonnial.

I know, viking priests wore them, also other animals like foxes and bears but these don't survive time. The horns are a it of a convenient half truth

HoreTore

11-22-2012, 16:50

I know, viking priests wore them, also other animals like foxes and bears but these don't survive time. The horns are a it of a convenient half truth

Wrong time period, as already stated by PVC.

Idaho

11-22-2012, 17:06

So you don't base your opinions on morals or facts and you never back down even when totally wrong Fragony?

Beskar

11-22-2012, 17:22

Edit: If you want more details you'll have to ask the man himself, Prof. Simon Barton - http://humanities.exeter.ac.uk/history/staff/barton/

From clicking on the 'Publications' tab, I think the Paper might have been this one:
Marriage across frontiers: sexual mixing, power and identity in Medieval Iberia, Journal of Medieval Iberian Studies, vol. 3, 2011, 1-25

Kralizec

11-22-2012, 17:28

Kadagar_AV

11-22-2012, 17:38

So, we have a conflict that has cost dozens (possibly hundreds) of people's lives, and the Scandinavians on this board figure out a way to make the whole discussion revolve around them...again :rolleyes:

:creep:

Probably my fault... But then, me schooling people on Viking helmets will have an actual impact in the world. Me debating the evils of Israel will change nothing what so ever.

So on topic: Seeing what the Jews accomplish when left on their own, you seriously have to start considering if they REALLY learnt the right lesson from WWII.

Sarmatian

11-22-2012, 17:58

Vikings never wore horned helmets... The image of the horned viking was church propaganda, to make the vikings look more like the devil. It's totally off topic, but I just wanted to correct this popular but incorrect view on the vikings :)

I know, mate, I was kidding.

Hax

11-22-2012, 18:30

I forget the name, but he was a Muslim Iberian poet at Cordoba writing in the 980'-1000's for Al-Mansur and his son, relating how after defeating Christian defenders in sieges the Muslims beheaded the men and carried the women and children off into slavery, Al-Masur's total haul being some 160,000 captive in his campaigns, supposedly.

Sorry for the late response.

That's definitely interesting, and situations such as these definitely occured. However, we should always take these reports with a grain of salt. The Arab hordes swarming over Byzantine defenses, burning everything in their path? Not very likely, even though later Muslim writers would often inflate the number of the Byzantines and skip over a couple of tens of years in order to demonstrate the power of Islam. Much of the archaeological evidence and reports of the time suggest a long drawn-out war that often meant the Byzantines coming in and reconquering a certain area for a while, then the Arabs would mount a counteroffensive and conquer it again, etc.

Although I would be the last to deny that massacres definitely occur, I don't think they were particularly wide-spread nor were a standard. If this were the standard, we would have found much more reports of massacres throughout the era.

EDIT: I just realised the other implications of this. If whole populations were massacred and their women enslaved, this would have rapidly sped up the amount of Muslims living in the Middle-East in that period. Our evidence for mass conversions to Islam occur from the 11th century onwards, and particularly in the eastern part of the Islamic world

Fragony

11-22-2012, 21:33

So you don't base your opinions on morals or facts and you never back down even when totally wrong Fragony?

What did I do this time

Fragony

11-22-2012, 21:42

Bronze Age - Celtic or Germano-Celtic, not Viking.

Vikings had no priests.

Did, I don't mean christian priests but pagan

HoreTore

11-22-2012, 22:13

What did I do this time

Did, I don't mean christian priests but pagan

Do you not see the link between these two statements?

And remember who you're debating frags, it should be obvious PVC isn't referring to christian priests(he's not total relism, ya know).

Vikings did not have a priesthood. The closest is the gode, but that position has more in common with a feudal lord than a priest. No shaman or druid class like we see with celts and german tribes, for example.

Actually, if PVC had referred to christian priests, the answer would be "yes, vikings did have christian priests".

Fragony

11-22-2012, 22:21

Do you not see the link between these two statements?

And remember who you're debating frags, it should be obvious PVC isn't referring to christian priests(he's not total relism, ya know).

Vikings did not have a priesthood. The closest is the gode, but that position has more in common with a feudal lord than a priest. No shaman or druid class like we see with celts and german tribes, for example.

Actually, if PVC had referred to christian priests, the answer would be "yes, vikings did have christian priests".

Not hammering PVC, but do these helmets in that link look very bronze age to you. Kinda in a good shape then. Common theory is that there were pagan priests present at raids and it isn't that far a stretch to assume that they were considered to be the leader. My claim that some vikings did wear horns is closer to the truth than claiming none of them did.

HoreTore

11-22-2012, 22:26

Not hammering PVC, but do these helmets in that link look very bronze age to you. Kinda in a good shape then. Common theory is that there were pagan priests present at raids and it isn't that far a stretch to assume that they were considered to be the leader. My claim that some vikings did wear horns is closer to the truth than claiming none of them did.

No, that's balloney.

As already stated, there was no priesthood. They can't "be present at raids" because they don't exist. The common viking man butchered the animals at blot. Viking raids were, of course, led by a chieftain of some sort(jarl, king, whatever).

The last depiction of a viking with horns is a tapestry from Oseberg burial, which is dated to 834. Lindesfarne, considered the brginning of the viking age, was sacked in 793. So, when the viking age began, the older ways of having priests and such were abondoned.

Fragony

11-22-2012, 22:31

No, that's balloney.

As already stated, there was no priesthood. They can't "be present at raids" because they don't exist. The common viking man butchered the animals at blot. Viking raids were, of course, led by a chieftain of some sort(jarl, king, whatever).

The last depiction of a viking with horns is a tapestry from Oseberg burial, which is dated to 834. Lindesfarne, considered the brginning of the viking age, was sacked in 793. So, when the viking age began, the older ways of having priests and such were abondoned.

If that's supposed to be bronze age you are doing it wrong. Priests is the wrong word let's call it shamaan or something like that, pagan stuff. But I don't know anyhow I wasn't there, it's what's in general accepted.

HoreTore

11-22-2012, 22:34

If that's supposed to be bronze age you are doing it wrong. Priests is the wrong word let's call it shamaan or something like that, pagan stuff. But I don't know anyhow I wasn't there, it's what's in general accepted.

No, it's the iron age, pre-viking.

Call it priests, shamans, druider or whatever you fancy, they still did not exist. And it's definitely not "generally accepted", unless you mean "generally accepted by people who have no clue".

Fragony

11-22-2012, 22:43

No, it's the iron age, pre-viking.

Call it priests, shamans, druider or whatever you fancy, they still did not exist. And it's definitely not "generally accepted", unless you mean "generally accepted by people who have no clue".

It's probably where the horned viking image comes from, like it or not. And no these helmets also aren't as old as that. Metal has no eternal life it wears down and disintegrates over time.

HoreTore

11-22-2012, 22:56

It's probably where the horned viking image comes from, like it or not. And no these helmets also aren't as old as that. Metal has no eternal life it wears down and disintegrates over time.

Not these exact helmets, as they're found in Denmark. But yes, the Oseberg tapestry probably depicts a man with a helm pre-dating the viking age.

Which was the point. Horned helmets were a feature of the bronze and iron age, the practice was abondoned when we entered the viking age.

Thus, no bloody vikings with horned helmets.

I've got homework for you though: figure out how metal can survive for 1200 years. 300 word essay on that, due on tuesday.

Kadagar_AV

11-22-2012, 23:05

Not these exact helmets, as they're found in Denmark. But yes, the Oseberg tapestry probably depicts a man with a helm pre-dating the viking age.

Which was the point. Horned helmets were a feature of the bronze and iron age, the practice was abondoned when we entered the viking age.

Thus, no bloody vikings with horned helmets.

I've got homework for you though: figure out how metal can survive for 1200 years. 300 word essay on that, due on tuesday.

Need help with the homework Fragony? If so, a hint would be to search for articles, not pictures. I know... I know... You have been taught that a picture says more than a thousand words, but the thing is, sometimes you must have read the thousands of words to understand the picture.

Fragony

11-22-2012, 23:34

Not these exact helmets, as they're found in Denmark. But yes, the Oseberg tapestry probably depicts a man with a helm pre-dating the viking age.

Which was the point. Horned helmets were a feature of the bronze and iron age, the practice was abondoned when we entered the viking age.

Thus, no bloody vikings with horned helmets.

I've got homework for you though: figure out how metal can survive for 1200 years. 300 word essay on that, due on tuesday.

Would the iron age not being 1200 years ago do, saves me a lot of work

HoreTore

11-22-2012, 23:41

Would the iron age not being 1200 years ago do, saves me a lot of work

Yes, that would give you an F.

Fragony

11-22-2012, 23:46

Yes, that would give you an F.

Got to try that next time I'm in Scandinavia thanks for the tip

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

11-22-2012, 23:49

Would the iron age not being 1200 years ago do, saves me a lot of work

The German Iron Age ends somewhere around 100 AD, which is when the Romans start writing about them - so no, it wouldn't.

Vikings have no priests, and we know this because they have no stories about priests like the Celts did about Druids.

HoreTore

11-22-2012, 23:57

Got to try that next time I'm in Scandinavia thanks for the tip

Lrn2hstory.

The nordic iron age ends in either 800 or 1050-ish. 2012 minus 1200 equals 812, thus iron age.

The reason why we have two end dates is because of whether the viking age should be counted as a seperate age, or as the last period of the iron age. Thus, you get 800(start of viking age) and 1050(end of viking age). SNL.no (http://snl.no/Jernalderen_i_Norge/%28ca.%20500%20f.Kr%20.–%201050%20e.Kr.%29) has 1050 as the end of the iron age in Norway.

And I will be awaiting that paper.

Fragony

11-23-2012, 00:09

Lrn2hstory.

The nordic iron age ends in either 800 or 1050-ish. 2012 minus 1200 equals 812, thus iron age.

The reason why we have two end dates is because of whether the viking age should be counted as a seperate age, or as the last period of the iron age. Thus, you get 800(start of viking age) and 1050(end of viking age). SNL.no (http://snl.no/Jernalderen_i_Norge/%28ca.%20500%20f.Kr%20.–%201050%20e.Kr.%29) has 1050 as the end of the iron age in Norway.

And I will be awaiting that paper.

So Nordic centred, in the rest of the world we experience iron-age a bit differently.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_Age