The continuation of my Israel experience thread

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

And maybe it doesn't, the only thing that makes the difference is that Israel is a jewish state. A very small one I might add where jews have lived since forever

---

1948 is forever?
Or are you talking about the state from about 1200 BC to about 750BC?
A "State" that hasn't existed for 2700 years and was occupied by other longer that it existed.
I sure as hell hope some Eburonii suddenly aren't going to kick my ass over the rhine again... Or worse kick my Indo-European ass all back to Uzbekistan or something, they surely were here longer than we.

If a distant past is a good validation for the present, I'd like the Spanish Inquisition to be reinstated and send to your protestant land. :mad:


"The past is a foreign country..." Please let it remain so.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

What do you think of Palestinian violence against Israeli border settlements in the West Bank?

---

Don't start any wars and cry over territory if you lose. Would be one hell if a job if we did so here in Europe, or anywhere really. Of course a lot of these settlers are every bit as much scum mind you

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

Don't start any wars and cry over territory if you lose. Would be one hell if a job if we did so here in Europe, or anywhere really. Of course a lot of these settlers are every bit as much scum mind you

---

The encroachment isn't exactly the result of territorial adjustments following war though. Israel are AFAIK maintaining that they are at a state of peace with the Fatah regime at least, which is the governing power in the Palestinian West Bank, yet they are taking more and more land under Israeli power. Maybe Banquo and Redleg can correct me, but aren't the Palestinians thus entitled to any and all violent resistance within the area internationally recognised as the Palestinian West Bank?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

The encroachment isn't exactly the result of territorial adjustments following war though. Israel are AFAIK maintaining that they are at a state of peace with the Fatah regime at least, which is the governing power in the Palestinian West Bank, yet they are taking more and more land under Israeli power. Maybe Banquo and Redleg can correct me, but aren't the Palestinians thus entitled to any and all violent resistance within the area internationally recognised as the Palestinian West Bank?

---

Can answer that for you, not untill there is a Palestinian state, which Hamas & co don't even want in the first place as they would be the ones that are the target first. But anyway what good are laws really, if Hamas and western sympathisers had their way it would mean mass-murder. Like this it's occasionally someone getting hurt and mostly they are the scum of the earth. It doesn't get any better than that. Israel build a wall and it mostly works,

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

Can answer that for you, not untill there is a Palestinian state, which Hamas & co don't even want in the first place as they would be the ones that are the target first. But anyway what good are laws really, if Hamas and western sympathisers had their way it would mean mass-murder. Like this it's occasionally someone getting hurt and mostly they are the scum of the earth. It doesn't get any better than that. Israel build a wall and it mostly works,

---

Your denial of any Palestinian rights seems to rest on the idea that the Palestinian state does not exist. If the Palestinian state doesn't exist, then its jurisdiction cannot be abused by any and all Israeli encroachment. The problem is, Israeli mostly has a problem with Hamas, who are the governing power in Gaza, while they at least tacitly recognise the Fatah government enough to have held talks with them in the past. If your argument were valid, Israel should be building settlements in the Gaza strip, where Hamas are. With the Gaza strip and the West Bank separated as they are, and with Fatah not having control of the Gaza strip, how does Hamas's behaviour justify the annexation of the West Bank, as per the argument you are advancing?

This is what happens when you deny people beer, bacon, and low cut tops

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

Your denial of any Palestinian rights seems to rest on the idea that the Palestinian state does not exist. If the Palestinian state doesn't exist, then its jurisdiction cannot be abused by any and all Israeli encroachment. The problem is, Israeli mostly has a problem with Hamas, who are the governing power in Gaza, while they at least tacitly recognise the Fatah government enough to have held talks with them in the past. If your argument were valid, Israel should be building settlements in the Gaza strip, where Hamas are. With the Gaza strip and the West Bank separated as they are, and with Fatah not having control of the Gaza strip, how does Hamas's behaviour justify the annexation of the West Bank, as per the argument you are advancing?

---

Said Hamas & co, does it really makes such a difference if also kill eachother? Fatah that much, well.. different? Fatah is in charge where Hamas isn't

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

Said Hamas & co, does it really makes such a difference if also kill eachother? Fatah that much, well.. different? Fatah is in charge where Hamas isn't

---

I'm not sure what your argument is here, other than there is no difference between the Pallies, so punishing one group for the actions of the other is perfectly valid. The Palestinian pseudo-state, or to use your language the bit which isn't Israel, is split into two separate areas, the West Bank and the Gaza strip. Fatah, which AFAIK recognises the state of Israel, controls the West Bank. Hamas, which doesn't recognise the state of Israel, controls the Gaza strip. You've used Hamas as the argument for why the Palestinians deserve to have their land taken away. But Israel isn't taking land in the Gaza strip, but the West Bank. Your argument is that there is no difference between them, so punishing one for the actions of the other is perfectly legitimate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

This is what happens when you deny people beer, bacon, and low cut tops

---

I sure there is some boffin out there who could figure out a way we can have all three in the one package.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gaelic cowboy

I sure there is some boffin out there who could figure out a way we can have all three in the one package.

---

Ever been to an IHOP at 3 in the morning?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

Ever been to an IHOP at 3 in the morning?

---

I was in one in Iowa but not a 3 in the morning unfortunately, I nearly calfed on it twas like eating pure sugar and salt.

It's not like we dont all sorts of bad mind rotting cereals or greasy food here mind it just seemed like they didnt even make an effort to pretend.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

I'm not sure what your argument is here, other than there is no difference between the Pallies, so punishing one group for the actions of the other is perfectly valid. The Palestinian pseudo-state, or to use your language the bit which isn't Israel, is split into two separate areas, the West Bank and the Gaza strip. Fatah, which AFAIK recognises the state of Israel, controls the West Bank. Hamas, which doesn't recognise the state of Israel, controls the Gaza strip. You've used Hamas as the argument for why the Palestinians deserve to have their land taken away. But Israel isn't taking land in the Gaza strip, but the West Bank. Your argument is that there is no difference between them, so punishing one for the actions of the other is perfectly legitimate.

---

Nah, as my argument is that it is simply islam, and lefties who will adore anything islam because it's islam-related.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

Nah, as my argument is that it is simply islam, and lefties who will adore anything islam because it's islam-related.

---

How do the lefties explain their adoration of islam? As a doctrine it is pretty far from the leftist ideals.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rvg

How do the lefties explain their adoration of islam? As a doctrine it is pretty far from the leftist ideals.

---

Ask them, I really don't understand why lefties absolutely adore anything Islam.It's odd. But I have always been bad at leftiet logic , just don't see it

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

Nah, as my argument is that it is simply islam, and lefties who will adore anything islam because it's islam-related.

---

I can't say I like anything about modern Islam, so can you explain to me how my lack of appreciation of your and Israel's argument on this matter relates to my adoration of Islam?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

I can't say I like anything about modern Islam, so can you explain to me how my lack of appreciation of your and Israel's argument on this matter relates to my adoration of Islam?

---

Did I ever accuse you? You are reasonable, you have even made me reconsider some things in the past. Maybe our own semi-arab Hax can fill you in on the kind of people that I'm talking about now that he has met them, not so reasonable, we call it the leftist church with good reason. Rebels without a clue

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rvg

How do the lefties explain their adoration of islam? As a doctrine it is pretty far from the leftist ideals.

---

it's because it's the "anti-US" position.
In Portugal I see it showing up a lot in the communist and left-bloc parties.

"Islamophilia", which to be honest, carries as much connotations as "Islamophobia" and in my opinion are thus terms that shouldn't be used in civil discourse, is a matter that hasn't had much attention in the media, let alone in academia. Still, assuming that Fragony's assumptions about the pandering of politicians, academicians and political activists to Islam is true, it would make for an interesting subject to research. Good idea for an essay or paper (thanks, Frags).


So assuming that all of Fragony's assumptions about “leftist Islamophilia” are correct, we can move on: why (and from here, I'm going to assume that Fragony's complaints are right) would politicians pander to Islam? In light of the waves of immigration of people from mostly non-western immigration, particularly of Moroccan and Turkish descent in the Netherlands (hovering around 5% as of now), it's somewhat understandable: they (Muslim) immigrants represent a portion of the population that is eligible for voting. That's politics.


On the subject of academics or scholars. I think that there has been much attention and adoration for Islam, especially from historians in the light of the scientific prowess made in the Islamic world between 750 and 1250, in a time commonly defined as the “Islamic Golden Age”. Whether this movement was “Islamic” in nature is debatable; however, the position that Muslim scholars simply copied everything from Greek, Chinese, Indian or Persian sources is absolutely incorrect.


On the subject of political activists. I think that absolute cultural relativism and anti-American sentiments play a large role in this. I for one admire the U.S. (or at least, how it was before WWII, but let's not discuss that here), however many of the students I take courses with, both Muslim and non-Muslim (and particularly non-Muslims!) have expressed their severe dislike or hatred of the U.S. For me personally, it's relatively clear; I don't dislike the United States (a quick glance at my favourite music would confirm that) and I don't think they dislike the U.S. either, it's purely a matter of United States foreign policy.


On that subject, I think I can begin the understand why people sympathise with Islamist, even extremist Islamist movements; they're opposed to the United States. They're underdogs, and people have a tendency to sympathise with underdogs. Simple critical analysis of radical Islamist movements would automatically dispell the idea that they (Muslim radicals) accept or even tolerate the “disbelief” of western, non-Muslim pro-Palestinian political activists; they're a tool to be used today, an enemy to be fought tomorrow. And the ignorance or denial of this simple fact is what, in my opinion, is one of the worst possible hypocricies; to be so extreme in your dislike of U.S. interventionism or foreign policy to willingly sympathise with violent and radical organisations and voice anti-Jewish sentiment while people who survived the Holocaust are still alive is unacceptable.


I would like to say two things about this matter: the first being that the issues I wrote about don't necessarily reflect my point of view. I think the entire situation is more complicated as there are many factors we have to calculate; the Israeli lobby in the United States, internal Israeli policies, the effects of the Arab Spring, the popular support for Islamist movements in the Middle East, the Iranian nuclear program, etc, etc.


As a second note, I would like to point out that the issue with political activists is exactly what makes this conflict so difficult: it's become so polarised to the degree that it's become virtally impossible to support both sides. The other problem is that the idea is propogated that this is a conflict of Jews versus Muslims; support for Israel makes you a Judaeophile, support for Palestine makes you a Islamophile. As I said earlier, I think this is the first position to be thrown out the window, as it's not making things easier for anyone. Yes, you can be Muslim and support Israel. You can also be Jewish and support Palestine without being a self-hating Jew.


I would like everyone to stop thinking about this as a religious issue (and I blame Hamas and the Christian neo-conservative pro-Palestinian lobby equally in this case), but as an issue concerning people. Edward Said, probably the greatest supporter of Palestinian rights in the 20th century, was a Christian. The Druze who fight in the IDF and have supported Israel since 1948 are a Shi‘ite splinter group (but you shouldn't mention that to them, they'll kill you).


It's not as easy as Muslims vs non-Muslims, although that would make things a lot easier. The thing is that this isn't a simple issue. So once again, let's stop the idea that this is religious. It's political.


*not all western, non-Muslim pro-Palestinian activists, I believe there are many people who support Palestine that do not support or sympathise with any kind of violence towards Israel(is), but I'm not talking about those people.

"Good idea for an essay or paper"

I really wouldn't do that.

Great post by the way. I'll go into what I think it's at the core: islam is simply proving multiculturalism wrong. Dutch muslims aren't interested in Dutch culture. Fine with me why should they just don't bother me. But these leftist idiots will never cease to see society as their personal testlab, they have a theory and they want to prove it. No worse a narcist than an idealist.

most dutch ppl dont even care about dutch culture... apart from licorice and waffles.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Stranger

most dutch ppl dont even care about dutch culture... apart from licorice and waffles.

---

Do you? I don't. Muslims are welcome but PLEASE stop putting them on my lap there is absolutely no reason. We are ruled by robots who think in adds for a product that cannot be

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hax

snip

On the subject of academics or scholars. I think that there has been much attention and adoration for Islam, especially from historians in the light of the scientific prowess made in the Islamic world between 750 and 1250, in a time commonly defined as the “Islamic Golden Age”. Whether this movement was “Islamic” in nature is debatable; however, the position that Muslim scholars simply copied everything from Greek, Chinese, Indian or Persian sources is absolutely incorrect.

snip

On that subject, I think I can begin the understand why people sympathise with Islamist, even extremist Islamist movements; they're opposed to the United States. They're underdogs, and people have a tendency to sympathise with underdogs. Simple critical analysis of radical Islamist movements would automatically dispell the idea that they (Muslim radicals) accept or even tolerate the “disbelief” of western, non-Muslim pro-Palestinian political activists; they're a tool to be used today, an enemy to be fought tomorrow. And the ignorance or denial of this simple fact is what, in my opinion, is one of the worst possible hypocricies; to be so extreme in your dislike of U.S. interventionism or foreign policy to willingly sympathise with violent and radical organisations and voice anti-Jewish sentiment while people who survived the Holocaust are still alive is unacceptable.

snip

I would like everyone to stop thinking about this as a religious issue (and I blame Hamas and the Christian neo-conservative pro-Palestinian lobby equally in this case), but as an issue concerning people. Edward Said, probably the greatest supporter of Palestinian rights in the 20th century, was a Christian. The Druze who fight in the IDF and have supported Israel since 1948 are a Shi‘ite splinter group (but you shouldn't mention that to them, they'll kill you).

snip

---

Personally, I'm Islamophilic in terms of its place in history as the most advanced and progressive of its time, and a precursor of the European liberal democracies which I love. However, its modern form has an unhealthy number of anti-progressivists, with AFAICS probably by some distance the largest proportion of self-identified followers who can be accurately described as barbaric. Those of that ilk who seek to do harm to the general population of my country, like that hook handed cleric, would cause me no tears if they were deported as he was. However, it still doesn't excuse the Israelis, as Fragony seeks to do, from the fundamentally secular issue of annexing another country. That's what they're doing in the West Bank, and we should recognise that that's what they're doing, rather than pretend that it's not happening, or try to give it another name.

Do I really have to act surprised if there are religious nutjobs in the middle-east?

Loosely related, Sheldon Adleson is the director of the Republican Jewish Coalition one of the richest men in America. He represents Israeli interests and is bankrolling the despicable Gingrich campaign to dehumanize the palestinian people. I can't believe that people ar.e overlooking this fact. Gingrich sold his soul to a foreign lobbiest

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

Do you? I don't. Muslims are welcome but PLEASE stop putting them on my lap there is absolutely no reason. We are ruled by robots who think in adds for a product that cannot be

---

i think we were agreeing on something. you had to ruin the moment. -_-

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ICantSpellDawg

Loosely related, Sheldon Adleson is the director of the Republican Jewish Coalition one of the richest men in America. He represents Israeli interests and is bankrolling the despicable Gingrich campaign to dehumanize the palestinian people. I can't believe that people ar.e overlooking this fact. Gingrich sold his soul to a foreign lobbiest

---

He merely offered a lower bid compared to the other republican contenders.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

Do I really have to act surprised if there are religious nutjobs in the middle-east?

---

But why do you take the side of these religious nutjobs, to the point of excusing everything they do?

Alright, so it seems I am coming home for Passover (its like 2 months away) and not coming back.
:beam:

I'm glad your parents are acting in what you have decided is your best interest, Hooahguy. :thumbsup:

Who knows, in later life, you may look back on your Israel experience as a very formative one, perhaps even with fondness.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

But why do you take the side of these religious nutjobs, to the point of excusing everything they do?

---

I do that? There are just worse things happening in the world. These ultra orthodox jews are sufficiently disliked by normal Israeli