Originally Posted by Cretaceous Bob (Post 499484)

Dude, people were there already. Sorry, but if they don't like you, or don't like a lot of you showing up and trying to start a country, tough shit. You can fight the ensuing war, but that's not a legitimate reason for us to help you. (Oh, and also, no, people didn't and don't want Jews to move to the middle east. That's what happens when people are living somewhere. That was a stupid question.)

Why would it not succeed elsewhere? It can hardly be argued other candidates would be more inhospitable. Would it not work because the Zionists would not possibly settle for anything less than a restoration of Israel? Then while I can understand that, I cannot support that. That is unreasonable, and extremity of demands leads to inevitable hostility.

This is not a case of persecution within a country, or any sort of mistreatment of a people residing alongside the offending faction. This is an outside party placing themselves in the middle of an existing situation. Since you say the degree of harm in a situation should determine how much attention we give it, surely you can agree that there are far more causes worth supporting than this. Perhaps a situation where a people already lived in an area, and are being persecuted for just living there, rather than moving there.

Is it? Was there not a conscious decision to move a mass of people onto pre-owned land based on the promises of a religious text?

If you're going to cite the decisions of Britain as proof of who is right, then you will recognize that the British imposed increasingly strict immigration policies into Palestine, and Zionists moved into the area anyway. Zionists committed acts of violence against the British in retaliation to the immigration laws. In fact, the British refused the UN demands of unrestricted Jewish immigration into Israel. The owners of the land AND the residents of the land were against the immigration. If you say an imperialist power allowing immigration is a justification of support, how is the defiance of an imperialist power's immigration laws not a condemnation of that cause? If you do not agree that is a condemnation, then you have put forth that the Zionists had the right to move into the area, regardless of the will of the residents or owners. Why? And would you support that same justification if it were applied to the US's immigration laws?

A partition plan was decided on by the UN. It was a plan created by people not on the land, without regard for the people on the land, and was then expected to be accepted by the people on the land. It is misrepresentative to say a refusal of such a plan is unreasonable.

Wait, are you arguing what is right, or what is profitable?

And yes, forcing the survival of unpopular ideologies in a region hostile to our philosophies is a hallmark of our foreign policy. Kind of funny how alot of complaining goes on about our foreign policy, especially about the period of time wherein we did this backing.

What's more, supporting one side is assenting to harm being done to the other. If you support Israel based on its system of government, you are deciding human life is devalued when it disagrees with you. I cannot see how that is superior to the Arab way.

Oh, now something isn't bad unless there isn't something worse? I guess I'll go shoplift, and when the government tries to take action against me I'll yell about how there's more important things going on somewhere else. Or at least I would, if that argument didn't sound stupid in every single situation it could possibly be applied to.

There was a long history of anti-Zionist sentiment before the establishment of the state of Israel. The reaction of the Arabs to its formation was not surprising, especially given the violence leading up to it. There has to be a greater reason for provoking such violence than a book promised so.

Originally Posted by Snow (Post 499696)

Hey, aren't you always shitting on Rooney when he doesn't know about stuff he's talking about? Since research is so easy why don't you try it once.

Originally Posted by hayroob (Post 499697)

I really like this and your earlier post, it is measured, well researched and given a lot of thought.
I've always thought that post holocaust a return to their holy land was a natural response, but for external imperialists powers to declare them a sovereign nation was going to piss of the people that were already there, especially when laws start getting passed based on people ethnicity/religion. I really believe that if a jewish state needed to be established in order to establish the security and future of the jewish people and faith then they should have carved them out a big chunk of Germany, which I don't think at the time anyone would have been in a position to contest.

Originally Posted by Musical Dave (Post 499581)

4" stud was awsome, I really hope that you guys will have more musical guests come on the show to and play. Im deffently buying the CD.

Originally Posted by bithead (Post 499568)

On a lighter note...

... 4" Stud's acoustic performance was tight, especially when you consider how "exposed" they are with no reverb, etc.
Good job, boys!

Originally Posted by hayroob (Post 499694)

First off fucking telling people what they fucking can fucking compare fucking things to when they're making a legitimate fucking point makes taking you fucking seriously a lot harder.
Second the fact of the matter is that Israel is just as guilty of aggression as the palestinians and moving back to pre 67 borders would be a huge step to show that Israel actually wants peace and isn't just waiting till the UN gives them the ok to seize what sovereignty the palestinian attempt at a state has left.

Originally Posted by Cretaceous Bob (Post 499484)

Dude, people were there already..........There has to be a greater reason for provoking such violence than a book promised so.

Originally Posted by Keith (Post 499238)

I sincerely liked reading all these, but to say Iran wishes death on no one is ridiculous. The state of Israel should go and Palestine should take over? What do you think that means?

Originally Posted by SuperCujo (Post 498999)

The whole region is a shit fight and the fact that the US blindly funds and supports Israel just stirs up more hate.

Originally Posted by Mattman (Post 499719)

All very well put.

Some other interesting talking points ....
-the Jewish settlements on land "belonging" to Palestinians are still there in spite of US resolutions, and were usually the targets for missiles before the ceasefire and after its cessation.
- much of the Israeli Army is Russian. They were immigrants fleeing the post-soviet mess looking for a better life. The Palestinians were born there and their children have been born into refugee camps in some of the most crowded and inhumain conditions in the world. And now they are imprisoned without even medical aid (humanitarian corridor opened by Israel? how generous!)
- it was widely reported, although officially denied, that Cheyney had OKed Israeli military action in advance
- Israel have been bombing administration and security force "targets" as well as the "terrorists". All police stations were levelled in the first 48 hours including one that was celebrating a passing out ceremony of cadets, killing 40 of them
- US have vetoed UN sanctions against Israel that would have allowed aid.
- Palestinians elected leaders from Hamas. A sign that the majority of Palestinians believe Hamas are the best group to defend their remaining land.

Originally Posted by DaveNJ (Post 499731)

All you said.

Originally Posted by Mattman (Post 499760)

A good argument .... which is why we have the mess in this area. Israel and Palestine need to both have a recognised place to exist, limited by recognised borders such as those in previous resolutions.

History has given different people "residential rights" to various areas over the years. In some cases (like the British Empire) it was temporary, and the residents regained control. In others it is transient ... and previous residents are permanently displaced. In these cases, claiming a 2000+ year-old God-given right of return is quite a difficult story to defend. But most of the Western countries played a part in this bugger's muddle. Just as most of the Middle East has practiced religion-based residency rules as you point out.

I would personally like to visit the birthplace of Jesus, which logically (if we apply Biblical land rights) should be "owned" by the Christians. Instead it is treated by irreverence by both Muslims and Jews alike, and Christian pilgrims can be caught in the crossfire, literally.

The point about Russian jews (and some of them were not Jewish, but simply migrants from Russia claiming jewish faith to get a new life) was the irony of an immigrant seeking a higher lifestyle displacing a resident to a concentration camp (refugee camp). The further irony of Russia is that Israel was financing, or at least assisting Georgia in its tussle with Russia recently .... hard to choose friends these days, isn't it.

Originally Posted by Snow (Post 499696)

Hey, aren't you always shitting on Rooney when he doesn't know about stuff he's talking about? Since research is so easy why don't you try it once.

Originally Posted by DaveNJ (Post 499731)

3. Israel has plenty of ex-Russians. So what? A citizen of a nation is not necessarily born there. In our Civil War many Union soldiers were German or Irish immigrants fighting men with long ties to their respective southern states. A citizen is a citizen. Nations can enact different immigration policies if they so choose.

Originally Posted by DaveNJ (Post 499731)

I also notice you overlook that Israel was built on approximately one million Jewish immigrants from Arab nations over the years 1948-1957 who were illegally expelled and dispossessed of their property just as much if not more so than the Palestinians. Where is your call for their reparations?

Originally Posted by DaveNJ (Post 499731)

It's not as simple as "this land was my grandfather's, kind of". Land claims can go even further back than that. Do Jews who were expelled centuries ago have a claim? If not, why do Palestinians?

Originally Posted by DaveNJ (Post 499731)

What we have here is two groups of people that need two states. Israel needs to halt settlement in the West Bank and probably retract some of them as a good faith gesture.
However, it takes two to tango. The Palestinians need to get their shit together and get one government to represent them. That government needs to recognize Israel's right to exist and come to the bargaining table for peace.
Until then, more war, and it's going to hurt the Palestinians a lot more than the Israelis.

Originally Posted by DaveNJ (Post 499731)

Oh, and this blind funding shit is just wrong. America funds Egypt's regime and sends them F-16's, too, Egypt just uses them to prop up their corrupt regime whereas Israel uses them on terrorists.

Originally Posted by hayroob (Post 499901)

Being in the land where your people can make a direct provable claim to and then being chased out by people who claim your land because they share a common faith with people who lived there before any modern land rights were established is hard to stomach.

Originally Posted by DJ Trashy (Post 499909)

So - if I happened to share religious beliefs with Native Americans, I should be able to go to Manhattan and take it over because, after all, my 'people' were there first. Genius.

That's gotta be the best freakin' analogy I've ever come up with!

Originally Posted by hayroob (Post 499914)

Well you and a lot of people with similar flimsy claims would have to get chased out of New Jersey and show up in Manhattan and the government of Canada would have to help you claim sovereignty.

Originally Posted by Keith (Post 499823)

Should we be focusing more on the issues?

Originally Posted by Snow (Post 499676)

I get a headache when you try to speak politics on the show.

Originally Posted by Cretaceous Bob (Post 499933)

And if we're really going to consider giving a religious group land purely because their people were on it a long time ago, don't we have to ask why they had it in the first place? Even the Bible portrays the Jews as as warlike and bloodthirsty as every other peoples surrounding biblical Israel (like in Numbers, for example, when Moses commands Israelites to "kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves." That's a quote from the motherfucking Bible). So by what right do the Jews own that land?

Originally Posted by Cretaceous Bob (Post 499940)

Hell, speaking of ethnicity, I work with a woman who insists that the biblical Jews were African. Does she, as a person of African descent, have the right to lay claim to an Israeli's house?

Originally Posted by DamianDavid (Post 499706)

Hey Bithead, I wanted to take the time to say thanks for the very nice comment, to let you know that you win the best "reply to thread" for this here thread award in my book and also to be the lame-o that posts 4 replies to the same thread in a row! Yes, I'm still up and geeking out to this blog. Rock on with your bad self and good night.