Article: Israel attacks barbaric: ANC

Garyvdh said:
Awwww, just when we were getting on so well.... you have to start resorting to the personal attacks?

Is your position really THAT weak?
Click to expand...

Fine lets see if you can change rather than behave like the last thread,LISTEN properly to the posters and see the reason they are showing you,stop being defensive and give them an actual window to influence your thinking,it wont be that bad, this thread is not to attack you but to attack your viewpoint.Changing your viewpoint wont make you wrong,it just makes you grow as a person.I myself have changed my viewpoints on many subjects that I was adamant about in the past but this can only come about when you are open to what others are saying.

I'll give you another chance then and wont mention anything personal in this thread from here on out.
 
daveza said:
I'm not.

My Cornish surname sounds exactly the same as a very common Jewish surname but spelt quite differently - so you are not the first or last to ask the question. :)

I do however work for a Jew - salt of the earth guy.
Click to expand...

Aah ok,sorry my bad.:p,Yeah my dad worked for a Jewish firm back in the day,he also said they treated him very well and he quite enjoyed working there,they send him Eid cards until today after 20 odd years and call once in a while to see if he is ok !
 
adielk said:
I sincerely hope you realise its a silly analogy
Click to expand...

Not at all, I think it befits the situation just that it hasn't escalated into a war yet. A group of foreigners moving into a territory, setting up parallel societies which has little interaction with the host well describes what some north Paris suburbs and some areas in large German and Belgian cities are like.

I am sure these parallel societies irk the "native" Europeans no end just like the settlers no doubt

Where the analogy does not hold is that there is a big difference in tolerance between the two sides, but as an issue of demographics it is very much analogous. The difference in culture/understanding of concepts of peace, righteousness and law is markedly different. I for instance don't believe that applied Islam or some limited interpretations by some baptist cults are compatible with the South African constitution and religion does form cultural values which come to a clash in such situations.

Regards the Israel issue, had the surrounding Arab nations not evicted their Jewish populace and allowed the displaced refugee status the issue of the Gaza strip would not have escalated to what it is today. There is far more to the historical development of the current state than just some division of land.
 
Timber_MG said:
Not at all, I think it befits the situation just that it hasn't escalated into a war yet. A group of foreigners moving into a territory, setting up parallel societies which has little interaction with the host well describes what some north Paris suburbs and some areas in large German and Belgian cities are like.

I am sure these parallel societies irk the "native" Europeans no end just like the settlers no doubt

Where the analogy does not hold is that there is a big difference in tolerance between the two sides, but as an issue of demographics it is very much analogous. The difference in culture/understanding of concepts of peace, righteousness and law is markedly different. I for instance don't believe that applied Islam or some limited interpretations by some baptist cults are compatible with the South African constitution and religion does form cultural values which come to a clash in such situations.

Regards the Israel issue, had the surrounding Arab nations not evicted their Jewish populace and allowed the displaced refugee status the issue of the Gaza strip would not have escalated to what it is today. There is far more to the historical development of the current state than just some division of land.
Click to expand...

One word,democracy.
 
Falcon, you're not making an argument. The formation of countries is hardly ever put to the vote in history. This was fall-out from a war and the implosion of an empire.
 
The Israelis need to move people their people off occupied land and get back to their old borders. Palestinians need to also accept Israel as a state. The same goes for the rest of the world to recognize Palestine as a state.

Why do Hamas keep firing rockets if they know it doesn't do much? What's the Palestinian death toll now? 100?
 
Timber_MG said:
Falcon, you're not making an argument. The formation of countries is hardly ever put to the vote in history. This was fall-out from a war and the implosion of an empire.
Click to expand...

I know but that's why the parallels are hard to reach,if Britain becomes whatever ethnic or religious majority it becomes in the future then it will be fine as long as it remains a democracy.

If the Jews bought their way into Palestine slowly and eventually came into power by being the majority then nobody would have a problem with it as long as they treated all citizens equally.If a similar situation should happen in the UK then it would be fine also.I don't see the issue with that.

Just because it was the fallout from the collapse of an empire it doesn't mean it was the correct decision to displace an ENTIRE population of actual people living in an area.In fact what is happening today is proof that it was a terrible decision,the worst of the century actually.
 
Garyvdh said:
A house is not the same as a country.
The homes may have belonged to them, but the country did not.
They were subjects of the Ottoman Caliph (and reluctant subjects I might add - they did not like him at all).
They therefore had no claim to the land - end of story.
And I might add.... that the Israelites/Hebrews/Jews actually had a prior claim - going all the way back before 200 BC.
Click to expand...
Using this logic if the ANC fought a war with Zimbabwe and lost and Zanu PF and the UN declares that all land captured by Zim now is part of Zimbabwe, so accroding to you Zimbabwean government is entitled to deport all the South Africans on this land?
 
adielk said:
Oh and the UN owned. Probably had nothing to do with fact that UN was dominated by pro-jewish countries.
Click to expand...
Not really I think most of those leaders back when they decided to create Israel were deeply anti-Semitic and saw Israel as a way to get rid of the Jews from their countries
 
mmmig said:
Using this logic if the ANC fought a war with Zimbabwe and lost and Zanu PF and the UN declares that all land captured by Zim now is part of Zimbabwe, so accroding to you Zimbabwean government is entitled to deport all the South Africans on this land?
Click to expand...

All of this land belongs to the San, so it is irrelevant.
 
War never works out well. It leaves a legacy that is given by history to the present.

The issues here are highly polarised among religious lines in this so-called "holy land" and parties vested in one or other religion seem to all have their own interpretations. I was trying to point out that these different religious backgrounds skew perceptions and logic and that conclusions differ vastly with similar inputs among differently formed opinions. This differing view results in conflicts. In history war has very often ruled where logic had reached a stalemate because of differing views (even to the point where the same words are understood differently)

@Falcon: Both sides here displaced people by what by today's standards would be deemed "unfair". For either side to claim the moral high ground is absurd, but in a case of aggression the aggressor usually looses the moral high ground first.
 
Timber_MG said:
Not at all, I think it befits the situation just that it hasn't escalated into a war yet. A group of foreigners moving into a territory, setting up parallel societies which has little interaction with the host well describes what some north Paris suburbs and some areas in large German and Belgian cities are like.

I am sure these parallel societies irk the "native" Europeans no end just like the settlers no doubt

Where the analogy does not hold is that there is a big difference in tolerance between the two sides, but as an issue of demographics it is very much analogous. The difference in culture/understanding of concepts of peace, righteousness and law is markedly different. I for instance don't believe that applied Islam or some limited interpretations by some baptist cults are compatible with the South African constitution and religion does form cultural values which come to a clash in such situations.

Regards the Israel issue, had the surrounding Arab nations not evicted their Jewish populace and allowed the displaced refugee status the issue of the Gaza strip would not have escalated to what it is today. There is far more to the historical development of the current state than just some division of land.
Click to expand...
Please check and provide us with the origins of Israeli Jews. I may be wrong but suspect very few from surrounding arab countries and bulk from europe.
As for parallel societies - maybe because they are discriminated against. Recurrence of roman catholic vs protestant clashes in drive to create a homogeneous society. France drove hugenots/protestants out and UK similarly had such religious discrimination.
Hispanics in USA retaining their parallel culture without major issues.
 
Last edited:
mmmig said:
Not really I think most of those leaders back when they decided to create Israel were deeply anti-Semitic and saw Israel as a way to get rid of the Jews from their countries
Click to expand...
Could be.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X