Norwegian Ambassador claims that terrorism against Israel is morally acceptable

[Crocefisso]

The fact is, people go whereever there's work. There's foreign policy from my own government I don't agree with, I'm not going to suddenly up sticks and leave the precarious livelihood I've built for years, just because I'm idealogically juxtoposed to the machiavellian hand that feeds.

There's more work in the US and (northern) Europe. Most Israeli wealth is dominated by the oligarchy (who will be in no hurry to leave, regardless of ideology).

[The_Gabe]

 

By the age of 15, an Israeli child who isn't going to be drawn into fanaticism will've seen reason, I am sure. If they were serious in their opposition to Zionist fanaticism and so on, the intelligent ones would study abroad and find it easy to make a life there. You forget that Israel was founded by millions of Jews who did just get up and go - largely from livelihoods in America and Europe - which is exactly why Christopher Hitchens calls Israel "a state of Jewish farmers on Arab land".

 

And why do you think they just "got up and left"?

 

This is probably my last post on this thread. Besides the fact you have completely ignored all of the logical reasoning behind my point of view, you go on to say all Zionists are unreasonable. That's the point where there is really nothing else I can do. I may be thick headed at times, but even I can see the truths in someone else's side.

 

This is where all reason has been set aside and personal opinions dominate facts. Also, there's a difference between an opinion and a fact if you didn't already know.

[Zierro]

The fact is, people go whereever there's work. There's foreign policy from my own government I don't agree with, I'm not going to suddenly up sticks and leave the precarious livelihood I've built for years, just because I'm idealogically juxtoposed to the machiavellian hand that feeds.

 

CrustyGoblinFoot likes your status.

[Crocefisso]

 

By the age of 15, an Israeli child who isn't going to be drawn into fanaticism will've seen reason, I am sure. If they were serious in their opposition to Zionist fanaticism and so on, the intelligent ones would study abroad and find it easy to make a life there. You forget that Israel was founded by millions of Jews who did just get up and go - largely from livelihoods in America and Europe - which is exactly why Christopher Hitchens calls Israel "a state of Jewish farmers on Arab land".

 

And why do you think they just "got up and left"?

 

This is probably my last post on this thread. Besides the fact you have completely ignored all of the logical reasoning behind my point of view, you go on to say all Zionists are unreasonable. That's the point where there is really nothing else I can do. I may be thick headed at times, but even I can see the truths in someone else's side.

 

This is where all reason has been set aside and personal opinions dominate facts. Also, there's a difference between an opinion and a fact if you didn't already know.

I strongly dislike religious fanaticism. Zionism is no different to Salafism from the point of view that it is a politicised, unreasonable and superstituous interpretation of religion. Zionists may be reasonable in other respects - eg, in their everyday, non-political lives - but the fact is that Zionism is an abomination from a rational perspective. The disagreement comes from the fact that some people see this as rational. I am stating the fact that I do not see it as remotely close to rational.

 

Stealing land that is allegedly holy so as to ratify a racially charged covenant signed with God (after all, it was signed between God and the Jewish people) three millennia (or more) ago so as to make the Jewish people - not even humanity, but the Jewish people - worthy of the Messiah is absolutely nonsensical as far as I am concerned. It's so similar to the Christian attempts to conquer the Holy Land, except that they did so a few centuries beforehand and before science was more than trying to turn urine into gold. And because the Jews were successful.

 

Many evangelical Christians who support Israel from the USA do so because they believe that only by filling the Holy Land with Jews can Armageddon begin. Virtually all political support for Zionism is fuelled by 'donations' to support Congressional and other campaigns.

 

Come on, can anyone really believe this to be even close to rational, let alone believe it?

[obfuscator]

If the bible is accurate it's not only rational but logical.

 

Of course, that's what's up for debate, and there's no need to get into that debate here.

[Crocefisso]

If the bible is accurate it's not only rational but logical.

 

Of course, that's what's up for debate, and there's no need to get into that debate here.

Though I am not going to go down the all too familar path of discussing religion, I will say this:

 

I am a firm believer in the idea of secularism, with the exception of the mild and very appropriate Islamism of Recep Tayyip Erdogan's government (which is still largely secular). I do not approve of any form of government based on religion. I am a Buddhist, but I do not approve of the way Tibet was run - by an incompetent and atavistic theocracy -, because it shows that religion and govermnent are incompatible. It also made it far easier for the Chinese to invade.

 

Thus I disapprove of the Islamic Republic in Iran, the former Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan (and why I'll always support the war there), and the State of Israel. Theocracy or theocratically charged democracy, they're all bad in my books, regardless of the accuracy of the Bible, Torah, Qu'ran, etc.

[obfuscator]

Though I am not going to go down the all too familar path of discussing religion, I will say this:

 

I am a firm believer in the idea of secularism, with the exception of the mild and very appropriate Islamism of Recep Tayyip Erdogan's government (which is still largely secular). I do not approve of any form of government based on religion. I am a Buddhist, but I do not approve of the way Tibet was run - by an incompetent and atavistic theocracy -, because it shows that religion and govermnent are incompatible. It also made it far easier for the Chinese to invade.

 

Thus I disapprove of the Islamic Republic in Iran, the former Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan (and why I'll always support the war there), and the State of Israel. Theocracy or theocratically charged democracy, they're all bad in my books, regardless of the accuracy of the Bible, Torah, Qu'ran, etc.

In your opinion, yes. But surely you can understand that those who hold religion to be extremely important are bound to see things differently.

[The_Gabe]

 

I strongly dislike religious fanaticism. Zionism is no different to Salafism from the point of view that it is a politicised, unreasonable and superstituous interpretation of religion.

 

I did not want to post here again, but it looks like you're forcing me to. Zionism is the movement to form Israel.

zi·on·ism/ˈzīəˌnizəm/

Noun: A movement for (originally) the reestablishment and (now) the development and protection of a Jewish nation in Israel. It was established as a political organization in 1897 under Theodor Herzl, and was later led by Chaim Weizmann

 

I've provided plenty of facts that were not related to the Torah at all about this, but you seem to ignore it like you did everything else. This issue is not as white and black as you think it is.

 

Zionists may be reasonable in other respects - eg, in their everyday, non-political lives - but the fact is that Zionism is an abomination from a rational perspective.The disagreement comes from the fact that some people see this as rational. I am stating the fact that I do not see it as remotely close to rational.

 

Mots of the stuff you say sounds irrational to me, so thus I can conclude that anti-Zionism is irrational. Yes, because you>everyone else.

 

Stealing land that is allegedly holy so as to ratify a racially charged covenant signed with God (after all, it was signed between God and the Jewish people) three millennia (or more) ago so as to make the Jewish people - not even humanity, but the Jewish people - worthy of the Messiah is absolutely nonsensical as far as I am concerned. It's so similar to the Christian attempts to conquer the Holy Land, except that they did so a few centuries beforehand and before science was more than trying to turn urine into gold. And because the Jews were successful.

 

Land that was stolen from us many a year ago by Romans and others, and land that we gained legally is the State of Israel. I've already explained it at least once how it is legal, but you chose to ignore it.

 

Many evangelical Christians who support Israel from the USA do so because they believe that only by filling the Holy Land with Jews can Armageddon begin. Virtually all political support for Zionism is fuelled by 'donations' to support Congressional and other campaigns.

 

They are supporting what they believe in. It's a free country.

 

Come on, can anyone really believe this to be even close to rational, let alone believe it?

 

Easily.

[Crocefisso]

Stealing land that is allegedly holy so as to ratify a racially charged covenant signed with God (after all, it was signed between God and the Jewish people) three millennia (or more) ago so as to make the Jewish people - not even humanity, but the Jewish people - worthy of the Messiah is absolutely nonsensical as far as I am concerned. It's so similar to the Christian attempts to conquer the Holy Land, except that they did so a few centuries beforehand and before science was more than trying to turn urine into gold. And because the Jews were successful.

 

Land that was stolen from us many a year ago by Romans and others, and land that we gained legally is the State of Israel. I've already explained it at least once how it is legal, but you chose to ignore it.

 

 

I take issue with this point, because it's a common argument that seems to be founded in a desire for vengeance.

 

a) Unsurprisngly, the Jews were not the first inhabitants of this land. By this logic, Jews "stole" land from the Canaanites, Hittites, Egyptians and so on.

b) That happened between 70 and 135 AD. It was almost 2000 years ago. Get over it. It was because of a wider Roman practice across their Empire that saw most non-Europeans sold into slavery. It's unfortunate, but it's not a solely Jewish problem.

c) The Jewish people are not the only ethnic group forced into diaspora, or the only persecuted one, but they are the only one that feels that God/the world owes them a state of their own. Otherwise we could make a Native American state out of Minnesota or one of the Dakotas, or in Peru, and an Ainu state in southern Japan, a Berber state in Algeria, an Assyrian state in the middle of Iraq, and so on. Unfortunate historical injustices do not justify statehood.

[The_Gabe]

Stealing land that is allegedly holy so as to ratify a racially charged covenant signed with God (after all, it was signed between God and the Jewish people) three millennia (or more) ago so as to make the Jewish people - not even humanity, but the Jewish people - worthy of the Messiah is absolutely nonsensical as far as I am concerned. It's so similar to the Christian attempts to conquer the Holy Land, except that they did so a few centuries beforehand and before science was more than trying to turn urine into gold. And because the Jews were successful.

 

Land that was stolen from us many a year ago by Romans and others, and land that we gained legally is the State of Israel. I've already explained it at least once how it is legal, but you chose to ignore it.

 

 

I take issue with this point, because it's a common argument that seems to be founded in a desire for vengeance.

 

a) Unsurprisngly, the Jews were not the first inhabitants of this land. By this logic, Jews "stole" land from the Canaanites, Hittites, Egyptians and so on.

b) That happened between 70 and 135 AD. It was almost 2000 years ago. Get over it. It was because of a wider Roman practice across their Empire that saw most non-Europeans sold into slavery. It's unfortunate, but it's not a solely Jewish problem.

 

Exactly, which is I'm still not sure why you're calling it stolen if the land has gone from one group to another over the years.

 

c) The Jewish people are not the only ethnic group forced into diaspora, or the only persecuted one, but they are the only one that feels that God/the world owes them a state of their own. Otherwise we could make a Native American state out of Minnesota or one of the Dakotas, or in Peru, and an Ainu state in southern Japan, a Berber state in Algeria, an Assyrian state in the middle of Iraq, and so on. Unfortunate historical injustices do not justify statehood.

 

North Carolina was meant to be a colony for Catholics. New Jersey was supposed to be a colony for Quakers. They were prosecuted and left to form their own territories.

 

The Jewish people are not the only ethnic group forced into diaspora. I'm not actually sure if that's right or wrong, but that doesn't mean they cannot have their own state. And if you didn't know, there were places created for Native Americans. On your terms, what qualifies justified statehood?

[Omar]

Exactly, which is I'm still not sure why you're calling it stolen if the land has gone from one group to another over the years.

It's stolen because the previous inhabitants have been kicked out and/or oppressed. If Jack steals a library book, then Frank steals it from Jack, then Tom steals it from Frank, then Jack steals it again, it's still a library book that belongs to everyone meant to be shared, not monopolized, and I am still allowed to read it. Besides, we all know legal doesn't mean right. The fact is there are Palestinians living in terrible conditions, and that's because Jews took their land.

[The_Gabe]

Exactly, which is I'm still not sure why you're calling it stolen if the land has gone from one group to another over the years.

Jews took their land.

 

Were given.

 

Anyways, opinions aren't going to be changed. Continuing this discussion is futile.

[meol]

Oh, opinions are formed and changed with these discussions alright. Just not yours.

 

I am slowly starting to have an opinion against Zionism myself. :^_^:

[Omar]

No country for told men.

[The_Gabe]

This is obviously gonna get nowhere like the other times in this thread.

 

Exactly, threads like these dont change peoples minds no matter how great or terrible an argument from either side.

Correct. Now, if it was phrased into something like so:

 

'Exactly, guns like these dont change peoples minds no matter how great or terrible an argument from either side.'

 

Then things will get done. But that is 'unethical'.

 

[/endthread]

[Crocefisso]

Oh, opinions are formed and changed with these discussions alright. Just not yours.

Pretty much. Gabe and myself are both firmly entrenched in opposing camps. The only people whose opinions are going to change are the rest of you.

[magekillr]

Not always. I think you just have to be open to reason. I mean, sure, people see what is defined as "reason" in different ways...but if you're generally open to new evidence views change all of the time. For example, I'm a staunch supporter of free trade, but it was only after I was convinced with overwhelming evidence. I also used to support liberal foreign intervention -- so back maybe three years ago I'd have supported the war in Libya (I never supported the Iraq War, though). After much debate, I changed course; when the debate about Libya came up, I was staunchly against it (and if the current evidence shows, in my view, that opposition was the correct view). I've changed on other issues as well, but those are just some examples

 

This issue might be a little different than a regular socio-economic political view, but I don't think so. I was a two-stater because it made the most logical sense for peace. Now I don't believe a two-state solution is either viable logically because of the settlements, nor is it morally acceptable.

[obfuscator]

Not always. I think you just have to be open to reason. I mean, sure, people see what is defined as "reason" in different ways...but if you're generally open to new evidence views change all of the time. For example, I'm a staunch supporter of free trade, but it was only after I was convinced with overwhelming evidence. I also used to support liberal foreign intervention -- so back maybe three years ago I'd have supported the war in Libya (I never supported the Iraq War, though). After much debate, I changed course; when the debate about Libya came up, I was staunchly against it (and if the current evidence shows, in my view, that opposition was the correct view). I've changed on other issues as well, but those are just some examples

 

This issue might be a little different than a regular socio-economic political view, but I don't think so. I was a two-stater because it made the most logical sense for peace. Now I don't believe a two-state solution is either viable logically because of the settlements, nor is it morally acceptable.

What is your position, then? I can't recall you ever actually stating your basic position in the midst of all the other arguing, or perhaps I just missed it.

 

I do agree that a two-state solution isn't really viable, though.

[magekillr]

Well, I think I would still prefer a two-state solution over the status quo -- it'd make the states easier to assimilate and eventually merge in the future (not immediately, but eventually). With political reality, I do not think Israel will be going anywhere, so I think we have to operate under the assumption that "Israel" is here to stay. I do not accept its "Jewish nature" anymore than I accept Britain calling for a specific "British culture." Zionism is akin to European nationalism, and as longtime readers should know of me, they know I hate nationalism with a passion.

 

So as for a solution? I think Israel should stay, give full citizenship and equal rights to Arabs in the occupied territories and Israel proper, and give full right of return to all displaced Palestinians. I don't think right of return all at once is logically acceptable because of the sheer amount of people, so it would have to be regulated so the state could handle the influx of people.

 

This wouldn't be my ideal outcome -- my ideal outcome is that of Crocefisso's view. But we don't live in a world of ideals, and I'm tired of war. Moreover, I feel that this is the inevitable and probable outcome. A two-state solution simply isn't going to happen, no matter how much Israeli Prime Minister Olmert urges for it to be so [1]. And that's entirely Israel's own fault.

[obfuscator]

Fair enough.

 

I do find it hard to believe a one state solution is any more feasible, however.

[Crocefisso]

Personally, I think that a one-state solution is the only practical one, for the following reasons:

 

-Both states would be far too small to be viable from a defense point of view...

-This being so, if a Palestinian state were to be set up, Israel would jump at the earliest possible opportunity to reconquer it.

 

-As such, I think that Israel should give Israeli citizenship to Arabs and incorporate Gaza and the West Bank into their state. The democratic framework in Israel is already in place and works quite well. The military, thanks to America, is also brilliant. But a few things would need to be re-named: first, the name Israel is too racially charged to be an acceptable name for a secular state (which, assuming all displaced Palestinians returned, would be made up of c. 5 million Jews and 11 million Arabs). Something more appropriate would be Palestine (because it's a simple geographical, rather than racial or Biblical, name), Lower Lebanon, or something of that sort. Accordingly, institutions such as the Knesset and Mossad would need to be re-named.

 

On the issue of supporting wars, I am not firmly anti- or pro-war. It depends on the context. Afghanistan was the most justifiable, as I see it. The US had every right to go there after 9/11, and the end of a repressive, theocratic regime is a good thing in my books. I admire the efforts of NATO in Afghanistan - because nation building is a moral duty if you invade a nation - and I sincerely hope that Karzai (a bit of a crook, but better than a religious fanatic) can survive in office post-2014.

 

Iraq was different. Getting rid of Saddam Hussein was never going to be a bad thing, but to lie about WMDs, and then execute it so poorly that it definitely helped al-Qai'da in Mesapotamia to gain a foothold there and has ended up killing more people since 2003 than Hussein killed in his entire career, that's disgraceful. The only good that came out of it was that Hussein is gone and Iraq is more free, if more dangerous.

 

Libya is a different issue. I do not trust the rebels, with their patchy support and unscrupulous practices (systematic murder of black Africans, assassination of their military leader by other rebels), and I can't really see them being able to set up a democracy from scratch in the post-Qaddafi era if they can't even organise their own army. Qaddafi may need to go, but I don't think that the NTC are the ones to do it, and therefore I cannot support them either.

 

(I realise I've gone a bit OT. :P)

[magekillr]

Well it's not lol. What's going to happen is an effective South African situation, and a solution will be forced upon it. It's just a matter of when, and how much longer the entire world (read, the United States) will stand by allowing Israel to defacto annex more land. I'm interested in what will happen in September (although I believe it to be a wrong-headed way of doing it). In the absence of a strategy based on hard and soft law, the PAs statehood resolution bid could be an exercise in futility.

[Crocefisso]

Well it's not lol. What's going to happen is an effective South African situation, and a solution will be forced upon it. It's just a matter of when, and how much longer the entire world (read, the United States) will stand by allowing Israel to defacto annex more land. I'm interested in what will happen in September (although I believe it to be a wrong-headed way of doing it). In the absence of a strategy based on hard and soft law, the PAs statehood resolution bid could be an exercise in futility.

The statehood bid, even if successful, will be more symbolic than anything else. Anyway, it's like the UN tries to compromise for the USA's ridiculous pro-Israeli stance by being absurdly anti-Israeli, and so few people really take the UN seriously on the Israel issue.

[The_Gabe]

Personally, I think that a one-state solution is the only practical one, for the following reasons:

 

-Both states would be far too small to be viable from a defense point of view...

 

 

-This being so, if a Palestinian state were to be set up, Israel would jump at the earliest possible opportunity to reconquer it.

 

A palestinian state would only be set up if Israel was involved in the process, so I really doubt this would happen.

 

-As such, I think that Israel should give Israeli citizenship to Arabs and incorporate Gaza and the West Bank into their state. The democratic framework in Israel is already in place and works quite well.

 

 

This I will agree, but it's somewhat not viable because of Hamas.

 

The military, thanks to America, is also brilliant.

 

Money=/= brilliance.

 

But a few things would need to be re-named: first, the name Israel is too racially charged to be an acceptable name for a secular state (which, assuming all displaced Palestinians returned, would be made up of c. 5 million Jews and 11 million Arabs). Something more appropriate would be Palestine (because it's a simple geographical, rather than racial or Biblical, name), Lower Lebanon, or something of that sort. Accordingly, institutions such as the Knesset and Mossad would need to be re-named.

 

 

This is where you lost me completely. First, did you name that Palestine originated from the word Falistina which was a name from the Bible that the Romans called this land to insult the Jews? It was the Arabs that could not pronounce and they pronounced it Palestine instead. So this is a hell no argument. Also, Arabs out numbering Jews in this state would not be viable at all. After all of this, do you really think peace is going to come this easy? This would end up being like what the colony of Maryland ended up being. Not realistically viable. You're completely wanting to destroy parts of the Jewish culture and replace it with Islamic.

 

On the issue of supporting wars, I am not firmly anti- or pro-war. It depends on the context. Afghanistan was the most justifiable, as I see it. The US had every right to go there after 9/11, and the end of a repressive, theocratic regime is a good thing in my books. I admire the efforts of NATO in Afghanistan - because nation building is a moral duty if you invade a nation - and I sincerely hope that Karzai (a bit of a crook, but better than a religious fanatic) can survive in office post-2014.

 

Wars will happen; it's inevitable.

 

Iraq was different. Getting rid of Saddam Hussein was never going to be a bad thing, but to lie about WMDs, and then execute it so poorly that it definitely helped al-Qai'da in Mesapotamia to gain a foothold there and has ended up killing more people since 2003 than Hussein killed in his entire career, that's disgraceful. The only good that came out of it was that Hussein is gone and Iraq is more free, if more dangerous.

 

I'm ignorant to the subject so I cannot comment.

 

Libya is a different issue. I do not trust the rebels, with their patchy support and unscrupulous practices (systematic murder of black Africans, assassination of their military leader by other rebels), and I can't really see them being able to set up a democracy from scratch in the post-Qaddafi era if they can't even organise their own army. Qaddafi may need to go, but I don't think that the NTC are the ones to do it, and therefore I cannot support them either.

(I realise I've gone a bit OT. :P)

Can't comment either.

[Omar]

Do you agree that in a one-state solution, the state shouldn't be called Isreal?