|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
bigverne
Joined: 12 May 2004
|
 Posted: Thu Oct 06, 2005 11:24 am Post subject: |
 |
|
I see your now backtracking on your original claim that Arabs were barred from the army, which was a piece of evidence you gave for it being an 'ethnocracy' (whatever the means).
| Quote: |
| already explained the regional peace treaties and iniatives... |
Yes, but you seem to naively assume that these treaties will be honoured by future governments. If Egypt were to become an Islamic state (quite likely at some point in the future) they might well be hostile to Israel's existence. It is therefore nonsense to say that Israel faces no threat from its neighbours. I can think of no other state in the world that is so threatened by its neighbours. Moreover, as I have explained, when you are dealing with Islamic states such as Saudi Arabia, which is proposing such a plan, you have to understand the Islamic definition of a treaty. To them it is simply a chance to gather themselves until they are strong enough to overwhelm the enemy.
In fact, Arafat said in an interview with a South African journalist in 1994 "I see this agreement as being no more than the agreement signed between our Prophet Muhammad and the Quraysh in Mecca", in reference to an agreement the prophet Mohammed made with a Meccan tribe, which he later broke.
| Quote: |
| But they are barred from certain positions within the military so their participation is limited even if they choose to join. |
Do you have any evidence to back this up? Even if that is true, it would be for reasons of national security as Israeli Arabs would be far more likely to give away state secrets to Israel's enemies than Jews. That is just logic. It's discriminatory, but it certainly serves as no basis for calling Israel undemocratic. In fact, I think muslims should be barred from similar positions in the UK.
| Quote: |
| they are not even close to bieng equal in israel |
What rights, specifically, do they not have that Israelis do have? You are making these assertions but are providing scant evidence, in the way of links, to support them.
| Quote: |
| Many Israelis will try to convince you that full democratic rights are given to all her citizens but this is patently untrue. |
Israeli Arabs have the right to vote, do they not? What democratic rights are they denied, specifically?
| Quote: |
| israel cannot be both a jewish state and a democratic state. |
So, what exactly are you saying?
Why not? Israel is like any other nation state, in that it represents a distinct people. Taking your argument to its logical conclusion, Japan is not democratic, because it is a Japanese state. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
My 2 Cent
Joined: 03 Jun 2003
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 06, 2005 12:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
i dont want to be frightfully rude, but have you read ANYTHING ive written during the past 48 hours? again u knitpick on one factoid like i said and i still going aroudn the houses with you.
Do i have to repeat all the evidence about discrimination regarding Israeli Arabs. There is plenty of evidence regarding Israel Arabs including a reference to them on the wikipedia link about the Israeli Army before... it refers to discrimation and polices etc.
Before you were confused as to the difference between palestanians and israeli-arabs and i really dont have the time to explain it to you.
Also I spent a lot of time in Israel and Palestine, and met many Isreali Arabs -- esp around the Galillee area.
no surprises here but outrage when this happened in 2000:
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20050929/wl_mideast_afp/mideastisraelarab_050929182335
Nazareith is an arab city in Israel for example, so the disparity between the communities to me was quite stark. Many arabs are treated like dirt, and arab citizens are not able to fully particpate in the state, and are alienated, disenfrancised, and disconnected. In Israel if you are not high up on the military ladder, you are nothing... notice the last few PM's of Israel were Generals??!!
You know blacks and indians had votes and parliments under apathraid in south Africa but it was wasnt a democray either.
I think for the most part Wikipedia tries to be neutral so check it out... most journals and op-ed pieces are propaganda --- thats goes for much in both sides in the debate.
i dunno check out bitterlemons.org
and read 'the controvery of zion' by jermany wheatcroft but most importanlty 'israel - challenges to identity, democracy, and state.'
really it doesnt matter what who said... this is politics. its a game, and things are too globalised and spun to take this all so seriously.
Even if egppt came islamic state, it will still be under the western umbrealla like Saudi (the most funamentalist state in the world), so i wouldnt worry about it too much.
Finally you are correct... japan is indeed a japanese state.
but unfortunatly Israel is not an Israeli state... like you said its a jewish state. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bigverne
Joined: 12 May 2004
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 06, 2005 1:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
What rights, specifically, do they not have that Israelis do have?
You failed to answer this question and the only evidence you have provided, so far, that Israel is not a democracy, is the rather weak argument that Israeli Arabs may not be able to rise to senior positions in the security forces. That is hardly grounds for saying it is not a democracy.
| Quote: |
| are now nitpicking over semantics... |
Asking you to provide evidence of how Israel is not a democracy is not nitpicking, but a challenge to the main thrust of your argument. You said Israel was not a democracy, yet you have provided scant specific evidence of any rights that Arabs are denied that Jews have. One piece of evidence you have provided has already been shown to be false.
| Quote: |
| In Israel if you are not high up on the military ladder, you are nothing |
Not true, although having served in the military does confer on you certain benefits, but since Arabs are free to join the military, such policies do not directly discriminate against them. You do not have to be high up on the ladder to enjoy these benefits, you merely have to serve.
| Quote: |
| arab citizens are not able to fully particpate in the state |
Like how? Apart from being able to vote, form their own political parties, and campaign on political issues, how are they not allowed to 'fully participate'. If you're going to throw around assertions like that you really should back them up.
| Quote: |
| are alienated, disenfrancised, and disconnected |
This is extremely vague, which is useful, since it means you don't actually need to provide evidence of how Israel is not a democracy.
| Quote: |
| You know blacks and indians had votes and parliments under apathraid in south Africa but it was wasnt a democray either. |
No, they had their own seperate and powerless assemblies to represent their interests. They had no say in the election of the national assembly, because if they were allowed that, they could have outvoted whites. Arab Israelis have exactly the same democratic rights as Jews and making comparisons to South Africa is silly, lazy, and stinks of ignorant left wing rhetoric.
Now, let's see some factual evidence to back up your assertion that Israel is not a democracy, and that Palestinians are denied fundamental rights not denied to Jews. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
My 2 Cent
Joined: 03 Jun 2003
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 06, 2005 1:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
you really are a complete idiot...
do i retype everythign again for you?
whats the point? u are not going to read it anways so i just wasting my time.
You constantly go back over the one point u made relating to the word 'barring', and this is your only comeback.
CONGRATULATIONS!
maybe if you could respond to any of the other points i raised (or anyone elses points) this 'debate' might interest me again.
Pathetic.
I sited housing, education, riots, jobs, civil servise, unemployment. This is factual evidence from political history, socialiogy books(try reading a few sometime), not to mention my own personal experience of staying int he region for extended peroids over the course of 4 years, reading many more books (i gave u refereences to a couple of those already), meeting many many more people both arab and jew, and not believing the usual media and political bullshit. Go on the ground and see for yourself.... you really dont know what you are talking about... its actully quite funny.
You are a lost cuase. pig ignorant moran who like a kid - why? why? why? I used to annoy my sister by doin the same thing... just dont listen to the other persons answers and respond again and again saying the same word ... 'Why?!'
Do some reading, get informed, talk to people, travel to the region, and maybe you wont have to ask this ridiculaous questiona all the time, and make such intellecutally lazy, moronic, and indeed incomprehenibly stupid comments in discussions like this.
Since you cant accept anything i have said.... just believe what the he11 you want and be happy in life.
in fact i hope you are born an Israeli-arab in the next life... who knows maybe you will get a job and become prime minister of Israel one day?
prove me wrong!
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 06, 2005 2:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
Frankly, they are both politicians and I wouldn't trust either of them. |
there is no comparison . Clintom might be flawd but they are in different leagues , Arafat was a typrical mideast thug leader.
| Quote: |
BETTER THAN YOU!!!
This is childish arguement. |
Well I tell you when the UN treats the states in the region fairly then you will have a point.
| Quote: |
| You taking about a war that was in the making for 3 years before? Israel thought itself invincible after '67 and rejected peace offer after peace offer from Egypt until Sadat made empty threats, and a surprise attack. |
what peace offers are you talking about? When Sadat asked for peace he got it in 1979. the fact is that Israel caught unpreprepared was very vunrable.
and Nasser massed forces in 1967. He threatend war and he got war.
| Quote: |
| Notice how peace came quickly after that. Nixon's administation were even glad that Israel was left to bleed a little, and directly intervened in the armitice afterwards on golan and sinai - kissinger shuttles etc - this was a grand gesture was really just a cold war power play. |
Ok what is your point.?
what were Israel's enemies offering before 1967?
| Quote: |
| Israel was by now a regional superpower... had moved fully into the US sphere after '67, high on its own feelings of invincibility and arrogance. Also a nuclear power if that was to be forgotten. |
and they were still vunrable.
and what were Israel's enemies offering before 1967?
| Quote: |
| Regardless, they did indeed get a bloody nose and learned valueable lessons from the October war 73, and finally had to change their rejectionist polices vis a vis the egyptions-- which brought Camp David. |
any proof of this . Besides I don't know what the point is here?
It doesn't change what I am trying to say - that israel was vunrable when it didn't keep its forces on alert.
A country with such a small population
| Quote: |
| Wikipedia: In 1971, Sadat, in response to an initiative by UN intermediary Gunnar Jarring, declared that if Israel committed itself to "withdrawal of its armed forces from Sinai and the Gaza Strip" and to implementation of other provisions of UN Security Council Resolution 242 as requested by Jarring, Egypt would then "be ready to enter into a peace agreement with Israel." Israel responded that it would not withdraw to the pre-June 5, 1967, lines.[1] |
Ok Israel didn't reject peace, just the complete withdrawal.
But is there anything that shows Egypt (when it was ruled by Nasser) was wiilling to give up war against Israel?
| Quote: |
| Anyways, let's leave this episode for another arguement. |
OK
| Quote: |
| It says leave occupied land. |
in exchange for peace
| Quote: |
| The resolution is the formula proposed by the Security Council for the successful resolution of the Arab-Israeli conflict, in particular, ending the state of belligerency then existing between Egypt, Jordan and Syria versus Israel. It insists upon the termination of all states of war in the area; guarantees the sovereignty, territorial integrity and independence of all Middle Eastern nations; and calls for a "just settlement" of the question of the refugees. |
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UN_Security_Council_Resolution_242
| Quote: |
| There was no intifida back in '67 remember? |
Yes but Israel was still under attack then.
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
So 242 did mention ceasefire and quiet....
from all participants... egypt (peace treaty'79), Jordan (peace treaty '94) and syria (no peace treaty). |
|
| Quote: |
The resolution is the formula proposed by the Security Council for the successful resolution of the Arab-Israeli conflict, in particular, ending the state of belligerency then existing between Egypt, Jordan and Syria versus Israel. It insists upon the termination of all states of war in the area; guarantees the sovereignty, territorial integrity and independence of all Middle Eastern nations; and calls for a "just settlement" of the question of the refugees.
The resolution's most important feature is the "land for peace" formula, calling for Israeli withdrawal from territories it had occupied in 1967 in exchange for peace with its neighbors. This was an important advance at the time, considering the fact that there were no peace treaties between any Arab state and Israel until the Israel-Egypt Peace Treaty signed in 1979. |
syria has still been at war with Israel.
| Quote: |
| So are you saying for the Palestanians to enjoy a life without occupation by foreign forces of Isreal - the resolution is dependent on Syria? That was the orginal idea behind the draft of 242? |
No , I am saying that the Palestinian side has never said if Isreal withdraws to 1967 borderst that they won't attack , that the conflict is over.
| Quote: |
| Today here is no threat of aggression from these nations, so Israel should follow international law and withdraw from occupied land. There is no debate on this one... its the law. |
no threat Syria is still at war with Israel. Israel faces the threats from Hezzbollah, Arafats forces, Hamas, and Islamic Jihad and most of the nations in the region.
How about the Palestinian side saying that if Israel withdraws they will never , never attack.
Arafat never said so.
He said that if Israel withdraws , and allows right of return and makes some other concessions that the war is over.
but he never said if Israel just withdraws the war is over.
Withdrawal for peace. Not unilateral withdrawal for nothing.
| Quote: |
242 has noting to do with Palestanian militiants, uprisings etc.
nothing. |
no but it had the principle of land for peace.
if the Palestinian side wants israel to leave then it ought to declare that if Israel does so then there will be no more attacks.
Arafat never said so.
| Quote: |
| yes as explained already. There was no Palestian campaign when 242 was written, so this arguement does not hold water. |
but Araft still attacked israel. Hamas and the other groups still attacked Israel.
If they want Israel to leave then declare no more attacks if Israel does.
| Quote: |
| We are going in circles here. |
whatever , anyone who demands right of return is not really offering peace
| Quote: |
| How are they backed by western powers? the US gives 2b to Egypt defends Kuwait and buys oil from Saudi. |
| Quote: |
| every regime has been, was, or is backed by the West. Every country was created by the West, and installed, or proped up by the West. Explains why Arabs think the US/UK are liars who say their 'values' are superior yet have and continue to support regional thugs and scumbags... jordan, egypt, libya (they are 'goodies' again!) etc. |
| | |
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
