All old Israel/Lebanon threads merged in here

[groverat]

Palestinians militants have kidnapped an Israeli soldier and Israel is retaliating by taking out civilian infrastructure as collective punishment.

click 1 (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060627/ap_on_re_mi_ea/israel_palestinians)

GAZA CITY, Gaza Strip - Israeli troops entered southern Gaza and planes attacked two bridges and a power station, knocking out electricity in most of the coastal strip early Wednesday and stepping up the pressure on Palestinian militants holding captive a 19-year-old Israeli soldier.
...
Early Wednesday, Israeli planes fired at least nine missiles at Gaza's only power station, cutting electricity to much of the Gaza Strip, Palestinian security officials said. The station's three funtioning turbines and a gasoline reservoir were engulfed in enormous flames that firefighters were unable to control.

The attack raised the specter of a humanitarian crisis in Gaza, as water pumps in the strip are powered by electricity.

Israeli military officials said Prime Minister Ehud Olmert approved a "limited operation" for southern Gaza, aimed at "terrorist infrastructure." The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to talk to reporters.

click 2 (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/5123262.stm)
Israel had warned of a massive military assault if he was not freed and its tanks have been massing along the border with Gaza for several days.

It is unclear how many troops are being used in the incursion, launched from the Kerem Shalom crossing near southern Gaza.

The assault on Gaza marks Israel's first major incursion into the territory since it withdrew its soldiers and settlers last year, ending almost 40 years of occupation.

Now I know this is a crazy though, but I'm betting Israel somehow manages to wind up with more territory.

Geneva Conventions - Protocol 2 (http://www.globalissuesgroup.com/geneva/protocol2.html)
Part IV. Civilian Population

Art. 14. Protection of objects indispensable to the survival of the civilian population

Starvation of civilians as a method of combat is prohibited. It is therefore prohibited to attack, destroy, remove or render useless for that purpose, objects indispensable to the survival of the civilian population such as food-stuffs, agricultural areas for the production of food-stuffs, crops, livestock, drinking water installations and supplies and irrigation works.

[Aurora]

I cant blame Israel, they have shown a lot of restraint, they should just go grab the gaza and wall it off. Palestinians just dont get it never will but who is surprised? Extreme Islam is what it is. Making sure palestine stays in poverty ,chaos and has no future for its children. They hate Israel more then they love their children hence no future.

[groverat]

"Palestinians" act as a single, cohesive entity therefore when one group of Palestinians does something wrong the entirety deserves retaliation?

[occam whisker]

Originally posted by groverat
\"Palestinians\" act as a single, cohesive entity therefore when one group of Palestinians does something wrong the entirety deserves retaliation?


Brilliant.

Err,.. why involve the whole of Israel in this action when it\'s only a few individual soldiers that took down a transformer station in Gaza?

[Gene Clean]

Originally posted by Aurora
I cant blame Israel

There. You said it. It doesn't matter that entirely civilian infrastructure is being destroyed by Israel, it doesn't matter that such things are STRICTLY PROHIBITED BY EVERY INTERNATIONAL LAW THE HUMAN RACE HAS CREATED THAT DEALS WITH THAT, you can't blame Israel.

When they throw bombs in towns, you ask why aren't they fighting the military. When they fight the military and the other party responds by fighting the civilian population, you say you can't blame them.

That type of automatic bias no matter what the mitigating evidence shows, is commonly known as a state of denial which some people refer to as insanity. But I'm sure you'll find a way to blame 'extreme islam' for that too, and put all Palestinians into one shoebox while you're at it.

[audiopollution]

Originally posted by occam whisker
Brilliant.

Err,.. why involve the whole of Israel in this action when it\'s only a few individual soldiers that took down a transformer station in Gaza?

On the behest of the PM. You know, ordered to do so by the guy who's the head honcho.

Easy concept.

[occam whisker]

Originally posted by audiopollution
On the behest of the PM. You know, ordered to do so by the guy who\'s the head honcho.

Easy concept.



What about the 50% or so that didn\'t vote for him? Or the 20% in Gaza that didn\'t vote Hamas? Why oh why must they too suffer collectively?

[audiopollution]

Originally posted by occam whisker
What about the 50% or so that didn\'t vote for him? Or the 20% in Gaza that didn\'t vote Hamas? Why oh why must they too suffer collectively?

Screw 'em, I guess. Right?

[occam whisker]

Originally posted by audiopollution
Screw \'em, I guess. Right?


At least until the next election cycle, if Hamas or Fatah will allow it.

[audiopollution]

Originally posted by occam whisker
At least until the next election cycle, if Hamas or Fatah will allow it.

... or Kadima.

[occam whisker]

Originally posted by audiopollution
... or Kadima.

Why would you say that?

[audiopollution]

Originally posted by occam whisker
Why would you say that?

I'd say that because I don't think this will end until Israel just finishes the job. The possibility of another election cycle is just as dependent on Hamas and Fatah as it is on Kadima (or whomever is the next ruling party in Israel, which I suspect will fall on the right of centrism).

It seems (to me) that Israel, at this point in time, are playing to win.

[occam whisker]

Originally posted by audiopollution
I'd say that because I don't think this will end until Israel just finishes the job. The possibility of another election cycle is just as dependent on Hamas and Fatah as it is on Kadima (or whomever is the next ruling party in Israel, which I suspect will fall on the right of centrism).

It seems (to me) that Israel, at this point in time, are playing to win.


Playing to win what? Their kidnaped soldier? The halt of the daily sniping at the Israeli citizens? The halt of kassam missile bombardment of Israeli cities? Is there more to this damn Joooooish conspiracy that I missed?

[audiopollution]

Originally posted by occam whisker
Playing to win what? Their kidnaped soldier? The halt of the daily sniping at the Israeli citizens? The halt of kassam missile bombardment of Israeli cities? Is there more to this damn Joooooish conspiracy that I missed?

Are you intentially obtuse? You play the part well, if so.

Mika?

[occam whisker]

Originally posted by audiopollution
Are you intentially obtuse? You play the part well, if so.

Mika?

Wtf are you talking about? How about you answer the question. What exactly are they playing to win, mr mod.

[Gene Clean]

Originally posted by occam whisker
Wtf are you talking about? How about you answer the question. What exactly are they playing to win, mr mod.

Territory amigo, territory.

[southside grabowski]

CNN Breaking News:

"-- Israeli warplanes flew over the home of Syrian President Bashar Assad,
Israeli officials said. The move apparently is aimed at pressuring the Syrian
leader to help get a captured Israeli soldier released."

Even Moe is getting a little concerned about the ME situation.

[Gene Clean]

Originally posted by southside grabowski
CNN Breaking News:

"-- Israeli warplanes flew over the home of Syrian President Bashar Assad,
Israeli officials said. The move apparently is aimed at pressuring the Syrian
leader to help get a captured Israeli soldier released."


hahah!

Man, these guys are fucking lunatics.

[audiopollution]

Originally posted by southside grabowski
Even Moe is getting a little concerned about the ME situation.

:wow: ;)

(check your private messages, by the way)

[Frank777]

Originally posted by Gene Clean
Territory amigo, territory.

Nonsense. This is clearly all about the missing soldier.

The Army has gone all out to save one of its own. Yes, they're crossing the line (literally and figuratively) but I'm not sure they could be stopped even if everyone wanted them to.

If you think this is somehow a situation specific to Israel, you've obviously never seen a Police Officer get shot or kidnapped in Toronto, New York or L.A.

Do yourself a favour and rent Harrison Ford's Fugitive, and watch what Chicago PD tries to do to Richard Kimball, on behalf of one of their own.

[groverat]

How the hell can Israel be defended on this? It is madness.

Provoking Syria? Destroying civilian infrastructure and risking humanitarian crisis?

This is ridiculous.

[Frank777]

Who's defending it?

[Gene Clean]

Originally posted by Frank777
Nonsense. This is clearly all about the missing soldier.

Yes. He was hiding under the bridge and sometimes in the power plant.


The Army has gone all out to save one of its own. Yes, they're crossing the line (literally and figuratively) but I'm not sure they could be stopped even if everyone wanted them to.

Usually those things are done through negotiations. The Palestinians were not saying they're going to kill him; their demand was freedom for their women and children in Israeli jails. Clearly, this is just a pretext for all-out bombing of Palestinians for no particular reason other than to hurt them.

If you think this is somehow a situation specific to Israel, you've obviously never seen a Police Officer get shot or kidnapped in Toronto, New York or L.A.

I live in Chicago - last year alone we had 593 murders, of which at least 30 were cops. I sure as shit have seen cops murdered and kidnapped but I can't remember the last time the US government sent the army to bomb our power plants!

Do yourself a favour and rent Harrison Ford's Fugitive, and watch what Chicago PD tries to do to Richard Kimball, on behalf of one of their own.

No thanks. You go ahead and watch movies. I'll stick with real life, where there are laws and consequences.

[Aurora]

Hey they elected the terror group Hamas to run the country, So are they a legal law abiding govt? or just more thugs and still a terror group. I would say thugs wanting a war and thats why hiding in Syria. If Hamas wants war Israel just may give it to them. If they left Israel alone there wouldnt be a problem but they have never left Israel alone in the past 50 yrs. If Hamas wants war Israel just may give them one.

[Gene Clean]

This is how they provoke and start a war, and then use the propaganda mouth to blame it on others and play the innocent victim:

CNN) -- Syria says it chased Israeli warplanes out of its airspace Wednesday after what it called a "hostile and provocative act," Syrian state television reported Wednesday.

Israeli jets flew over the country home of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad in Ladekye, the Israeli military reported. Israeli television reported that al-Assad was at home at the time.

A banner on Syrian television reported that the Syrian air force intercepted the Israeli aircraft and "forced them to separate and leave the area." It called the Israeli airspace breach "an unacceptable, hostile and provocative act."

It's unbelievable what I'm hearing for the last 3 days. Does this shit never stop?

link (http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/06/28/israel.soldier/index.html)

[southside grabowski]

and the cycle continues:

Hamas leaders arrested; Israeli executed
AP - 1 hour, 1 minute ago

GAZA CITY, Gaza Strip - Israeli forces rounded up Palestinian Cabinet ministers and lawmakers from the Islamic Hamas, increasing pressure on the Islamic militants to release a captured Israeli soldier, and witnesses said tanks moved into northern Gaza, widening Israel's largest military operation in the year since Israel pulled out of the seaside territory.

What next?

[Gene Clean]

Originally posted by southside grabowski
Israeli forces rounded up Palestinian Cabinet ministers and lawmakers from the Islamic Hamas

Also, against international law that guarantees the immunity of the elected representatives.


What next?

Exactly.

[Aurora]

Originally posted by Gene Clean
Also, against international law that guarantees the immunity of the elected representatives.




Exactly. Law doesnt apply in war just ask Gerorge Bush. But I do wonder why no one is yelling about the Israelis that were murdered? or the one who was just executed? Hamas asked for this.

[Gene Clean]

What, Israelis, that were murdered? I only see something about a soldier being murdered (unconfirmed too), and that is not something to bomb power plants and bridges and round up elected representatives for.

Not to mention the flying of jets in Syria, threatening its President.

Read what they're doing (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5127556.stm):

Air strikes continued throughout Wednesday, with missiles striking a road near the Khan Younis refugee camp and the premises of the Islamic University in Gaza City.

Universities? Refugee camps? This is unacceptable and unjustifiable.

[segovius]

So now they have seized elected officials (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5127556.stm) and are also saying that targeted assassination - again of elected officials - is on the agenda.

So: Iranian President criticizing a criminal rogue state is "bad".

Same criminal rogue state actively breaking international law, imposing collective punishment and openly threatening assassination of elected leaders is "good".

Right on. Welcome to 'civilization'.

[benzene]

Look, I don't really have a position on way or another on the Israel / Palestinian showdown (other than the fact that Hamas seems like bad news). Really though, are current events different than how it's been for thousands of years in that portion of the world?

Hell, every nation goes through a time in history where they're the ones expanding, until eventually they're the ones that get dumped on. Look around right now: the US in Iraq, Greeks vs. Turks, North Korea vs. South, China vs. Taiwan, Bosnia, Rwanda, Sudan, etc. etc. etc.

Karma's gonna catch up to everybody eventually. I have a feeling that in a hundred years or so, we'll all be speaking mandarin. Is this really something to get all in a tizzy over?

Unless you have some sort of vested interest in Israel (e.g. wackos convinced "Left Behind" is going to be the way the world ends), who really gives a crap? People have been fighting dirty over bits of land since time began. It's just that now, Israel is being the bully.

[e1618978]

Originally posted by segovius
So now they have seized elected officials (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5127556.stm) and are also saying that targeted assassination - again of elected officials - is on the agenda.

So: Iranian President criticizing a criminal rogue state is "bad".

Same criminal rogue state actively breaking international law, imposing collective punishment and openly threatening assassination of elected leaders is "good".

Right on. Welcome to 'civilization'.

If these officials were actually involved in terrorism, then they are much worse than, say, Duke Cunningham.

We arrest elected leaders all the time.

[segovius]

Originally posted by e1618978
If these officials were actually involved in terrorism, then they are much worse than, say, Duke Cunningham.

We arrest elected leaders all the time.

So what's the problem with people targeting your elected leaders then?

And why are people who do so terrorists? Maybe they are really the 'world police'?

Take the London bombings for example - there is now a significant amount of evidence that at least one of the bombers had extensive links with the UK intelligence community (I guess similar links exist between certain alleged 911 perps or certainly 'al Qaeda' and the US admin). Does that mean that the UK government has 'links with terrorism'?

And if so, does it mean that someone who is opposed to this can take the UK officials out - violently if necessary?

I would say yes personally but I don't think you would. I just post this to illustrate the stupidity of your position.

[e1618978]

Originally posted by segovius
So what's the problem with people targeting your elected leaders then?

And why are people who do so terrorists? Maybe they are really the 'world police'?

Take the London bombings for example - there is now a significant amount of evidence that at least one of the bombers had extensive links with the UK intelligence community (I guess similar links exist between certain alleged 911 perps or certainly 'al Qaeda' and the US admin). Does that mean that the UK government has 'links with terrorism'?

And if so, does it mean that someone who is opposed to this can take the UK officials out - violently if necessary?

I would say yes personally but I don't think you would. I just post this to illustrate the stupidity of your position.

If the UK intelligence community was linked to the 911 bombings (i.e. terrorist acts in our country), then yes - we could go over there and trash them.

Who cares what the UK intelligence community does in their own country? Not me.

In international relations, might makes right. What would you have Israel do in this situation? Just beg for the people back like Carter did?

Some scientists did experiments looking for the most successful strategy in power struggles with other people - the strategy that won out was "be nice normally, but retaliate against attacks with utter savagry", which is what the Israelis are doing.

I just don't understand why the Palistinians are so stupid to mess up the peace process.

[segovius]

Originally posted by e1618978
I just don't understand why the Palistinians are so stupid to mess up the peace process.

You don't understand because you cannot face the truth as you have been conditioned to see Israel as never being able to do wrong.

When it does do wrong - as it very often does whether it be the present example or the infamous dancing Israelis on 911 - you cannot see it. You are blind to it.

You do know something is wrong though, that something 'does not gel' and even though you blame the Palestinians (who else is there to blame after all) for every action, still it does not add up and you still have to say 'I do not understand'.

You are right of course. You don't understand and you never will.

Not that it matters.

[e1618978]

Originally posted by segovius
You don't understand because you cannot face the truth as you have been conditioned to see Israel as never being able to do wrong.

When it does do wrong - as it very often does whether it be the present example or the infamous dancing Israelis on 911 - you cannot see it. You are blind to it.

You do know something is wrong though, that something 'does not gel' and even though you blame the Palestinians (who else is there to blame after all) for every action, still it does not add up and you still have to say 'I do not understand'.

You are right of course. You don't understand and you never will.

Not that it matters.

So what made the Palistinians kidnap the soldier? Israel and Palistinian relations looked like they were getting a lot better, with Hamas recognising Israel and all.

[segovius]

Originally posted by e1618978
So what made the Palistinians kidnap the soldier? Israel and Palistinian relations looked like they were getting a lot better, with Hamas recognising Israel and all.

Try: innocent family picknicking on beach getting blown away and then the Palestinians themselves getting blamed for it.

[occam whisker]

Originally posted by segovius
Try: innocent family picknicking on beach getting blown away and then the Palestinians themselves getting blamed for it.

That\'s Pallywood for you. Find a better director.

[occam whisker]

Originally posted by Gene Clean
This is how they provoke and start a war, and then use the propaganda mouth to blame it on others and play the innocent victim:



It\'s unbelievable what I\'m hearing for the last 3 days. Does this shit never stop?

It\'s an outrage I tell you.

That someone on the jihadi side should bare some responsibility for what have been in all intent and purpose acts of war against Israel, it\'s an outrage! That past charade of \"plausible\" jihadi deniability should come to an end, who do those Israelis think they are. Sure acts of war have been committed, but is that reason for Israel to hit back with EVERYTHING it has? Israel needs to treat this jihadist population as any country treats another country it is at war with -- supply them with electricity, gas, telephone service, collect taxes, and perform any other duty that might contribute to the enemy\'s continued hostilities. It\'s long overdue for the Israelis to bare full responsibility for continuous instigation of war like actions against them.

[Aurora]

Originally posted by segovius
Try: innocent family picknicking on beach getting blown away and then the Palestinians themselves getting blamed for it. More spin? its pretty much fact Israel had just came in on that beach because of rockets being shot into Israel, did you forget? also that beach was mined by Hamas to get the Israeli's if they did it again. Segovius has selective memory. Fact is Palestinians came in and killed two soldiers and kidnapped one. I love how Segovius ignores that. Perhaps Hamas should stay out of Israel and stop kidnapping folks. Hamas and or Syria are provoking Israel so dont start crying because Israel responds.

[Gene Clean]

Originally posted by occam whisker
It\'s an outrage I tell you.

That someone on the jihadi side should bare some responsibility for what have been in all intent and purpose acts of war against Israel, it\'s an outrage! That past charade of \"plausible\" jihadi deniability should come to an end, who do those Israelis think they are. Sure acts of war have been committed, but is that reason for Israel to hit back with EVERYTHING it has? Israel needs to treat this jihadist population as any country treats another country it is at war with -- supply them with electricity, gas, telephone service, collect taxes, and perform any other duty that might contribute to the enemy\'s continued hostilities. It\'s long overdue for the Israelis to bare full responsibility for continuous instigation of war like actions against them.

Is that how a 'democracy' wins a war? By bombing beaches with 9 year old girls and universities with students? Does it win the war by bombing purely civilian bridges and by plunging the civilian population into darkness by destroying their energy source (and their water source, since it depends on energy).

Is that how you were taught a war is? Because that's the war of the barbarians, and not of the people.

[Aurora]

Thats why its called war, dont start sh.. if you cant finish it. Also dont pick fights with someone bigger then you unless you want you arse kicked. Seems Hamas is doing both.

[segovius]

Originally posted by Aurora
Thats why its called war, dont start sh.. if you cant finish it. Also dont pick fights with someone bigger then you unless you want you arse kicked. Seems Hamas is doing both.

But if you are minding your own business and someone massively bigger than you starts brutalizing you and other guys much smaller than them - well, resort to unorthodox means and do whatever it takes to take them out.....just not on their terms......

[occam whisker]

Originally posted by segovius
But if you are minding your own business and someone massively bigger than you starts brutalizing you and other guys much smaller than them - well, resort to unorthodox means and do whatever it takes to take them out.....just not on their terms......


How does that apply here?

[occam whisker]

Originally posted by Gene Clean
Is that how a \'democracy\' wins a war? By bombing beaches with 9 year old girls and universities with students? Does it win the war by bombing purely civilian bridges and by plunging the civilian population into darkness by destroying their energy source (and their water source, since it depends on energy).

Is that how you were taught a war is? Because that\'s the war of the barbarians, and not of the people.

If you have any complaints you should take them to your jihadi freedom fighters hiding behind these woman and children.

[Gene Clean]

Originally posted by occam whisker
If you have any complaints you should take them to your jihadi freedom fighters hiding behind these woman and children.

Jihadi freedom fighters? What do you know about jihad anyway? Bombing little girls that are playing in a beach, destroying bridges, power plants, universities, refugee camps... you think that's better than what the jihadis are doing?

You and your satellites have become worse than those you attack and you don't even notice it.

[segovius]

I think there is a problem with the forum ignore list: on my Mac it says This post may contain valuable information pertaining to this thread but with the people on my list there is absolutely no possibility whatsoever that this is the case - is there a fix for this?

[occam whisker]

Originally posted by Gene Clean
Jihadi freedom fighters? What do you know about jihad anyway?

What is it I need to know about jihad?

[Frank777]

Originally posted by Gene Clean
Jihadi freedom fighters? What do you know about jihad anyway? Bombing little girls that are playing in a beach, destroying bridges, power plants, universities, refugee camps... you think that's better than what the jihadis are doing?

You and your satellites have become worse than those you attack and you don't even notice it.

You and your satellites are not any better.

Israel has crossed a line here and many of its supporters have not been shy about saying that.

However, your side is positively gleeful at the opportunity to righteously bash Israel.

I must have missed your righteous condemnation the almost daily sending of suicide bombers to blow up civilian targets and the regular sending of rockets and grenades into civilian neighborhoods. You can't deny those actions have affected the way this is playing out. The Army's crazy actions did not happen in a void.

This is a mess on both sides. And it's rage-filled attitudes like yours that keep it going.
I see nothing in your posts that could begin to advance the cause of peace.

[segovius]

Originally posted by Frank777
I see nothing in your posts that could begin to advance the cause of peace.

Damn right - he hasn't said a word of support for Israeli atrocities :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:

[Frank777]

That's precisely the problem with your side.

While most of us who are sane understand that no thinking person could support atrocities committed by either party, your side continually spreads the fiction that anyone who doesn't take the Palestinian point of view actively supports the bombing of civilian infrastructure inside Gaza.

It's a lie and you know it. But it's never been about truth with you has it?

Anyone who has done even a little mediation work knows that chastising one side of a two sided conflict is a recipe for the breakdown of the mediation.

The Israeli overreaction must stop, but so must the lawlessness and anarchy that breeds the destruction on the other side.

[segovius]

Originally posted by Frank777
That's precisely the problem with your side.

While most of us who are sane understand that no thinking person could support atrocities committed by either party, your side continually spreads the fiction that anyone who doesn't take the Palestinian point of view actively supports the bombing of civilian infrastructure inside Gaza.

It's a lie and you know it. But it's never been about truth with you has it?

Anyone who has done even a little mediation work knows that chastising one side of a two sided conflict is a recipe for the breakdown of the mediation.

The Israeli overreaction must stop, but so must the lawlessness and anarchy that breeds the destruction on the other side.

I don't have a side Frank - I leave that to people like you. From my pov it's quite simple: oppose fascists and Nazis wherever they are and whatever spurious legitimacy they cloak themselves with.

But seeing as you mention it, yes, Imo you are culpable in your support.

You may not allow yourself for various 'moral' reasons to actively support what you call an 'over-reaction' (actually in reality a continuation of ongoing systematic atrocities and human rights abuses but one that has for whatever reason cannot be ignored or justified) but in essence you do support this.

You support Israel by tacit non-opposition (if not actively which I also believe you do) and this is the same thing. this is what Israel is and this is what Israel does - and this is what you support.

There is no 'over-reaction'. There is just Israeli action. This is what they do. You only have a problem when you can't 'disappear' it like you do to the Palestinians as you recently so chillingly demonstrated.

[Aurora]

Originally posted by Frank777
That's precisely the problem with your side.

While most of us who are sane understand that no thinking person could support atrocities committed by either party, your side continually spreads the fiction that anyone who doesn't take the Palestinian point of view actively supports the bombing of civilian infrastructure inside Gaza.

It's a lie and you know it. But it's never been about truth with you has it?

Anyone who has done even a little mediation work knows that chastising one side of a two sided conflict is a recipe for the breakdown of the mediation.

The Israeli overreaction must stop, but so must the lawlessness and anarchy that breeds the destruction on the other side. Nice post and I agree.

[occam whisker]

Originally posted by segovius
Damn right - he hasn\'t said a word of support for Israeli atrocities :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:


I tell youz, it\'s a holocaust is what it is.

[occam whisker]

Originally posted by segovius
I don\'t have a side Frank - I leave that to people like you. From my pov it\'s quite simple: oppose fascists and Nazis wherever they are and whatever spurious legitimacy they cloak themselves with.


You should try to research the term \'islamofascist\'. But what would us stupid infidel monkeys and pigs, as the koran aptly describes us, understand about the lofty goal of muhmud\'s quest for world domination and subjugation.

[Gene Clean]

Originally posted by Frank777
You and your satellites are not any better.

I'm sorry, but I'll have to disagree. I'm not justifying any type of bombing of Israeli power plants or civilian bridges, not to mention 9-year old girls swimming in a beach.

Israel has crossed a line here and many of its supporters have not been shy about saying that.

Israel has crossed many lines here, only one of which is collective punishment. I don't see any of its supporters condemn Israel and ask that it stops the collective punishment of Palestinians. 0


However, your side is positively gleeful at the opportunity to righteously bash Israel.

So long as it keeps collectivelly punishing Palestinians I will always bash it. So long as it continues to bomb entirely civilian targets I will bash it. Because it deserves to be bashed.

I must have missed your righteous condemnation the almost daily sending of suicide bombers to blow up civilian targets and the regular sending of rockets and grenades into civilian neighborhoods. You can't deny those actions have affected the way this is playing out. The Army's crazy actions did not happen in a void.

Prove that it's "almost daily". Prove it.

This is a mess on both sides. And it's rage-filled attitudes like yours that keep it going.
I see nothing in your posts that could begin to advance the cause of peace.

You have to understand that Israel has the military might in this case, and its responsibility is greater because of that. Bombing bridges, universities, beaches, refugee camps... that's not how a civilized nation solves the problem of one kindapped soldier.

Show me one of your posts that begin to advance the cause of peace and I'll shut up.

[occam whisker]

Originally posted by Gene Clean
Prove that it\'s \"almost daily\". Prove it.

Type \'qassam\' into a search engine, to say nothing of the daily sniping at Israeli motorists from Jihadi areas.

[Gene Clean]

Originally posted by occam whisker
Type \'qassam\' into a search engine, to say nothing of the daily sniping at Israeli motorists from Jihadi areas.

'Daily' means that it happens every day, 365 days a year. 'Almost daily' means that it happens at least 300 days a year.

Prove it that it happens 300 times a year, every day. Suggesting I type some random names into a search engine is not proof.

[occam whisker]

Originally posted by Gene Clean
\\\'Daily\\\' means that it happens every day, 365 days a year. \\\'Almost daily\\\' means that it happens at least 300 days a year.

Prove it that it happens 300 times a year, every day. Suggesting I type some random names into a search engine is not proof.

Have you tried laxatives? You want to be anal about this, you can check Isareli TV or Radio programs from the past 360 days.

[Gene Clean]

Originally posted by occam whisker
Have you tried laxatives? You want to be anal about this, you can check Isareli TV or Radio programs from the past 360 days.

An independent source, plase. Propaganda is very present on both sides.

[occam whisker]

Originally posted by Gene Clean
An independent source, plase. Propaganda is very present on both sides.

The daily Israeli TV news programs cover these incidents with video footage.

[Frank777]

You two really like each other, don't you?

Gene, are you seriously denying that rockets are fired regularly into Israel from the West Bank and Gaza? Where have you been living, under a rock?

Not even Hamas agrees with you. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5066768.stm)

As for the suicide bombers, I understand. The last few years when we all saw report after report of Israeli buses, shopping malls and sidewalk cafes go boom were just a collective dream.

Then of course, they tried to protect themselves with a security wall, which you also condemned as a 'land grab'.

Look at what your argument has been reduced to. Whether the Israelis have been hurt as much as the Palestinians.

Whichever side has racked up more death is irrelevant. All the killing must stop.

[Gene Clean]

Originally posted by Frank777
Gene, are you seriously denying that rockets are fired regularly into Israel from the West Bank and Gaza? Where have you been living, under a rock?

I asked you to prove that those rockets have been fired 'almost daily' as you claimed. So do it. It must be easy, if what you say is true.


As for the suicide bombers, I understand. The last few years when we all saw report after report of Israeli buses, shopping malls and sidewalk cafes go boom were just a collective dream.

And we also saw beaches, refugee camps, universities, bridges, mosques, houses, women, children, either killed or destroyed. Cars bombed with 500-ton bombs, houses collectively destroyed, families collectively killed... and?

Then of course, they tried to protect themselves with a security wall, which you also condemned as a 'land grab'.

Not only me, but every international court in existence, including Israel's Supreme Court. You seem to ignore the ruling of Israel's Supreme Court in this issue. Or are you going to accuse them too of 'dreaming collectively'?

All the killing must stop.

Yeah, well, it will only stop when the two parties get what they want, and let go of something else that they want; a compromise.

And a compromise means equality. This is not equality.

[Gene Clean]

Originally posted by occam whisker
The daily Israeli TV news programs cover these incidents with video footage.

Which can be recycled, re-edited, etc. Provide an independent source.

[segovius]

Let's get some perspective:

As usual this Israeli action not what it purports to be but rather is intended to pre-empt and nullify recent agreements to recognize Israel that were agreed between Fatah and Hamas. Such recognition is the last thing Israel wants. It would cease to have justification for its action and cease to hold the 'moral' ascendancy were its atrocities to continue.

The kidnapping in the first instance was intended as leverage by al-Qassam to facilitate negotiations on the release of hostages.

These hostages - women and children as already mentioned - are being held illegally (unlike the kidnapping which falls under 'act of war'). Israel are in clear violation of the Geneva Convention with this but they don't care because they have their own law which they prefer: in this case one which (like the US) legalizes torture.

The law - passed in 1997 - allows an exception to the prohibition kidnapping if the subject is an Arab. I guess this is ok - if someone passed a law allowing kidnapping for Jews it would be bad but.....

Anyway, according to Amnesty International (http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGMDE150021998?open&of=ENG-2MD), Israel is the only country in the world to have legalized torture (the US outsource it and deny any home-grown efforts while still admitting it is illegal). The methods which are doubtless being utilized on the women and children illegally detained, include: beatings, electric shock, sleep deprivation, forcing prisoners to remain in painful positions, violent shaking, hooding, confinement in tiny spaces and exposure to temperature extremes.


"We must use terror, assassination, intimidation, land confiscation, and the cutting of all social services to rid the Galilee of its Arab population."

David Ben-Gurion, May 1948, to the General Staff.

From Ben-Gurion, A Biography, by Michael Ben-Zohar, Delacorte, New York 1978.

[occam whisker]

Originally posted by Gene Clean
Which can be recycled, re-edited, etc. Provide an independent source.


I\'m not sure what you mean by independent, but I assure you the Israeli media is quite independent and accurate. If by independent you mean non-Israeli foreign media outlets that employ muslim stingers camera man reporters etc, such as the Associated Press, Reuters, AFP, NYT, etc., then I wont bother.

It\'s an established fact that these overtly partisan media agencies often ignore Islamic attacks on Israelis in their reports from the region and completely omit attacks on Israelis in their chronicles of world (Islamic) terror attacks. It\'s a disturbing pattern of propaganda by omission, but that is the reality of matter.

And then there’s also the issue that often non-lethal or “minor” attacks on Israelis do not get mention in the international press. So if a mother and her kids drive down a road and a jihadi sniper misses her and the kids but hits the car’s door or windshield, it just doesn’t get reported in the international wire services. If there’s a failed jihadi abduction of Israelis, it doesn’t get reported in the international wire services. If there’s a knife stabbing by Jihadis on Israelis, it doesn’t get reported in the international wire services. If there’s an attempted jihadi attack that is thwarted by the Israeli security services, it doesn’t get reported in the international wire services. Instead what you get is these absurd claims by the International media that there’s a lull in jihadi terror attacks against Israel, which is complete and utter nonsense.

And yes, these jihadi attacks happen on a DAILY BASIS. All you need to do is follow the Israeli press.

[occam whisker]

Originally posted by segovius
Let\\\\\\\'s get some perspective:

As usual this Israeli action not what it purports to be but rather is intended to pre-empt and nullify recent agreements to recognize Israel that were agreed between Fatah and Hamas. Such recognition is the last thing Israel wants. It would cease to have justification for its action and cease to hold the \\\\\\\'moral\\\\\\\' ascendancy were its atrocities to continue.

The kidnapping in the first instance was intended as leverage by al-Qassam to facilitate negotiations on the release of hostages.

These hostages - women and children as already mentioned - are being held illegally (unlike the kidnapping which falls under \\\\\\\'act of war\\\\\\\'). Israel are in clear violation of the Geneva Convention with this but they don\\\\\\\'t care because they have their own law which they prefer: in this case one which (like the US) legalizes torture.

The law - passed in 1997 - allows an exception to the prohibition kidnapping if the subject is an Arab. I guess this is ok - if someone passed a law allowing kidnapping for Jews it would be bad but.....

Anyway, according to Amnesty International (http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGMDE150021998?open&of=ENG-2MD), Israel is the only country in the world to have legalized torture (the US outsource it and deny any home-grown efforts while still admitting it is illegal). The methods which are doubtless being utilized on the women and children illegally detained, include: beatings, electric shock, sleep deprivation, forcing prisoners to remain in painful positions, violent shaking, hooding, confinement in tiny spaces and exposure to temperature extremes.

A legal contract requires both parties to uphold their required parts of the contract. Otherwise it is considered null and void.

The Geneva Conventions is and was intended as a Legal Contract between two warring parties. Can you imagine a business contract where one side must pay the other for services they never even pretend to do. That is asinine.

The Geneva Convention is not a one sided contract that one party can disregard and the other must still honor.

In WWII the Germans honored POW standards and we did in kind; they disregarded the don’t target civilians part and well we did in kind; their saboteurs infiltrated with no uniform and they were treated to a pole+cigarette+blindfold, well you get the picture.

[Gene Clean]

Originally posted by occam whisker
All you need to do is follow the Israeli press.

So basically, you have no proof.

Thought so.

[occam whisker]

Originally posted by Gene Clean
So basically, you have no proof.

Thought so.


If you don\'t want to know the truth, there\'s not much I can do for you. Keep watching BBC, CNN, etc. You\'ll get all the truth that you can handle.

[occam whisker]

One of the main pillars of civilization is that the state, not the individual or tribe, should have the monopoly on violence. Enemy soldiers, dressed in the livery of their King, were therefore agents of the state, not to be individually punished, and to a certain degree not even to be held accountable for their acts because they were not free agents but individuals doing their Sovereign\'s will.

We now live in an age when, for example, Hisbollah can commit what was formerly an act of war but which their Sovereign can disavow. If they have a nuke, they can blow up Paris, Toronto, Los Angeles, etc., and \"theoretically\", there would be \"no one\" whom we could retaliate against.

Civilization starts to break down when it is tacitly admitted that this private warfare is Ok. Sooner or later, though it may have been initially unintended, other entrepreneurs in the industry of violence will get the drift and act within the environment created.

Wearing a uniform puts you at some disadvantages. It makes you a target. It restricts your options. Shed your uniform and you are free of the disadvantages. But then we destroy the very incentives which international humanitarian law was created to maintain. The incentives are built on symmetric expectations.

There are only a handful of people in Muslim countries with truly impressive technical qualifications. But there are millions of these people in the West, which has many private establishments with far greater technologically advanced science than that found in jihadi societies. Expertise and money is abundant; it\'s only the hate that\'s missing.

Once hate is supplied then the \"fire triangle\" is complete. Who will induce the hate? It seems the Islamists and their apologists in the West are doing a good job of it. Who suppresses the hate? Why the West itself. No one else. Consider the lengths to which the British and French, for example, go to suppress any outbreak of anti-Muslim sentiment. Now consider the lengths to which muslim media outlets go to incite their audience to hate.

Fanaticism can only be contained for as long as populations believe their governments can provide justice. If a tipping point is reached, and enough people start to lose faith in the system, they will take things into their own hands.

The asymmetrical advantages of “private” and not so private Jihadi organizations such al-Qaeda, Hamas, Hisbollah, etc., are in retrospect evanescent because any anti-Muslim organization can easily emulate them.

Any environment capable of producing results on a scale that destroys a community would be sufficiently powerful to destroy Islam -- and destroy it many times over. Any weapon that AQ Khan can make can be bought by “believers” and “infidels” alike.

Theorists and practitioners of asymmetrical terrorist warfare forgot that its effectiveness depends on the very restraints that it, itself, dissolves.

[segovius]

It is interesting that many Jews around the world do not in fact accept that Israel is representative of Judaism and many actively oppose it.

This is interesting because in the 'popular mind' of the west there are only two positions: support of Israel or opposition (read anti-Semitism) and someone like Ahmadinejad must be an ant-Semite because he opposes Zionism. In this view there is no room or acceptance that there is a distinction - or at least a legitimate one - between Jews and Zionism.

The line pushed is that talk of 'Zionism' is merely a subset of racism and only anti-Semites would speak in this way: ie the division is a product of anti-Jewsih attitudes.

Unsurprisingly, things are not in reality thus.

Iranian Jews, for example, also do not recognize the State of Israel (http://www.irna.ir/en/news/view/line-22/0607024505005850.htm) - a major crime in our Brave New World.

And of course there are the well known religious arguments based on Judaic law as to why Israel is founded on false principles and is in effect a rogue state veering out of control.

The Jewish Congregation in Iran - which is free to practice the Jewish religion, attend the many Synagogues throughout Iran, conduct services in Hebrew etc - has spoken out against Israel's continuing violation of international law and systematic suppression of the Palestinian people:

"the Jewish congregation in Iran censures the human rights violations of the Palestinians in the Gaza strip by the Zionists and is grieved by this occurrence.

We condemn this violent behavior by Israeli leaders and are sure that the Palestinian nation will firmly defend its right to exist and its other legitimate and natural rights.

We deplore this aggressive behavior and are sure that it will exacerbate the situation with each passing day. Behavior such as this may lead to bloodshed among blameless men and women and among innocent children.

We are aware that these actions are in no way related to principles of the Jewish faith, the precepts of Moses or the holy books. They are antithetical to the Jewish faith.

We call upon Jews around the globe to speak out to the world in protest against the behavior of the soldiers and the Israeli leaders, It is the mission of Jews, more than any other people, to prevent a policy that tramples upon the humane tenets of the Jewish tradition."

Link (http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0%2C7340%2CL-3270024%2C00.html)

[New]

Oh, stop making things complicated, will you!?!

[segovius]

Originally posted by New
Oh, stop making things complicated, will you!?!

Sorry....I'll try to behave.

Obviously this is all just made up ny the Iranians who probably have the Jews there under some sort of restraint and are forcing them to make these statements.

Sorry again for the deliberate misrepresentation....I'm going downtown now to turn myself in to the authorities as a danger to public order....I may be some time....

;)

[occam whisker]

Originally posted by segovius
It is interesting that many Jews around the world do not in fact accept that Israel is representative of Judaism and many actively oppose it.

This is interesting because in the \'popular mind\' of the west there are only two positions: support of Israel or opposition (read anti-Semitism) and someone like Ahmadinejad must be an ant-Semite because he opposes Zionism. In this view there is no room or acceptance that there is a distinction - or at least a legitimate one - between Jews and Zionism.

The line pushed is that talk of \'Zionism\' is merely a subset of racism and only anti-Semites would speak in this way: ie the division is a product of anti-Jewsih attitudes.

Unsurprisingly, things are not in reality thus.

Iranian Jews, for example, also do not recognize the State of Israel (http://www.irna.ir/en/news/view/line-22/0607024505005850.htm) - a major crime in our Brave New World.

And of course there are the well known religious arguments based on Judaic law as to why Israel is founded on false principles and is in effect a rogue state veering out of control.

The Jewish Congregation in Iran - which is free to practice the Jewish religion, attend the many Synagogues throughout Iran, conduct services in Hebrew etc - has spoken out against Israel\'s continuing violation of international law and systematic suppression of the Palestinian people:



Link (http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0%2C7340%2CL-3270024%2C00.html)



Nice to see you\'re back in good comic form, Jester. I was starting to get a little concerned, given your last several posts.

[occam whisker]

Originally posted by New
Oh, stop making things complicated, will you!?!


Yes, it\'s a real complicated situation these Jooos are in. I bet the Jooooooloving holocaust affirming mullahs made it really simple for them.

[New]

Originally posted by occam whisker
Yes, it\'s a real complicated situation these Jooos are in. I bet the Jooooooloving holocaust affirming mullahs made it really simple for them.

So it's not complicated? ;)

[BRussell]

It's a surprise that Jews don't view Israel's actions monolithically?

Europe may not have many Jews now, but in the US, they tend to be very liberal politically, and most tend to be opposed to many of Israel's actions. I remember in college when Netanyahu became PM - every single Jew I knew was horrified and depressed.

And forgive me, but I don't really buy the idea that Jews living in Iran are exactly free to express their opinions of Israel freely. I'd also like to know how many Jews are opposed to the existence of the state of Israel. What fraction of 1%? I'm sure there are as many Americans who believe the US isn't a legitimate country.

[hardeeharhar]

Originally posted by segovius
It is interesting that many Jews around the world do not in fact accept that Israel is representative of Judaism and many actively oppose it.

Wait. Why is this 'interesting'?

[New]

Originally posted by BRussell
Europe may not have many Jews now(...)
There are still more than a million jews in Europe. All european countries have a jewish minority, although mostly small, france has more than 600 000 jews.

And forgive me, but I don't really buy the idea that Jews living in Iran are exactly free to express their opinions of Israel freely.
That's probably true. But did you look into the matter any deeper? Since the revolution about 55.ooo jews have left Iran. But still 25.ooo have decided to stay. Only 13 have been forcefully expelled since 1979.

I'd also like to know how many Jews are opposed to the existence of the state of Israel. What fraction of 1%? I'm sure there are as many Americans who believe the US isn't a legitimate country.
Thats probably NOT true. There are whole schools of judaism that don't recognize the state of Israel as the true israel.

[hardeeharhar]

I think it depends on how you phrase the question:

Do you support a Palestinian takeover of Israel?

Do you support the state of Israel as it currently exists?

Do you support a cooperative state of Israel with a equal voting rights for arabs and jews?

MOST Jews that I know think that Israel is an abomination to certain degrees as it currently exists.

[segovius]

Originally posted by hardeeharhar
Wait. Why is this 'interesting'?

I find it interesting for specific reasons - but the fact that you ask how shows you don't share these reasons or possibly know what they are - or if you do, you do not find them interesting.

All fair enough.

But the situation won't change by my explaining my reasons for finding it interesting so I won't elaborate.

[segovius]

Originally posted by BRussell
It's a surprise that Jews don't view Israel's actions monolithically?

It is a surprise to the degree that one is subject to a bi-polar reductionist mindset. Those who are not obviously wouldn't find it so surprising, Unfortunately they seem to be in a minority.

Europe may not have many Jews now, but in the US, they tend to be very liberal politically, and most tend to be opposed to many of Israel's actions. I remember in college when Netanyahu became PM - every single Jew I knew was horrified and depressed.

Me too.

And forgive me, but I don't really buy the idea that Jews living in Iran are exactly free to express their opinions of Israel freely.

Well they criticized him openly enough for his remarks on the Holocaust - what exactly do you think would happen to them?

[occam whisker]

Originally posted by segovius
I find it interesting for specific reasons - but the fact that you ask how shows you don\'t share these reasons or possibly know what they are - or if you do, you do not find them interesting.

All fair enough.

But the situation won\'t change by my explaining my reasons for finding it interesting so I won\'t elaborate.


LOL. The comedy never stops.

[occam whisker]

Originally posted by segovius

Well they criticized him openly enough for his remarks on the Holocaust - what exactly do you think would happen to them?


Maybe they\'ll be assigned the patriotic task of clearing mines, crawling on their belly through a minefield.

[New]

Originally posted by occam whisker
Maybe they\'ll be assigned the patriotic task of clearing mines, crawling on their belly through a minefield.

HEy Mika, is that you?

[segovius]

Originally posted by occam whisker
Maybe they\'ll be assigned the patriotic task of clearing mines, crawling on their belly through a minefield.

Nah - the US will kill the remainder off when they carpet bomb and reduce the country to glass. Takes the edge of a bit I guess but you probably think it worth it in the long run....

Can't make an omelette without breaking eggs eh?

[occam whisker]

Originally posted by segovius
Nah - the US will kill the remainder off when they carpet bomb and reduce the country to glass. Takes the edge of a bit I guess but you probably think it worth it in the long run....

Can\'t make an omelette without breaking eggs eh?


I think the Mullahs are playing a game of Empire that they\'re not in a position to play. I think the Pakis outsmarted them, and basically have given them the rope with which to hang themselves.

[segovius]

Originally posted by occam whisker
I think the Mullahs are playing a game of Empire that they\'re not in a position to play. I think the Pakis outsmarted them, and basically have given them the rope with which to hang themselves.

Pakis = racist.

That's got to be a posting violation. Strike one.

[hardeeharhar]

Originally posted by segovius
I find it interesting for specific reasons - but the fact that you ask how shows you don't share these reasons or possibly know what they are - or if you do, you do not find them interesting.

All fair enough.

But the situation won't change by my explaining my reasons for finding it interesting so I won't elaborate.

Simply put: My family is Jewish, and none of us have the blind attitude towards Israel that one would need to take in order to accept its actions. AND we are not alone in the community. Thus, I find it unusual to think that people find diverse viewpoints from an unstated academic religious group unusual enough to make them interesting.

[occam whisker]

Originally posted by segovius
Pakis = racist.

That\'s got to be a posting violation. Strike one.


Russkies be second? Yankies a third?

[segovius]

Originally posted by hardeeharhar
Simply put: My family is Jewish, and none of us have the blind attitude towards Israel that one would need to take in order to accept its actions. AND we are not alone in the community. Thus, I find it unusual to think that people find diverse viewpoints from an unstated academic religious group unusual enough to make them interesting.

Fair enough - I am aware of all that but they are not the reasons I find it interesting.

Besides, I was not primarily speaking of people in the Jewish community - of course they would be aware of all shades of nuances of opinion and belief related to their own heritage past and present.

I was thinking more of the simplistic and reductionist way in which virtually all issues - not just this one - are presented for public consumption these days.

Let's face it, things seem to be perceived in black and white terms by an increasing number of people and so anything that falls outside these parameters is by default 'interesting'.

[Immanuel Goldstein]

Originally posted by hardeeharhar
Do you support the state of Israel as it currently exists?

Do you support a cooperative state…
What's a “cooperative state”, like a big kibbutz?
(The dream ideal of my youth)
…of Israel with a equal voting rights for arabs and jews?
Equal voting rights for Arabs and Jews? That's the way Israel currently exists.

As for the rest, who'd have expected an officially recognised Iranian Jewish organisation to publically express the official opinion of the Islamic republic of Iran?

[sammi jo]

Originally posted by BRussell
It's a surprise that Jews don't view Israel's actions monolithically?

Europe may not have many Jews now, but in the US, they tend to be very liberal politically, and most tend to be opposed to many of Israel's actions. I remember in college when Netanyahu became PM - every single Jew I knew was horrified and depressed.

And forgive me, but I don't really buy the idea that Jews living in Iran are exactly free to express their opinions of Israel freely. I'd also like to know how many Jews are opposed to the existence of the state of Israel. What fraction of 1%? I'm sure there are as many Americans who believe the US isn't a legitimate country. [/B]

That is echoed here in California, certainly amongst many of my Reform Jewish friends... the greater majority being politically liberal (reflecting mainstream Jewish political thought). The slaying of PM Rabin, then the backlash against the ineffectual Barak which brought two hardliners Netanyahu and Sharon.. (and now Olmert).. has brought about a sense of profound disappointment and fear within much of the Jewish community here. I have talked with people at length about this all this and there seems to be an unwritten consensus that these Israeli hardliners are ultimately acting against the interests of Jewish people not just in Israel, but all over the world.

[hardeeharhar]

Originally posted by Immanuel Goldstein
What's a “cooperative state”, like a big kibbutz?
(The dream ideal of my youth)
No. I mean as shared palestinian/jewish state -- give palestinians israeli citizenship and go from there.


Equal voting rights for Arabs and Jews? That's the way Israel currently exists.

Fair enough. I am often surprised that we don't here from arab political parties in Israel, I am also surprised that we don't see joint political parties...

[Immanuel Goldstein]

Originally posted by hardeeharhar
Originally posted by Immanuel Goldstein
What's a “cooperative state”, like a big kibbutz?
(The dream ideal of my youth)
No. I mean as shared palestinian/jewish state -- give palestinians israeli citizenship and go from there.
I see, it's the miracle-formula popular wherever neither Israelis nor Palestinians live; for it is something neither Arab Palestinians nor Israeli Jews want.
Arab Palestinians want their own Arab nation-state, Israeli Jews like having their own nation-state too.


Equal voting rights for Arabs and Jews? That's the way Israel currently exists.
Fair enough. I am often surprised that we don't here from arab political parties in Israel, I am also surprised that we don't see joint political parties...
I cannot know why you don't hear about it.
Ra’am-Ta’al is an Arab nationalist party, it sent four MKs to the Knesset in the March 2006 elections.
Balad (“Motherland”) is another nationalist Arab party, it has three MKs.
Hadash is a nominally “joint” party as it is the current incarnation of the Israeli Communist party in league with several smaller movements, it also has three MKs.
There are Arab MKs representing other parties such as Nadia Hilow of the Labour party, several left-of-centre Israeli parties have have a significant Arab constituency.

[hardeeharhar]

Originally posted by Immanuel Goldstein

I see, it's the miracle-formula popular wherever neither Israelis nor Palestinians live; for it is something neither Arab Palestinians nor Israeli Jews want.
Arab Palestinians want their own Arab nation-state, Israeli Jews like having their own nation-state too.

I am not sure why anyone would not want it.

It is racist (or at least ethnocentric) on both sides, and to be honest completely unacceptable ethically.

[Immanuel Goldstein]

Originally posted by hardeeharhar
I am not sure why anyone would not want it.
Probably for the same reason why the Poles wouldn't want to be part of some Russo-Slovak confederacy, or why the Bangladeshi didn't just want to be Eastern Pakistan.

It is racist (or at least ethnocentric) on both sides, and to be honest completely unacceptable ethically.
Do you mean that all nation-states are racist, unethical?
Feh Ireland! Why can't it just be part of England?
Shame on Armenia, what don't they like about being in Greater Turkey?
And then there's India, giving up on being the Crown's jewel.
Not to mention the whole process of de-colonisation, now stricken down as ethically unacceptable or even downright racist!
Then there are those countries which are not nation-states, having no affinity to any ethnic identity whatsoever and yet keeping themselves distinct, like Canada keeping itself apart from the USofA, what's the deal with them?

[hardeeharhar]

Originally posted by Immanuel Goldstein
Probably for the same reason why the Poles wouldn't want to be part of some Russo-Slovak confederacy, or why the Bangladeshi didn't just want to be Eastern Pakistan.


Do you mean that all nation-states are racist, unethical?
Feh Ireland! Why can't it just be part of England?
Shame on Armenia, what don't they like about being in Greater Turkey?
And then there's India, giving up on being the Crown's jewel.
Not to mention the whole process of de-colonisation, now stricken down as ethically unacceptable or even downright racist!
Then there are those countries which are not nation-states, having no affinity to any ethnic identity whatsoever and yet keeping themselves distinct, like Canada keeping itself apart from the USofA, what's the deal with them?

Self-determination is one thing, Nationalism on the basis of racial or ethnic identity sounds familiar.

[Gene Clean]

Originally posted by Immanuel Goldstein
Do you mean that all nation-states are racist, unethical?_

A state is not a nation-state unless it is totally dominated by one ethnic group. Israel is not a nation-state because it has a significant number of minorities, anywhere from 15-25%._

Theoretically, Israel could become a nation-state only if it drove out Palestinians (the ones that are "lucky" enough to have Israeli citizenship) or if it adopts a law that says that only those with pure Jewish descent are to be citizens; others need to leave.

There are no nation-states today, with the possible exclusion of Japan and Iceland. _The term is used impresicely for a state that tries to promote one single national identity ("culture"), usually in the form of language._

Israel is trying (what with the name "The Jewish State of Israel" and all) but it's not there yet. It's stupid to want that anyway. And it goes for both Israelis and Palestinians._

[hardeeharhar]

Thanks for reminding me of that fact Gene Clean...

[Gene Clean]

Mind you, it's not a nation-state only because of historical consequences; it couldn't drive all Arabs out of the country, so it had to do what it had to do (offer them some type of citizenship, though not exactly as equal as it should be). Israel is not an ideal nation-state, but it does act like one, starting from it name. Any democratic state, promoting equality amongs its members would not have named itself after its biggest religious group. Same goes for Iran.

In any case, Zionism, as laid down in Israel's Independence Charter of 1948, is the official policy of the Israeli state, and Zionism, as such, has been declared to be racist by the UN in 1976 (later "retracted" due to tremendous US pressure, 1991). My point was, Israel is not racist because it's a nation-state (whose behaviour could be somehow justified due to its overwhelming ethnical "purity") - it's racist because, well, it has adopted a racist doctrine as its official policy.

Simple as that._

[occam whisker]

Originally posted by Gene Clean
Mind you, it\\\'s not a nation-state only because of historical consequences; it couldn\\\'t drive all Arabs out of the country, so it had to do what it had to do (offer them some type of citizenship, though not exactly as equal as it should be). Israel is not an ideal nation-state, but it does act like one, starting from it name. Any democratic state, promoting equality amongs its members would not have named itself after its biggest religious group. Same goes for Iran.

In any case, Zionism, as laid down in Israel\\\'s Independence Charter of 1948, is the official policy of the Israeli state, and Zionism, as such, has been declared to be racist by the UN in 1976 (later \\\"retracted\\\" due to tremendous US pressure, 1991). My point was, Israel is not racist because it\\\'s a nation-state (whose behaviour could be somehow justified due to its overwhelming ethnical \\\"purity\\\") - it\\\'s racist because, well, it has adopted a racist doctrine as its official policy.

Simple as that._


I say we flood Arabia with a billion Chinaman from Tibet and let them enjoy their multi culti paradise.

Edit: Why do they call it Arabia? Is it reserved for arabs only?

[hardeeharhar]

Edit: This is directed at no one.

Eat rat poison and die.

[Gene Clean]

Originally posted by occam whisker
Edit: Why do they call it Arabia? Is it reserved for arabs only?

For the same reason they call it America - reserved for Americans only.

[occam whisker]

Originally posted by Gene Clean
For the same reason they call it America - reserved for Americans only.

And who decided who\'s an Arab and who\'s not. And why is it reserved for Arabs only?!

[Outsider]

Originally posted by occam whisker
And who decided who\'s an Arab and who\'s not. And why is it reserved for Arabs only?! And who made the reservation? Hmmm??

[Chucker]

Originally posted by occam whisker
Edit: Why do they call it Arabia? Is it reserved for arabs only?

Is Jesusland reserved for Christians only?

[occam whisker]

Originally posted by Outsider
And who made the reservation? Hmmm??


Yes. I\'d like to meet with the hotel manager.

[occam whisker]

Originally posted by Chucker
Is Jesusland reserved for Christians only?

Is that in Arabia?

[Immanuel Goldstein]

Originally posted by hardeeharhar
Originally posted by Immanuel Goldstein
Probably for the same reason why the Poles wouldn't want to be part of some Russo-Slovak confederacy, or why the Bangladeshi didn't just want to be Eastern Pakistan.


Do you mean that all nation-states are racist, unethical?
Feh Ireland! Why can't it just be part of England?
Shame on Armenia, what don't they like about being in Greater Turkey?
And then there's India, giving up on being the Crown's jewel.
Not to mention the whole process of de-colonisation, now stricken down as ethically unacceptable or even downright racist!
Then there are those countries which are not nation-states, having no affinity to any ethnic identity whatsoever and yet keeping themselves distinct, like Canada keeping itself apart from the USofA, what's the deal with them?
Self-determination is one thing, Nationalism on the basis of racial or ethnic identity sounds familiar.
I don't understand you.
Do you mean that some ethnic identities can have nation-states and others not, depending on whose identity it is?

[Immanuel Goldstein]

Originally posted by Gene Clean
Originally posted by Immanuel Goldstein
Do you mean that all nation-states are racist, unethical?
A state is not a nation-state unless it is totally dominated by one ethnic group. Israel is not a nation-state because it has a significant number of minorities, anywhere from 15-25%._
No. A nation-state is one whose sovereignity has an affinity to a national or ethnic identity (“Ethnos” being the Greek word for “nation”) and its culture.
Italy is the nation-state of the Italian nation even though some of its citizens are not ethnically Italians (like the German-speaking Tyrolians of Alto-Adige). Spain is the nation-state of the Spaniards even though it has many sizable minorities such as the Basques, the Catalans, the Gallegos. Iran is the nation-state of the Persians even though it has many minorities (Azeri, Balotchi, Arab, Kurd) and Persians are only slightly over 50% of the population.
Most countries in the world are nation-states and most of them have minorities. [Edit: Russia is the nation-state of the Russian nation even though it has innumerable minorities; the Russian language actually has two different words for “Russian”: one for ethnic Russian: “Russki”, and one for a non-ethnically Russian inhabitant of Russia: “Rossiyani”.]

There are no nation-states today, with the possible exclusion of Japan and Iceland.
In your own little world, perhaps.

_The term is used impresicely for a state that tries to promote one single national identity ("culture"), usually in the form of language._
The term is misused by you to mean a country without significant ethnic minorities.

Israel is trying (what with the name "The *Jewish* State of Israel" and all)…
The name is not “The Jewish State of Israel”, it's “The state of Israel” (officially: Medinat Israel and Dawlat Israil, because this nation-state grants co-official status to the main minority language).

…but it's not there yet.
Sez you.

It's stupid to want that anyway. And it goes for both Israelis and Palestinians._
So most people in this world are stupid according to you, fine. Perhaps they know a thing or two you don't, like the poor track record of trusting one's collective welfare in some other collective, not to mention knowing what a nation-state actually is.

[hardeeharhar]

Originally posted by Immanuel Goldstein

I don't understand you.
Do you mean that some ethnic identities can have nation-states and others not, depending on whose identity it is?

No, I am saying its wrong, period.

National identity and ethnic identity should never be parsed together, ever.

[occam whisker]

Originally posted by hardeeharhar
No, I am saying its wrong, period.

National identity and ethnic identity should never be parsed together, ever.


It goes against the multi culti ideal.

Edit: Until Sharia is enforced.

[New]

Originally posted by hardeeharhar
No, I am saying its wrong, period.

National identity and ethnic identity should never be parsed together, ever.

Then whats the point in having nations at all?

[segovius]

Originally posted by New
Then whats the point in having nations at all?

Choice.

Each nation can choose its mode of government be it left-wing, wing-nut, jihadi or Communist and the individual has the choice of which regime to live under.

[hardeeharhar]

Originally posted by New
Then whats the point in having nations at all?

Um, "establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity"

There is no need to tie ethnicity up in that at all...

[occam whisker]

Originally posted by hardeeharhar
Um, \"establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity\"

There is no need to tie ethnicity up in that at all...



“Ethnos” being the Greek word for “nation”, completely escapes your progressive thinking.

[New]

Originally posted by segovius
Choice.

Each nation can choose its mode of government be it left-wing, wing-nut, jihadi or Communist and the individual has the choice of which regime to live under.

Not really. Many of the nations of the world have had their borders drawn with rulers by occupiers and some have such a divers ethnic mix, that there is no wonder they are in a constant state of chaos.

[New]

Originally posted by hardeeharhar
Um, "establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity" Do we need nations to accomplish that?

[New]

Originally posted by occam whisker
“Ethnos” being the Greek word for “nation”, completely escapes your progressive thinking.

Nation actually comes from Latin; meaning to be born in.

[occam whisker]

Originally posted by New
Nation actually comes from Latin; meaning to be born in.

Latin words draw heavily on Greek roots.

[Chucker]

Originally posted by New
Nation actually comes from Latin; meaning to be born in.

He didn't disagree with that in any way. He stated that Greek has an equivalent word, not that the word comes from Greek.

[hardeeharhar]

Originally posted by New
Do we need nations to accomplish that?

In the long run, perhaps not, but I am not even sure a single world government is that ideal -- localities are important in the defense of individual rights... My long range conception is a representative world government not unlike the us congress whose responsibilities are to do what current treaty meetings do, end conflicts, set up trade rules and enforcement, investigate and propose solutions for problems that exist on an international scale. Local governments from towns up will be decidedly more self-defined, and thus the concept of enemy of the state will just go away... Idealistic, I know...

Regardless, time and again the combination of national identity and ethnicity has been the basis of most if not all of human caused suffering. It is clearly counter-productive to maintain such connections, and indeed the most the stability and success of the US government lends support to the dissolution of this connection...

[New]

Originally posted by Chucker
He didn't disagree with that in any way. He stated that Greek has an equivalent word, not that the word comes from Greek.

I never said he did. I just thought we needed the real difinition:

Wikipedia:

The English word "nation" is derived from the Latin term n?t?? (stem n?ti?n-), meaning:[1]
• The action of being born; birth; or
• The goddess personifying birth; or
• A breed, stock, kind, species, race;or
• A tribe, or (rhetorically, any) set of people (contemptuous); or
• A nation or people.

[hardeeharhar]

Originally posted by occam whisker
“Ethnos” being the Greek word for “nation”, completely escapes your progressive thinking.

So you are disagreeing with the preamble of the US Constitution, a document, I will remind you that is over 200 years old, and somehow my thinking is merely "progressive" and not established?

Words change definitions, and it is significant to note that.

[New]

Regardless, time and again the combination of national identity and ethnicity has been the basis of most if not all of human caused suffering. It is clearly counter-productive to maintain such connections, and indeed the most the stability and success of the US government lends support to the dissolution of this connection...

Do you recognize ethnic groups right to self-determination?

[hardeeharhar]

Originally posted by New
Do you recognize ethnic groups right to self-determination?

No. I recognize individual's right to self-determination. It is a key difference.

[occam whisker]

Originally posted by hardeeharhar
So you are disagreeing with the preamble of the US Constitution, a document, I will remind you that is over 200 years old, and somehow my thinking is merely \"progressive\" and not established?

Words change definitions, and it is significant to note that.


The US is very unique. It was born out of a confederation of States, each with its unique cultural makeup. It has worked, largely because the English language was common among the groups, and the desire within the different groups to escape British taxes and authority have bonded the groups together. If you remove these elements of language and a vision for a common shared future, the country will dissolve.

[Immanuel Goldstein]

Originally posted by hardeeharhar
Originally posted by Immanuel Goldstein

I don't understand you.
Do you mean that some ethnic identities can have nation-states and others not, depending on whose identity it is?
No, I am saying its wrong, period.

National identity and ethnic identity should never be parsed together, ever.
That would be impossible since “Nation” and “Ethnos” are practically synonymous, but if I understand you adequately you consider nation-states to be wrong, as you also cited the US Constitution as what you consider the proper foundation of any political edifice. The US is not a nation-state, its identity is not national (not to mention ethnic) but political and statist, centred around the very document you cited and the various state institutions it regulates.
But the US (along with Canada) is not a common example, most countries are based on ethnic and cultural identities to which they are committed to affirm and preserve (such as France's commitment to the French language and culture).
The US shows an ethnic foundation is not necessary, although I disagree with a stand making the US example the only legitimate one, or else one could argue to apply the best founding political document to the entire world this avoididng wasteful duplication of separate anethnic sovereign countries.
This to say, while I disagree with your internationalist/anethnic stand, I find it a legitimate one.

[Edit: And a happy Fourth of July to you and the other Yanquistanis.]

[hardeeharhar]

Immanuel, I respect your views as well, even though I feel that they are antiquated and problematic.

My hope is that the independence day of this statist republic reminds the world of the good that can come out of breaking down ethnic barriers...

[Gene Clean]

Originally posted by Immanuel Goldstein

No. A nation-state is one whose sovereignity has an affinity to a national or ethnic identity (“Ethnos” being the Greek word for “nation”) and its culture.
Italy is the nation-state of the Italian nation even though some of its citizens are not ethnically Italians (like the German-speaking Tyrolians of Alto-Adige). Spain is the nation-state of the Spaniards even though it has many sizable minorities such as the Basques, the Catalans, the Gallegos. Iran is the nation-state of the Persians even though it has many minorities (Azeri, Balotchi, Arab, Kurd) and Persians are only slightly over 50% of the population.
Most countries in the world are nation-states and most of them have minorities. [Edit: Russia is the nation-state of the Russian nation even though it has innumerable minorities; the Russian language actually has two different words for “Russian”: one for ethnic Russian: “Russki”, and one for a non-ethnically Russian inhabitant of Russia: “Rossiyani”.]

This is semantics, really. A state is not a nation-state, if it isn't totally dominated by one nation and that one nation only. Israel is not a nation-state, as isn't the US, Germany or France. They have significant amounts of minorities holding their respective citizenship - that they can't be the state of only one of the ethnicities - even though it may be the largest in terms of sheer numbers.

These states are known as civic states, where citizenship, not nationality, is what guarantees your rights and responsibilities as a citizen.


The term is misused by you to mean a country without significant ethnic minorities.

That's what a nation-state is.

The name is not “The Jewish State of Israel”, it's “The state of Israel” (officially: Medinat Israel and Dawlat Israil, because this nation-state grants co-official status to the main minority language).

I don't know, I hear a lot of talk about The Jewish State of Israel, so much, in fact, that there's an internal debate amongs Israelis themselves on wether the state should adopt more neutral symbols or continue with Zionist symbols.

The idea of Israel being a Jewish State has drawn much controversy because of the large number of Muslim and Christian Palestinians residing in Israel and in the West Bank and Gaza. For example, the Israeli National Anthem, the Hatikvah, refers to Jews by name as well as alluding to the concept of Zionism, and it contains no mention of Palestinian culture. This anthem therefore excludes non-Jews, including the Palestinians, from its narrative of national identity. Similar criticism has been made of the Israeli flag which resembles the Tallit (a Jewish prayer shawl) and features a Star of David, generally acknowledged as a symbol of Judaism. Both of these symbols derive from the Zionist struggle to create a nation-state, a struggle in which the Arabs figure as defeated opponents, not as active participants.

It has been suggested by supporters of Israeli multinationalism that the State of Israel adopt more inclusive and neutral symbolism. The concept of the Jewish state has been called racist and ethnocentric by critics, both internationally and inside Israel signified by the UN General Assembly Resolution 3379 linking Zionism to racism (later revoked by UN General Assembly Resolution 4686) but brought up again by the new Durban Declaration. Some critics assert that the idea of an ethnic state is itself racist and the ethnicity in question (or its history) does not matter.

Source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_state)


So most people in this world are stupid according to you, fine.

You are not most people. Most people did not come into this thread to talk about nation-states. You did. So speak only for yourself.

Perhaps they know a thing or two you don't, like the poor track record of trusting one's collective welfare in some other collective

This is very vague. What does this mean? That there should be no states based on civic rights - only states based on nationality? The latter are those that actually commit most of the crimes of this world, or those aspiring to be one of those anyway, and the multicultural ones, where civic rights are the foundation of the state (like Switzerland) are those that tend to stay away from crimes and other deeds of that nature.

not to mention knowing what a nation-state actually is

Touché.

[Gene Clean]

Originally posted by New
Do we need nations to accomplish that?

Yes. People need to identify with the government, their role in the policital and social life and share the burden of creating a common socio-economic policy within the state. People generally refer to those groups as "nations", because they identify with one another, be it culturally, linguistically, religiously, or whatever.

But there's no need to base a state on nationality or ethnicity. Different ethnic groups can live together and still be able to identify with the symbols, values and socio-economic policies of a state, provided that the state recognizes the rights of every individual and secures basic equality among the different groups.

[Gene Clean]

nm - mods please delete this - double post.

[Immanuel Goldstein]

Originally posted by hardeeharhar
Immanuel, I respect your views as well, even though I feel that they are antiquated and problematic.
Thank you.
Although what you may consdier antiquated I think is contemporary, and what's problematic is that as long as there are many nation-states around one's collective welfare is better served by having one too.

[Immanuel Goldstein]

Originally posted by Gene Clean
This is semantics, really. A state is not a nation-state, if it isn't totally dominated by one nation and that one nation only.
This may be your defintion of nation-state,not the commonly accepted one.

Israel is not a nation-state, as isn't the US, Germany or France.
Israel, France, Germany, Italy, Iran, Spain, are nation-states, the US and Canada are not.

I don't know, I hear a lot of talk about The Jewish State of Israel,…
You were right at “I don't know”.

…so much, in fact, that there's an internal debate amongs Israelis themselves on wether the state should adopt more neutral symbols or continue with Zionist symbols.
No there is no such debate, there is a wide consensus in the population about Israel being the nation-state of the Jewish people, with civil rights to minority citizens and recognition of national minorities (such as the official status of the Arabic language).

You are not most people. Most people did not come into this thread to talk about nation-states. You did. So speak only for yourself.
You may not know how the term “nation-state” is commonly understood, I do.
And since you seem to like Wikipedia…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nation-state


This is very vague. What does this mean? That there should be no states based on civic rights - only states based on nationality?
No, it means that states can be based on a certain national or ethnic identity, and that actually a large naumber of countries are just that. They then may decide to function as liberal democracies and have civil rights for all citizens including those of ethnic minorities, as is the case of Spain, Italy, or Israel.


The latter are those that actually commit most of the crimes of this world, or those aspiring to be one of those anyway,…
Those committing most crimes are those which are not liberal democracies

…and the multicultural ones, where civic rights are the foundation of the state (like Switzerland)…
The foundation of Switzerland is that the cantons of Schwyz, Uri and Unterwalden didn't want to be part of the Holy Roman Empire.

…are those that tend to stay away from crimes and other deeds of that nature.
There are those who stay away from trouble by way of neutrality (while the horrible crime is being committed before their eyes) and then there are those who in the depth of trouble wrestle with the temptation of crime while in conflict, the latters are more common among non-neutral liberal democracies, all their flaws notwithstanding.

[New]

Originally posted by Gene Clean
Yes. People need to identify with the government, their role in the policital and social life and share the burden of creating a common socio-economic policy within the state. People generally refer to those groups as "nations", because they identify with one another, be it culturally, linguistically, religiously, or whatever.

But there's no need to base a state on nationality or ethnicity. Different ethnic groups can live together and still be able to identify with the symbols, values and socio-economic policies of a state, provided that the state recognizes the rights of every individual and secures basic equality among the different groups. Funny, in most of history, in most of the world, things have worked just fine without national-states. People traditionally have governed themselves locally, and national governments have been either, absent, weak, or in many cases a burden for the people.

Strong national governements have, in history, led to progress and wealth, yes, but also to war and suffering.

Only recently, with humanism, have (some) nations taken the role you describe. And the larger part of these nations have been based on ethnicity.

[New]

Originally posted by Immanuel Goldstein
Those committing most crimes are those which are not liberal democracies

This is debatable. :)

[segovius]

Originally posted by New
This is debatable. :)

Not even. Demonstrably false.

Of course one must define 'crime' and I suppose by many people's definitions that would relabel the criminal actions of Israel and the US (say) so that would probably skew the results somewhat in favour of the contention.

[Gene Clean]

Originally posted by Immanuel Goldstein
This may be your defintion of nation-state,not the commonly accepted one.

Show me one source that disputes my definition of a classic nation-state (that there is one dominant ethnic group, that the state is for that group only and others are there by virtue of history or economics, that the state is totally defined by that group and that group only, and that the state exists to cater to that group and to that group only).



You were right at “I don't know”.

So you're ignoring the content of the link I posted? Classic.


No there is no such debate, there is a wide consensus in the population about Israel being the nation-state of the Jewish people, with civil rights to minority citizens and recognition of national minorities (such as the official status of the Arabic language).

No there isn't. Otherwise there wouldn't have been a serious on-going debate about it. It's okay to have debates by the way, it doesn't make Israel, or Jews less of a nation, or less deserving of a state where they are equal amongst others.


You may not know how the term “nation-state” is commonly understood, I do.
And since you seem to like Wikipedia…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nation-state

From your very own link:

A classic nation-state, by definition, is inhabited by one ethnic group, who speak one language, have one culture, and share one religion. The population, in other words, is homogeneous. This group is referred to as ‘the nation’ or ‘the people’. They all live inside the border of the nation-state. No other ethnic or cultural group lives there. It is often said that island states are the best place to find something like this, and Iceland is often cited as the best example of a nation-state. Although the inhabitants are ethnically related to other Scandinavian groups, the national culture and language are found only in Iceland. There are no cross-border minorities, the nearest land is too far away. Japan, see also Japanese Demographics and Ethnic issues in Japan, is traditionally seen as a good example, although it includes minorities of ethnically distinct Ryukyuans in the south, Koreans, Chinese, Filipinos and Brazilians, and in the north, the indigenous Ainu minority of Hokkaido. The Republic of Ireland was until recently inhabited almost entirely by ethnic Irish, but the national territory is not considered complete by nationalists because it does not include Northern Ireland.

Very few others approach the ideal model of the nation-state: the border does not correspond to the distribution of the national group. Sometimes that is impossible, because population is ethnically mixed, down to the level of individual streets or buildings. Where part of the national group lives in a neighbouring nation-state, it is usually called a national minority. In some cases states have reciprocal national minorities, for instance the Slovaks in Hungary and the Hungarian in Slovakia.

National minorities should not be confused with a national diaspora, which is typically located far from the national border. Most modern diasporas result from economic migration. The existence of an Irish diaspora does not make the Republic of Ireland any less a nation-state, and does not affect Northern Ireland, since few emigrants go there anyway.

The possession of dependent territories does influence the status of nation-state. A state with large colonial possessions is obviously inhabited by many ethnic groups, and does not conform to the ideal of a single-culture state. However, in most cases, the colonies were not considered an integral part of the motherland anyway, and were separately administered. Some European nation-states have dependent territories in Europe. Denmark contains virtually all ethnic Danes and has relatively few foreign nationals within it. However, it exercises sovereignty over the Faroe Islands and Greenland. If these are considered separate nations, then Denmark is not a classic nation-state.


No, it means that states can be based on a certain national or ethnic identity, and that actually a large naumber of countries are just that. They then may decide to function as liberal democracies and have civil rights for all citizens including those of ethnic minorities, as is the case of Spain, Italy, or Israel.

That's an oxymoron. You can't be a liberal-democracy and function as the nation-state of only one ethnic group when it's clear that there are significant amounts of people from other groups. That's why the ideal of a nation-state is a bogus one, formed in times of nationalist wars and rhetoric, as the best "protection" a nation can have.


Those committing most crimes are those which are not liberal democracies

That's highly debatable.


The foundation of Switzerland is that the cantons of Schwyz, Uri and Unterwalden didn't want to be part of the Holy Roman Empire.

I'm talking about socio-economic policies of the 20-21st century, not the first steps toward confederation.


There are those who stay away from trouble by way of neutrality (while the horrible crime is being committed before their eyes) and then there are those who in the depth of trouble wrestle with the temptation of crime while in conflict, the latters are more common among non-neutral liberal democracies, all their flaws notwithstanding.

It works both ways though - I think - as the neutral ones stay away from crimes of any nature, including those committed to this day by the self-proclaimed liberal democracies. And the other liberal-democracies, the ones that take sides, often justify their taking sides (thus prolonging the conflict, if not influencing it) by various "policies" and "views" that they hold on an issue.

[New]

Gene, You do se the destinction between "common accepted definiton" and the narrow, non-existing "ideal nation-state"?

Close to all Norwegians consider Norway a prime-example of a nation-state. We do however have a indigenous etnic minority in the north, some extra land in Antarctica, and a growing number of ethnic miniorties who, aproaching 3rd and 4th generation of immigrants, consider themselves Norwegian as well.

[Immanuel Goldstein]

Originally posted by Gene Clean
Originally posted by Immanuel Goldstein
This may be your defintion of nation-state,not the commonly accepted one.
Show me one source that disputes my definition of a classic nation-state (that there is one dominant ethnic group, that the state is for that group only and others are there by virtue of history or economics, that the state is totally defined by that group and that group only, and that the state exists to cater to that group and to that group only).
Since you seem to accept as source my link above:
“A nation-state is a specific form of state (a political entity), which exists to provide a sovereign territory for a particular nation (a cultural entity), and which derives its legitimacy from that function.”
This does not exclude the existence of ethnic minorities not the inclusion of ethnic-minority citizens with civil rights. And it does mention Italy and Germany as nation-states (under the heading “Origins”)

You were right at “I don't know”.
So you're ignoring the content of the link I posted? Classic.
You claimed the state's name was “The Jewish State of Israel” which it isn't.
As for there being no public debate about whether Israel should keep its current Jewish symbols or change them. I don't need your link to know about this issue, I'm an Israeli citizen, I speak, read and write Hebrew, I am well aware of the current state of public affairs there.


No there isn't. Otherwise there wouldn't have been a serious on-going debate about it.
Which there isn't, while the current state of affairs is contested on some fringes it does not bring a serious debate.

It's okay to have debates by the way, it doesn't make Israel, or Jews less of a nation, or less deserving of a state where they are equal amongst others.
I don't say it's not okay, only that there isn't one, theremight be one in the future, but there is none presently.

From your very own link:
Emphasis yours.
Under the heading: “Examples of nation-states”
“A classic nation-state, by definition, is inhabited by one ethnic group, who speak one language, have one culture, and share one religion. The population, in other words, is homogeneous. This group is referred to as ‘the nation’ or ‘the people’. They all live inside the border of the nation-state. No other ethnic or cultural group lives there. It is often said that island states are the best place to find something like this, and Iceland is often cited as the best example of a nation-state.”

This is to be expected with cooperative works such as Wikipedia, which can soemtimes have contradictions. This part is more like what the same article refers as the “ideal nation-state” than to what actually happens in real nation-states (France, Germany).

“This ideal has influenced almost all existing sovereign states, and they cannot be understood without reference to that model. It also explains how they are different from their predecessor states. Thus, the term nation-state is also used, imprecisely, for a state that attempts to promote a single national identity, often beginning with a single national language (e.g., France, Germany, and Italy).”
These countries all have ethnic minorities whose individuals are nevertheless granted full citizenship and even (as in the case of German-speakers in Alto-Adige,Italy), territorial and cultural autonomy.
So the term is definitely not limited to countries with little or no ethnic minorities.

No, it means that states can be based on a certain national or ethnic identity, and that actually a large naumber of countries are just that. They then may decide to function as liberal democracies and have civil rights for all