The Holy Land: one-state solution for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict

[Badran]

No Badran, he is not right at all. In fact anyone with that type of attitude is a disgrace to humanity when they seek to "openly test Nuclear weapons" do you understand what that means? It's coming from the same Zionist colonist attitude of favoring ethnic cleansing of Palestinians into Jordan. Any sane man with a sense of decency would know such thinking is repulsive.

I may be wrong but i think you misunderstood what was said. What i understood was that when you already have that weapon, and its shown that such weapon can be put to action at anytime, and the invader doesn't take it seriously, the only step left is to actually use the weapon.

Which is true. Thats why its wrong in my opinion to have such weapon in the first place. Unless you have already accepted the possibility that you may use it. And by doing that of course you threw any sense of right and wrong out the window.

 

[HiddenDjinn]

yosi: what you are saying is complete nonsense. NK has nothing against Sefaradim. I haven't got a clue where you got these hallucinatory ideas from. Could you cite some sources, perhaps?

I heard it in a rant by a Satmar rabbi against a couple of Yeshiva boys who happened to speak modern Hebrew to each other. First he asked them whether they were S'fardi, which they replied "ken", then he went off blaming them for every world event that caused Ashkenazi death. What I related here was but a portion of what he screamed at them.

 

[Rakhel]

Wow. Can you prove my arguments are not valid or is this just your way of saying "Na - uh."

Even you must know that is no way to prove your point.

Back up why you believe I am wrong, don't just believe what you are told. That makes you as blind as some of those sheep that follow the Catholic pope.

 

[HiddenDjinn]

I may be wrong but i think you misunderstood what was said. What i understood was that when you already have that weapon, and its shown that such weapon can be put to action at anytime, and the invader doesn't take it seriously, the only step left is to actually use the weapon.

Which is true. Thats why its wrong in my opinion to have such weapon in the first place. Unless you have already accepted the possibility that you may use it. And by doing that of course you threw any sense of right and wrong out the window.

You understood exactly what I said. I didn't advocate using this weapon, but I can envision a time when it could be used, and the justifications for such use.

 

[Badran]

You understood exactly what I said. I didn't advocate using this weapon, but I can envision a time when it could be used, and the justifications for such use.

The last part is where i'm having trouble. How can it ever be justified to knowingly kill millions of innocent people just to protect others from potential similar danger?

I can see the difficulty in the decision. I made it worse just to try to see where you're coming from, and imagined it in the sense that i know another country is going to nuke mine. I still can't justify the decision to nuke them. I would try my best to stop them even if it has little to no chance of working. However, i can't make the decision to kill those millions of people who's only fault is being in that place.

 

[Bismillah]

I may be wrong but i think you misunderstood what was said. What i understood was that when you already have that weapon, and its shown that such weapon can be put to action at anytime, and the invader doesn't take it seriously, the only step left is to actually use the weapon.

Can you please tell me which country does not take the idea of nuclear weapons seriously or which country pledges faith in the humanitarian vision of Israel! If there was one country to use nuclear weapons it would either be Pakistan or Israel. A "test" would be a public show of force of that weapon and only go to show increasing Israeli hostility. Especially at a time when Egypt is not confined to its role as America and Israel's lackey anymore. I don't understand how any sane person would want that.

Which is true. Thats why its wrong in my opinion to have such weapon in the first place.

It's not true at all, trust me you are talking to a Pakistani. I know just how far a nuclear arsenal goes in providing a policy of deterrence.

Unless you have already accepted the possibility that you may use it. And by doing that of course you threw any sense of right and wrong out the window.

A nuclear weapon is of course morally wrong, that does not triumph over reality however. The reality was that the West possessed nuclear weapons and was actively prohibiting nuclear proliferation leaving themselves with the "ultimate arsenal". Countries take whatever steps they can to protect themselves and in the case of a nuclear weapon, it is better that both countries have them rather than just one. This is because if both countries can assure mutual destruction, the possibility for its use is slim to none with the exception of a doomsday scenario. This right away throws out he possibility of nuclear attack save in that situation (such as Hiroshima) and also leads to seeking further negotiations and peace to avert that particular doomsday scenario.

If you want peace, then you would want nuclear weapons to proliferate on both sides of competent governments.

 

[HiddenDjinn]

The last part is where i'm having trouble. How can it ever be justified to knowingly kill millions of innocent people just to protect others from potential similar danger?

I can see the difficulty in the decision. I made it worse just to try to see where you're coming from, and imagined it in the sense that i know another country is going to nuke mine. I still can't justify the decision to nuke them. I would try my best to stop them even if it has little to no chance of working. However, i can't make the decision to kill those millions of people who's only fault is being in that place.

There comes the moral quandary of the Samson Directive.

 

[HiddenDjinn]

Anyways, a few stories I was able to find about the Neturei Karta with a quick web search:

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/67415
Dei'ah veDibur - Information & Insight - NEWS
Impostors in Hassidic Garb
Neturei Karta: What is it?
Neturei Karta - Jews Against Zionism
Zionism and Israel - True Torah Nazis - The true face of Orthodox Anti-Zionism

 

[Badran]

Can you please tell me which country does not take the idea of nuclear weapons seriously or which country pledges faith in the humanitarian vision of Israel! If there was one country to use nuclear weapons it would either be Pakistan or Israel. A "test" would be a public show of force of that weapon and only go to show increasing Israeli hostility. Especially at a time when Egypt is not confined to its role as America and Israel's lackey anymore. I don't understand how any sane person would want that.

I don't think he was addressing today's conditions. He was replying to my post which was addressing Flankerl's scenario.

It's not true at all, trust me you are talking to a Pakistani. I know just how far a nuclear arsenal goes in providing a policy of deterrence.

It does provide this indeed, i recognize that.

However what i was saying is true, is that if the other side doesn't take it seriously, there surely is nothing left other than using it. Regardless of whether or not there is or ever will be someone who doesn't take it seriously. I was just addressing that possibility.

A nuclear weapon is of course morally wrong, that does not triumph over reality however. The reality was that the West possessed nuclear weapons and was actively prohibiting nuclear proliferation leaving themselves with the "ultimate arsenal". Countries take whatever steps they can to protect themselves and in the case of a nuclear weapon, it is better that both countries have them rather than just one. This is because if both countries can assure mutual destruction, the possibility for its use is slim to none with the exception of a doomsday scenario. This right away throws out he possibility of nuclear attack save in that situation (such as Hiroshima) and also leads to seeking further negotiations and peace to avert that particular doomsday scenario.

If you want peace, then you would want nuclear weapons to proliferate on both sides of competent governments.

I understand this reasoning. Mine is that its not worth the risk. We shouldn't have taken those other countries lead and got ones or attempt to, i think what should be done is to try to eliminate such weapon from the world, not add to its existence.

May be it has worked so far as a restraint and deterrent, but you never know how much it would take for things to get out of hand. For example if one nutcase took control over one country which has a nuclear bomb, that may be it. Not necessarily an all world war or world end of some sort, but i'm talking about something which results in hundreds of millions of people dead for example.

 

[Badran]

There comes the moral quandary of the Samson Directive.

I don't know what that is, is it some sort of known moral dilemma?

 

[Flankerl]

Flankerl - I understand the sentiments of those who think they 'need' a 'Jewish' state to protect them after the Holocaust. However, as it turns out, 1) Israel is completely powerless to protect Jewish even inside Israel, let alone outside of it; 2) Israel is the most dangerous country in the world for a Jew to live in.

What? Thats all not true. Otherwise the deathtoll amongst israeli jews would be much higher.

But of course you don't think anything is justified just to protect whats dear to you right?

I mean like i said, it is likely indeed for many governments and in this case Israeli government to go this far if cornered, that however doesn't mean they would be justified in doing so.

I dont know.

At the end of the day its always bad if a person dies. Does this mean one isnt justified to defend himself/herself in a dangerous situation?

Obviously the world would be a nice place without any kind of conflicts.

 

[Badran]

I dont know.

At the end of the day its always bad if a person dies. Does this mean one isnt justified to defend himself/herself in a dangerous situation?

Obviously the world would be a nice place without any kind of conflicts.

Sure there is nothing wrong with defending yourself. There is a complication here however.

Another example, if you were confronted by a person who is holding a gun and was about to shoot you and your friends and you had children with you. He's also holding a kid you don't know as a human shield.

You have a gun too, you can either try to shoot him without hurting the kid, and tell others to run etc.. and accept that its much less likely for you to hit him, which means he's much more likely to hit you and others.

Or, you can just shoot through the kid to insure your safety and others with you.

Which would you choose?

(forgive any inaccuracies in the example and please point them out to me, if there are any)

 

[Flankerl]

I know what you are trying to say.

I really understand that. But iam not part of the government of the state of israel so i wouldnt have to choose between my own people and well my enemy.


Its a tough situation where its about what the person in charge sees as the lesser evil. Seeing the own people slaughtered or using at least one nuclear weapon to somehow stop it.

 

[HiddenDjinn]

I don't know what that is, is it some sort of known moral dilemma?

Nevermind then. I thought that directive was known to you.

 

[Caladan]

For who asked about my ethnicity - I'm a European Jew (Ashkenazi).

Oui c'est moi, Dan.

exactly, your a European. the rest of us in Israel already consider ourselves Arabised. most of us have been living in this region for centuries, thousands of years.
would you take Moroccan nationals and force them to live in a one state with Egyptians?
or would you take Iraqis and force them to live in a one state with Iranians?
The European Jews have already did that once. lets not repeat the same mistake twice.
we all have our own indigenous ethnicities, we have created the only Arab democracy in the region. the Palestinians on the other hand have never lived under a democracy.
so lets keep our Arab democracy as it is.

merci.

 

[Badran]

I know what you are trying to say.

I really understand that. But iam not part of the government of the state of israel so i wouldnt have to choose between my own people and well my enemy.

You're right, i put you in the wrong place in the example. Our opinions matter however, If most people decided to be against nuclear weapons for example, i bet that would make a huge difference.

Its a tough situation where its about what the person in charge sees as the lesser evil. Seeing the own people slaughtered or using at least one nuclear weapon to somehow stop it.

He might see it as a lesser evil, but that won't be true. Because he's choosing based on false criteria. Whether its Israeli's or Palestinians or which ever other country that die in some nuclear attack won't make it anymore right or wrong, its the same.

The only difference, is who's the one thats actually going to do it. If the government you support decides to do it, and you agree with them, then you would have made a similar decision to the one i mentioned in the earlier post.

The only difference would be who you are in that example, instead of the one holding the gun, to be accurate, you're the one who agreed to shooting through the kid held as a human shield. You let it happen without attempting to stop it, and tried to justify it.

I'm honestly not trying to push a moral argument on you, i'm only saying this because like i mentioned to you a little earlier i see this as the main problem. If you see all Arabs, or Palestinians, or Muslims, as your enemies, and their death less evil than Jewish or Israeli death, and that opinion i'm sure held widely amongst both sides, there can never be a solution.

This doesn't mean that you won't feel more sad or angry about certain deaths than others, thats completely understandable. However whats not is to consider it a lesser evil.

 

[Caladan]

If you see all Arabs, or Palestinians, or Muslims, as your enemies, and their death less evil than Jewish or Israeli death, and that opinion i'm sure held widely amongst both sides, there can never be a solution.

And hence lies the core of the problem.
Jews. you know. real Jews. Semitic men; Arab, Farsi, Kurdi, Maghrebi, Yemenite,Turkish.
may have all perfected the art of being the embodiment of all that is western. but we see ourselves as part of Arab history, Farsi history, Kurdi and Iraqi history, Maghrebi history, Yemenite history, and Turkish history.
our families certainly didnt speak Yiddish.
it is not even our war. ironic that we are the backbone of the leadership of the Israeli army and of the infantry brigades.
even my Ashkenazi grandparents who took part in the resistance against the nazis knew their place.

 

[Badran]

And hence lies the core of the problem.
Jews. you know. real Jews. Semitic men; Arab, Farsi, Kurdi, Maghrebi, Yemenite,Turkish.
may have all perfected the art of being the embodiment of all that is western. but we see ourselves as part of Arab history, Farsi history, Kurdi and Iraqi history, Maghrebi history, Yemenite history, and Turkish history.
our families certainly didnt speak Yiddish.
it is not even our war. ironic that we are the backbone of the leadership of the Israeli army and of the infantry brigades.
even my Ashkenazi grandparents who took part in the resistance against the nazis knew their place.

I realized what you're talking about here a while ago thanks to some of your posts in related topics, and other topics in general. This actually gives me hope. As although there are serious seemingly unsolvable issues here, there also seems to be an important common ground.

I think i'm missing part of your point though, about European Jews for example. Are you saying that their view on somethings constitute a big part of the problem, which is a view not shared by other Jews?

The reason i ask this alongside thinking this might be your point, is also because it seems likely to me that this would be the case.

 

[Flankerl]

You're right, i put you in the wrong place in the example. Our opinions matter however, If most people decided to be against nuclear weapons for example, i bet that would make a huge difference.

Well thats the old irony people are.
For example here in germany the anti nuclear energy movement is big. Probably the biggest on the whole earth.
And after the tsunami in japan they gained momentum. Its possible that in a few years germany may be nuclear energy free. But it wont be a better world. Nuclear energy still is important in germany and so it would result in energy shortages which can not be filled with renewable energy.
So germany will buy energy from its neighbours who have nuclear energy.

Which will result in a higher price for energy. And thats were many people will realise that everything has consequences.


Now i may be against certain things while in the future these things may safe me.

I'm honestly not trying to push a moral argument on you, i'm only saying this because like i mentioned to you a little earlier i see this as the main problem. If you see all Arabs, or Palestinians, or Muslims, as your enemies, and their death less evil than Jewish or Israeli death, and that opinion i'm sure held widely amongst both sides, there can never be a solution.

Oh yes you are.

I dont see all arabs as my enemies.
I dont see all palestinians as my enemies.
I dont see all muslims as my enemies. For example until a certain age i had many muslima as good friends. Lets just say that shifted and ironically iam still on good terms with their parents or grandparents while their children perhaps watch too much Al Manar all day.


Any human will see the death of a family member as more severe as a death of a person they dont know. Thats all iam trying to say.

 

[Caladan]

Are you saying that their view on somethings constitute a big part of the problem, which is a view not shared by other Jews?

The reason i ask this alongside thinking this might be your point, is also because it seems likely to me that this would be the case.

Absolutely.
they try to establish a European culture in the middle east. it has failed before and it has failed again in Israel.
the rest of us have no problem with european science or medicine. however we know who we are, and we certainly know where we come from.
Its not Warsaw.