BF2S Forums Israel and Palestine

lowing wrote:

oug wrote:

lowing wrote:

Then answer the question everyone else is avoiding. If Israel went back to say 1967 borders, do you honestly believe that will be the end of it and Israel will be left alone to exist in peace?

I'm sure it would be enough to calm everyone down, yes. Maybe not everyone straight away, but sure enough things would smooth over in time.

and yet the Arab and Islamic nations massed in force to attack Israel on the very borders you claim will "calm everyone down" now. How is it you believe that?

Karbin wrote:

So, the thinking is that IF Israel would just go back to the 1967 borders, all the ME wold calm down and play nice. Right?

oug wrote:

Karbin wrote:

So, the thinking is that IF Israel would just go back to the 1967 borders, all the ME wold calm down and play nice. Right?

No. We are perfectly aware that this is an impossible scenario primarily because Israel would never allow it.

This whole '67 boarders conversation is just a vain attempt by lowing to provide a rationale regarding the USA's veto of the UN resolution condemning Israeli settlements.

JohnG@lt wrote:

If it bothers you so much then go join the PLO. If it doesn't bother you enough to do so, then find people who care. No one here does. You and Dilbert beat the ever living shit out of this horse in almost every single topic. Who gives a rats ass about Israel or Palestinians? Also, who gives a flying fuck about the UN? It's the biggest joke on the planet.

oug wrote:

lowing wrote:

oug wrote:

I'm sure it would be enough to calm everyone down, yes. Maybe not everyone straight away, but sure enough things would smooth over in time.

and yet the Arab and Islamic nations massed in force to attack Israel on the very borders you claim will "calm everyone down" now. How is it you believe that?

Clearly back then they had different expectations as to how this whole thing could turn out for them, and I think it's fair to say that even the most pessimistic couldn't have foreseen the present situation. I'm sure many will argue that even the '67 proposed boarders are unfair for the Palestinians, and in the event that they were to be enforced, they would seek an even bigger cut. But even that prospect is surely more desirable and cannot be compared to the massacre we are whitnessing today.

lowing wrote:

oug wrote:

Karbin wrote:

So, the thinking is that IF Israel would just go back to the 1967 borders, all the ME wold calm down and play nice. Right?

No. We are perfectly aware that this is an impossible scenario primarily because Israel would never allow it.

This whole '67 boarders conversation is just a vain attempt by lowing to provide a rationale regarding the USA's veto of the UN resolution condemning Israeli settlements.

lol wait a second, I am not the one claiming the '67 borders is the holy grail for peace. I simply recognize which you all will never concede. It is the total destruction of Israel that is the real goal, not some magical border divide. The US knows this and will simply not allow any progression toward that goal.

Columbia University students heckled a war hero during a town-hall meeting on whether ROTC should be allowed back on campus.

"Racist!" some students yelled at Anthony Maschek, a Columbia freshman and former Army staff sergeant awarded the Purple Heart after being shot 11 times in a firefight in northern Iraq in February 2008. Others hissed and booed the veteran.

Maschek, 28, had bravely stepped up to the mike Tuesday at the meeting to issue an impassioned challenge to fellow students on their perceptions of the military.

"It doesn't matter how you feel about the war. It doesn't matter how you feel about fighting," said Maschek. "There are bad men out there plotting to kill you."

Several students laughed and jeered the Idaho native, a 10th Mountain Division infantryman who spent two years at Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington recovering from grievous wounds.

Maschek, who is studying economics, miraculously survived the insurgent attack in Kirkuk. In the hail of gunfire, he broke both legs and suffered wounds to his abdomen, arm and chest.

He enrolled last August at the Ivy League school, where an increasingly ugly battle is unfolding over the 42-year military ban there.

More than half of the students who spoke at the meeting -- the second of three hearings on the subject -- expressed opposition to ROTC's return. Many of the 200 students in the audience held anti-military placards with slogans such as, "1 in 3 female soldiers experiences sexual assault in the military."

The university has created a task force polling 10,000 students on the issue, but would not release the vote tally of the 1,300 who have already responded.

In 2005, when the university last voted to reject ROTC's return, it cited the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy.

That policy was overturned in December, but resistance remains.

"Transpeople are part of the Columbia community," said senior Sean Udell at the meeting, referring to the military's current ban on transgender soldiers.

Faculty members are divided.

"Universities should not be involved in military activities," Sociology Professor Emeritus Herbert Gans told The Post. "Columbia should come out against spending $300 billion a year on unnecessary wars."

A group of 34 faculty colleagues, including historian Kenneth Jackson and former Bloomberg adviser Esther Fuchs, plan to announce their support of ROTC tomorrow.

José Robledo, 30, a Columbia student who commutes to Fordham University for ROTC coursework, said he found the treatment of Maschek abhorrent.

"The anti-ROTC side has been disrespectful and loud. They hiss and they jeer," he said. "It's been to the detriment of the argument."

oug wrote:

Spark wrote:

lowing wrote:

lol wait a second, I am not the one claiming the '67 borders is the holy grail for peace. I simply recognize which you all will never concede. It is the total destruction of Israel that is the real goal, not some magical border divide. The US knows this and will simply not allow any progression toward that goal.

With lowing on this particular issue. The location of the borders is just a triviality, on a grand scale. It's the fact that Israel exists at all that your average jihadist takes issue with.

For the average jihadist that's probably true, that's why I said that a possible concession to the 67 boarders would probably not be the end of all turmoil in the region. That said, I do think that if the Palestinians had a decent place to live, given a few years of relative prosperity I believe that their action towards Israel would be mellower. It is my understanding that the inhuman conditions the Israelis are forcing them to live in are a breeding ground for hatred and extremism.

It would be daft to expect years of ill-treatment to just dissapear overnight. It would take generations for the thinking of the average Palestinian who's had his family killed and his home destroyed to change.

As for you John, your presence in this thread is indicative of your biased, easily susceptible and down-right idiotic manner. Contrary to lowing, you have no arguments and thus result to name calling. If you don't care about the subject I suggest you fuck off because I'm in no mood to be called a wannabe hipster by an ignorant fuck.

Funny though... I do agree with you that nobody cares. Which brings me back to my initial question, why does the US bother rationalising their decision to veto?

JohnG@lt wrote:

You could of course be one of these 'cool people'...

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/manh … 7vXAiAQfSN

Blaming the Victims: Spurious Scholarship and the Palestinian Question, is a collection of essays, co-edited by Palestinian advocates Edward Said and Christopher Hitchens, published by Verso Books in 1988 (ISBN 0-86091-887-4). It contains essays by prominent advocates and activists including Ibrahim Abu-Lughod, Janet L. Abu-Lughod, Noam Chomsky, Norman G. Finkelstein, Christopher Hitchens, Rashid Khalidi, Edward W. Said, and others.

Uzique wrote:

edward said is a "bedwetting crybaby"?

edward said is a fantastic scholar tbh... one of the better academics of the 20th century across all the humanities.

have you even read 'orientalism'?

Uzique wrote:

no, but i very much doubt you have either in any academic contexts

Uzique wrote:

right so you had a chance to be lectured by said during his time, then? or you mean to say that being accepted by their grad school implies you've even read 5 pages of his work? let alone scanned over his essays pertinent to the israel-palestine question? or are you discrediting one of the best postcolonial theorists because of your subjective 'opinion' of a school of which you have nothing-at-all to do with the humanities department?

i think the word that sums up your opinion here is: 'irrelevant'