User Tag List

View Poll Results: Israel

Voters
47. You may not vote on this poll
  • I am against the formation of the state of Israel and its policies

    12 25.53%
  • I support the formation of Israel and its policies

    16 34.04%
  • Indifferent/other (explain)

    19 40.43%
First 23456 Last

Results 31 to 40 of 98

  1. #31
    Senior Member htb's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    1w9
    Posts
    1,506

    Default

    And on the seventh day, 1967, Israel ended its work which it had made, and it rested on the seventh day from all the work it had made.

    And it was good.

  2. #32
    RETIRED CzeCze's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    MBTI
    GONE
    Posts
    9,051

    Default

    I will say I'm an anti-Zionist. I have much problems with the policies of Israel. I have problems with the argument that just because something been around for 60 years that in itself is justification for continuing. But I don't really like the extreme blanket 'all or nothing' wording of the poll. It seems oversimplified considered the tangled issue.

    I also have problems with the fact our country and foreign policy is supposed to be secular and yet our government's own administration says almost ad verbatim that Israel and the US have spiritual ties or basically has a vested interest in protecting the concept of Jerusalem. Does no one else see how problematic that is?

    I wish I could be more articulate on the topic (and I do have a few friends who are much more well-versed in debate around Zionism and Israel's policies)
    but unfortunately my overall knowledge is limited. I'll admit that freely.

    But something about trying to starve and raze Palestine to the ground and turn it into a 3rd world backwater and international pariah of brown people, basically trying to beat the people into submission -- using a military state against a rag tag group of displaced peoples -- something about these things just do not and never will sit right with me.

    Whenever I see the equivalent of tanks and ak-47s used against people throwing rocks and running, I'm generally inclined to be on the side of the people with rocks.

    ------------
    I wonder if we have any strong anti-Zionists on the forum who just don't want to stir anything up or are just disinterested in debating here. It's generally hard to find a vocal anti-Zionist in 'mainstream settings', except for maybe on the UC Berkeley campus. (Hahahahahaha).

    I notice there are a lot votes for 'neither/no opinion' and so far no one who's answered seems to have gone into a detailed passionate response for or against.

    This issue, btw, is surprisingly a good litmus test for dividing up liberals.
    “If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.” ― Oscar Wilde

    "I'm outtie 5000" ― Romulux

    Johari/Nohari

  3. #33
    Senior Member ThatsWhatHeSaid's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w4
    Posts
    7,233

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CzeCze View Post
    I will say I'm an anti-Zionist. I have much problems with the policies of Israel. I have problems with the argument that just because something been around for 60 years that in itself is justification for continuing. But I don't really like the extreme blanket 'all or nothing' wording of the poll. It seems oversimplified considered the tangled issue.

    I also have problems with the fact our country and foreign policy is supposed to be secular and yet our government's own administration says almost ad verbatim that Israel and the US have spiritual ties or basically has a vested interest in protecting the concept of Jerusalem. Does no one else see how problematic that is?

    I wish I could be more articulate on the topic (and I do have a few friends who are much more well-versed in debate around Zionism and Israel's policies)
    but unfortunately my overall knowledge is limited. I'll admit that freely.

    But something about trying to starve and raze Palestine to the ground and turn it into a 3rd world backwater and international pariah of brown people, basically trying to beat the people into submission -- using a military state against a rag tag group of displaced peoples -- something about these things just do not and never will sit right with me.

    Whenever I see the equivalent of tanks and ak-47s used against people throwing rocks and running, I'm generally inclined to be on the side of the people with rocks.

    ------------
    I wonder if we have any strong anti-Zionists on the forum who just don't want to stir anything up or are just disinterested in debating here. It's generally hard to find a vocal anti-Zionist in 'mainstream settings', except for maybe on the UC Berkeley campus. (Hahahahahaha).

    I notice there are a lot votes for 'neither/no opinion' and so far no one who's answered seems to have gone into a detailed passionate response for or against.

    This issue, btw, is surprisingly a good litmus test for dividing up liberals.
    I hear that, but Israel has been willing to pullout of contested areas if they can ensure that those areas aren't used for attacking civilians. What ends up happening (and is happening right now) is that terrorists groups like Hamas target civilians with rockets, suicide bombers, and lately gunmen in seminaries, to which Israel retaliates in effort to stop the attacks. I'll admit though that I'm not always comfortable with either party's retaliation efforts. Terrorists groups target civilians. Although Israel does not target civilians, it seems to make sloppy military decisions that ignore civilian casualities, or sees them as acceptable collateral damage. I do think, though, that blaming Israel's tactical decisions without mentioning terrorism is...unbalanced.

  4. #34
    Senior Member ThatsWhatHeSaid's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w4
    Posts
    7,233

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by meanlittlechimp View Post
    Do you see our overthrow of Mossadegh an act of terrorism? Who was a west leaning secular leader of Iran (which was a constitutional democracy) before we ousted him and put in a corrupt monarchy (the Shah). Do you see the Iranians overthrowing a US backed puppet government as terrorism?

    Do you see invading Iraq under false pretenses an act of terrorism. When you carpet bomb a civilian population, do you consider that an act of terrorism? Do you see the Russia-Texas example above as terrorism?

    Or is terrorism to you, only when small scale killing occurs, like blowing up a bus or a disco?
    Do you see that your entire response was an elaborate strawman?

    Do you see that dissonance is choosing between Israel and terrorists, not the US and terrorists?

    Do you see a difference between Israeli military policy and American military policy?

    And finally, do you see a difference between deliberately targeting civilians and targeting terrorists?

  5. #35

    Default

    I think that Israel has a right to exist as a nation, but I'm very uncomfortable with the pro-Israel lobby in the USA. I don't entirely understand why our foreign policy is so favorable toward Israel and why we send so much aid to a wealthy nation, apart from the value of having an ally in the Middle East.

    I fear that much of it comes from a sort of "thought terrorism" that comes from the ADL and other like-minded organizations. They have the term "anti-Semite" as their secret weapon, and manage to reframe every criticism of Israel into an ad hominem attack on Jews. Being branded as an anti-Semite is a very big deal in a very bad way in the USA. I think this is part of what Cze Cze was alluding to when she suggested that some people might be afraid to post on this topic.

    I'm in favor of the two-state solution to the Israel/Palestine problem, but sadly I don't think that even that would prevent them from trying to kill each other.
    Everybody have fun tonight. Everybody Wang Chung tonight.

    Johari
    /Nohari

  6. #36
    Senior Member nemo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    MBTI
    NeTi
    Enneagram
    <3
    Socionics
    wtf
    Posts
    445

    Default

    Eh, I might be cynical, but I think the US just wants a subservient, authoritarian client-state in the highest oil-producing (albeit politically unstable) part of the world.

    However, it's getting us into a lot of trouble. For strategic reasons, Afghanistan isn't suitable as a kind of substitute, so maybe that's part of the reason Iraq was invaded. Talk of democracy is cheap -- historically there's no reason to believe we care at all about extending democracy.

    And I think Chimp was just making a statement on the not-so-clear divisions between terrorism and state-terrorism.

    Someone once said something like: a terrorist is someone who has bombs but not enough money for an air force.

    Ironically (or maybe not), there's an extremely high correlation between US foreign-military aid and increases in human rights violations.

    Also, many people don't see a significant difference between deliberately targeting civilians and using vastly disproportionate means of violence and killing a bunch on accident. Intent doesn't mean shit. I think they're still responsible, although I'm not prepared to quantify it and say whose "more" responsible. So maybe there is a difference, and this whole paragraph was a waste of time.

    I don't think the debate is about whose more justified in killing each other, but rather it's whether or not Israel is behaving in a reasonable way. I, personally, don't think they are.

    But that's just me, and I can hardly think at 2:20 AM (fucking daylight savings time!!). Sorry for random/incoherent thoughts. I'm going to bed. -nemo
    You can't wait for inspiration. You have to go after it with a club. - Jack London

  7. #37
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    ExTJ
    Posts
    1,377

    Default

    I have problems with the argument that just because something been around for 60 years that in itself is justification for continuing.
    In Israel's case, being around for 60 years means people have set up businesses, families, careers/job contacts, etc., and getting rid of Israel pretty much means forcing people to start over on a lot of these, which is something heavily unwanted in just about any situation.

  8. #38

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ThatsWhatHeSaid View Post
    Do you see that your entire response was an elaborate strawman?

    Do you see that dissonance is choosing between Israel and terrorists, not the US and terrorists?
    I'm contending the whole notion of what a terrorist is. Why is it the US and TERRORISTS or Israel and TERRORISTS. When debating the nature of these conflicts, is the losing side relegated to terrorist status?

    In our attempts to kill Castro over the years and overthrow his government by force; If a Cuban national tried to blow up plane or kill one of our senators, would we call that an act of terrorism? Yes we would. Do we ever analyze our actions as terrorist? Americans never think of our actions as terrorist no matter how many governments we overthrow or people we bomb. It's never even considered. Does anyone else find this a bit Orwellian, that the person who retaliates with weaker weapons always gets the label "terrorist".

    UP until the 1950's when the US tended to get involved in military conflicts when they weren't the instigator, they were called the Department of WAR. As soon as they became the instigators after WWII, the name got changed to the Department of DEFENSE. Do you see the irony here?

    Quote Originally Posted by ThatsWhatHeSaid View Post
    Do you see a difference between Israeli military policy and American military policy?
    Sure there are differences, but I don't see what you're asking here. There are differences in most nations' policies. Are you saying one is more moral? or less so? Do they take different tactical steps to achieve their goals, sure.

    Quote Originally Posted by ThatsWhatHeSaid View Post
    And finally, do you see a difference between deliberately targeting civilians and targeting terrorists?
    Yes I do. If I attack you first, kick you off your land, and round you up like cattle in spangled new "settlements". And the victims disagree with this and "fight" back. Who is the terrorist? The person who struck first and stole the land they lived on for thousands of years, or the people who retaliated as what they see as injustice? Why is the initial land grab never considered terrorism?

    If we invade Iraq, and an Iraq comes up here and blows up buildings here, is that terrorism? While our invasion of the Iraq is not? I just think terrorism is thrown around a lot without ever asking why their "terrorizing" in the first place.

  9. #39
    Senior Member Dark Razor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    8w7
    Socionics
    ENTj
    Posts
    271

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by meanlittlechimp View Post
    I'm contending the whole notion of what a terrorist is. Why is it the US and TERRORISTS or Israel and TERRORISTS. When debating the nature of these conflicts, is the losing side relegated to terrorist status?

    In our attempts to kill Castro over the years and overthrow his government by force; If a Cuban national tried to blow up plane or kill one of our senators, would we call that an act of terrorism? Yes we would. Do we ever analyze our actions as terrorist? Americans never think of our actions as terrorist no matter how many governments we overthrow or people we bomb. It's never even considered. Does anyone else find this a bit Orwellian, that the person who retaliates with weaker weapons always gets the label "terrorist".

    UP until the 1950's when the US tended to get involved in military conflicts when they weren't the instigator, they were called the Department of WAR. As soon as they became the instigators after WWII, the name got changed to the Department of DEFENSE. Do you see the irony here?
    Terrorism is only when Them do it, Us are inherently incapable of such acts because of our noble nature. That is probably the most important realization if you want to understand the Western worldview, or rather the picture that the Western leaders/political and economical elite/media paint of how the world supposedly works.

    Basically, statements such as "The US supports terrorism" or "The US is blocking a peace agreement" are actually oxymorons and dont make any logical sence, because the US and the rest of the enlightend West is by definition Good and concerned only with spreading their model of peace, democracy, freedom and fluffy kittens, and not at all by economic and geopolitical considerations. As that would obviously be completely ridiculous, only places of eternal darkness, like the former Evil Empire to east, are motivated by such lowly urges.


    If you actually applied the definition of terrorism objectively to all acts of war/intervention that have occured after WWII, then it will become clear the the US, Israel, Britain, France and other Western powers are actually the chief sponsors and perpetrators of terrorism. However, we dont call it such because we are by definition motivated by Good and are only defending us and the clueless monkeypeople against the Evil Communists/Islamofascists/Terr'rists.

    The same double speak goes on in other areas, such as when we speak of the "defence" budget and the "defence" industry, actually the examples are too numerous to count.<---- I see you now posted this too, I originally wanted to post this yesterday, but the forum kept failing.

    This all serves the purpose of gaining support for aggressive, imperialist policies. It works by limiting the scope of imaginable viewpoints. So for example you have a "debate" on whether we should bomb the crap out of the terrorists or if we should starve them with sanctions. The possibility that the "terrorists" may actually have a legitimate point and we maybe should negotiate with them does not even exist, and anyone who proposes such a thing can be ridiculed as insane.

  10. #40
    Order Now! pure_mercury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    MBTI
    ESFJ
    Posts
    6,946

    Default

    Pro-Israel, against some of their policies. And against the United States being the world policeman.
    Who wants to try a bottle of merc's "Extroversion Olive Oil?"

Similar Threads

  1. [ESTJ] ESTJ Father, looking for your opinions.
    By Angry Ayrab in forum The SJ Guardhouse (ESFJ, ISFJ, ESTJ, ISTJ)
    Replies: 42
    Last Post: 07-31-2011, 09:13 PM
  2. [NF] NFs: What Is Your Opinion of "What Not to Wear"?
    By kiddykat in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 45
    Last Post: 12-07-2008, 06:42 PM
  3. [INFJ] What are your opinions about INFJs?
    By gloomy-optimist in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 53
    Last Post: 11-09-2008, 06:02 PM
  4. [MBTItm] INTJ + INFJ relationships. Ladies, your opinions please?
    By Wyst in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 07-11-2008, 12:21 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO