Does anybody really think that Israel is evil?

page: 2
2
<< 1   >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 23 2009 @ 11:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by Monger
Do you think that the average Israeli wants to continue killing their Arab neighbors?


The average Israeli would likely prefer peace, opposed to war and conflict, the average Israeli must deal with the constant, very real and close threats of attacks, never knowing if this day will be their last. Defense of the Israeli homeland and existence is a generally acceptable cause among the average Israelis.



Do you think your average Israeli greets with joy the news that scores of women and children were killed as a result of an air strike?


I would imagine that the average Israelis are as shocked and horrified by the loss of innocent civilian lives in Gaza raids as well as elsewhere in the region, but are able to rationalize it as the fault of terrorists shielding themselves with those innocent civilians and can deal with it as an enemy caused loss of life, because those 'terrorists' without Israeli attacks would be killing Israeli citizens.



In all reality, your average Israeli wants to live in peace, to coexist with their Arab cousins.


No doubt, but is peace at the cost of humane civility and respect for basic human rights a peace worth fighting for?

Does anybody really think that Israel is evil?

Israel itself is faced with its very survival in a region where nations would much rather see them gone, the greatest evil is the tough choices Israel must make in order to survive when it is surrounded by unrelenting enemies. Some would say "We are damned if we do, and damned if we do not"

With Israel there is no safe targeting of enemies, that is perhaps the greatest evil of all.

One day perhaps there can be peace, but history does not easily forget the lives lost, the battles fought.

I'm sure if you ask any Arab in the region if Israel is evil, the answer would be quick short and an unequivocal YES.




posted on Jan, 23 2009 @ 11:30 AM
link   
reply to post by Voxel
 


Well at least this is an objective approach. I do not agree to it since not religions create people. Hinduism is not monotheistic religion and most probably has no connection with Judaism but never the less India had its share of problems. There are extremist even in this religion. Mongols that did a lot of nasty things before becoming Muslim. Aztecs were certainly not connected to Judaism and look at what they did. Romans totally ruined Carthage and massacred its population - and it is ok since it is a political struggle and Roman religions were not monotheistic?
As long as everyone understands that he is a person and listens to moral judge that is built in into every one as to what is right and what wrong then what religion/race/empire or whatever is not important. Being religious Jew,Christian, Muslim or whatever does not guarantee that it is being a moral person. But the same is for member of atheistic/humanistic/whatever group. Being in any crowd can block the real picture.



posted on Jan, 23 2009 @ 12:04 PM
link   
I think that any Nation that is ruled by Religion is a bad thing that could called "evil".
History shows us that people will commit the most evil of crimes against another human in the name of Religion or a belief in a supreme being.

There are not many religions around the world that are'nt stainded with the blood of another. Enough is enough.



posted on Jan, 23 2009 @ 12:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by ZeroKnowledge
Being in any crowd can block the real picture.


I agree with you and for that quote above I give you a star!


Hinduism is not monotheistic religion and most probably has no connection with Judaism but never the less India had its share of problems.

I agree with your premise that ALL religions are potentials for evil because they are insular and their actions tends to separate humans based on perceived group flaws rather than seek to combine humans based on their individual strengths.


There are extremist even in this religion. Mongols that did a lot of nasty things before becoming Muslim.

I kind of like Mongols because they tended to attack strong and wealthy countries and territories. When reading about the Mongolians, remember that their history is largely written by people from the failing empires and city-states from which they plundered.


Aztecs were certainly not connected to Judaism and look at what they did.

The ideology of the Aztec and the ideology of modern descendants of Judaism are remarkably similar:
Anything we do is right because God prefers us. People outside our little social group are worth little more than cattle. The best use for a non-believer is as an offering to the one true God.


Romans totally ruined Carthage and massacred its population - and it is ok since it is a political struggle and Roman religions were not monotheistic?

Massacre is never right. At the same time, political institutions and countries are transitory things.

The sins of the past eventually catch up to countries and when they are destroyed the political ideology that allowed such transgressions are changed, illegitimized, or simply forgotten. On the other hand, religions are very difficult things of which to rid ourselves.

What makes religions so destructive to the human race is that even a failed religion will have fanatics who will gladly continue to indoctrinate their children into the failed religious system. People don't normally try to instill into their children the belief that a failed country was the greatest thing ever. After all, how could the country have failed in the first place if it was so great?

As an example of the danger of religions consider good ol' Rome:

No one in North Africa has plans to invade Italy and slaughter every man, woman, and child because of something the Romans did a couple of thousand years ago, right? Of course not, that would be abjectly stupid.

Yet a religion that died around the same time as Rome itself, Judaism, holds that it is perfectly acceptable in this day and age to slaughter any man, woman, and child in the region known as Canaan who refuses to give up their land. Of course, all this is because of something the Romans did a couple of thousand years ago - that is abjectly stupid.

Religion and humanity can not continue to coexist. I know which one I will side with.

Jon



posted on Jan, 23 2009 @ 01:02 PM
link   
reply to post by ZeroKnowledge
 


israel is apartheid :
from BBC:
Battling against Israeli 'apartheid'
news.bbc.co.uk...

Algeria-style campaign against Israel, but what I fear is that they will try to run a South Africa-type campaign against us." If international sanctions are imposed as they were against apartheid, "the state of Israel is finished." Indeed, stripped of rhetoric, the parallels are striking. The state of Israel was enshrined as a sovereign state in 1948, the same year the white supremacist National Party came to power in South Africa. Both Zionism and apartheid had been decades in the making, with the backing of British imperialism. Both colonial projects were designed to violently disfranchise and subjugate the indigenous majority that occupied both countries. The founding of the state of Israel was based on forcing Palestinians to flee their homes (Ahmadphotos) Their methods, however, were different. While South Africa's white supremacists imposed minority rule over its vast African population, Israel intended to distinguish itself as the only "democracy" in the Middle East. This was accomplished by driving out Palestine's majority Arab population, thereby creating a Jewish majority. In 1947, Jews owned just 6 percent of Palestinian land and made up just one-third of its population. In 1948, the UN nevertheless relegated Jewish control over 55 percent of Palestinian land, overruling Palestinian demands for a democratic state. But this was not enough for the Zionist project. Armed Zionist gangs, including the Irgun, led by future Israeli Prime Minister Menachin Begin, and the Stern Gang, initially massacred 254 unarmed Palestinian men, women and children in the village of Dier Yassin. The terror spread to 40 other Palestinian villages as tens of thousands of Palestinians fled their homeland in desperation, with only their clothes on their backs. By 1949, Israel controlled 78 percent of Palestine and had driven approximately 750,000 Palestinians from their homes. They have never been allowed to return. Times have changed. The majority of Palestine's Arab population is now hermetically sealed and relegated to sub-human status within Israel's occupied post-1967 borders. But what Israel fears most is the imposition of one person/one vote--destroying any claim to the "democratic" model so carefully engineered to give Jews a majority--should those borders ever reopen. If Israel were to return to a democratic, secular state, Palestinians will soon outnumber Jews
socialistworker.org...

he parallels of these two racially segregated regimes remain stunning. When South African anti-apartheid activist Archbishop Desmond Tutu visited the Occupied Territories in 2003, he described Palestinians' existence "much like what happened to us black people in South Africa."

Israel is an apartheid state, and thus I conclude THAT ISRAEL IS EVIL



posted on Jan, 23 2009 @ 01:15 PM
link   
reply to post by sadchild01
 


Does not BBC artcile that you linked kind of ruins your own theory? All the attempts to not allow Arab person in Jewish neighbourhood failed and court ruled in his favour. Indeed Apartheid. There are mixed cities with mixed neighbourhoods. Discrimination is present, true. But there is huge step from one to another.
As for second article - it is pure propaganda. Few drops of truth mixed with liters of lies. Starting from "democratical desicion for one country" nonsence and ending in the same wall. Wall is between country and a would-be-country. Or you want Israel to occupy territories forever? And majority of this wall is actually a fence.
It is great to post links and have nothing to say for your own exept Israel is evil, but at least try to analise the links you use before posting them.
Israel has one Arab minister, it has Arab (and other minorities) members of parliament,Arabs and Jews work together. You mix between Palestinian population in occupied territories and Israeli Arabs. Since people other there are not Israeli citizens and do not want to be, why Israel should force it on them?
Israel is not an apartheid.



posted on Jan, 23 2009 @ 01:30 PM
link   
reply to post by ZeroKnowledge
 


israeli propaganda from israeli patriot who denys histroical facts.

how many palestinian children did you shoot for fun , when you worked in the IDF ...
even haaretz,israeli newspaper,acknowledges israeli apartheid :


enerally, Jewish dissidents are not risking their life, livelihood, freedom or rights. However, the demonstration against the separation fence does involve certain risks - a few hours in detention, soldiers' fire, tear gas, or a blow from a gun. Therefore, each protester makes his or her own courageous decision to take part in the demonstration. Assisting the Palestinian olive harvest also requires courage, because it could end in an attack by the settlers (while the government's representatives, the soldiers, stand idly by). And yet there are dozens of anti-oppression activities that do not endanger the hundreds of devoted activists (mostly women) who take part in them. Potentially, hundreds of thousands of Jewish Israelis could have taken part in activities against the multi-faceted Israeli oppression - the apartheid laws and orders, military attacks, hidden information, economic siege, land expropriation, expanding settlements, and more. Not a hair on their head would be touched. These are people who say they support peace, with a Palestinian state beside Israel. But apparently their interpretation of participation in democracy is going to the polls once every few years, and faint protest in their living room. However, democracy also is displaying civic responsibility, by constantly supervising the political decisions and acts between elections, thus ensuring that democracy's essence has not been eroded. Those who say they support a two-state solution are ignoring the other facet of the democracy-for-Jews - the military regime that it imposes on the Palestinians. This regime creates faits accomplis all the time, foiling the last chance for a solution (i.e. full withdrawal with slight changes to the June 4, 1967 lines and establishing a Palestinian state). The Jewish citizens who enjoy their democracy are not personally harmed by its other facet. On the contrary, they gain from it - cheap land and quality housing, additional water sources, a cadre of security professionals in demand worldwide, and thriving defense industries. This is the "calm" that even self-defined peace supporters refrain from disrupting. In the Soviet empire and racist South Africa - like in today's Burma (Myanmar) - objecting to oppression involved a high personal price. Therefore, one could understand the objectors who chose not to act. In Israel, because it is a democracy for Jews, all those who sit idle, ignoring what is being done in their name, bear a heavy responsibility. Chiefs of staff, prime ministers, ministers and generals are not the only ones responsible. Anyone who theoretically objects to oppression, discrimination and expulsion, but does not actively take part in the struggle and in creating a constant popular resistance to topple the apartheid regime we have created here, is responsible.
www.haaretz.com...


israel is apartheid even haaretz,israeli newspaper acknowledges it.

The parallels of these two racially segregated regimes remain stunning. When South African anti-apartheid activist Archbishop Desmond Tutu visited the Occupied Territories in 2003, he described Palestinians' existence "much like what happened to us black people in South Africa."

-----
apartheid is apartheid ,even south africans call israel an apartheid



posted on Jan, 23 2009 @ 01:48 PM
link   
reply to post by sadchild01
 


Hmmm, when nothing to say, you go personal. Ok. Also way out. I ate billion for breakfast. Happy? Now you can use it and link it anywhere you need a proof that Israelis eat Palestinian children for breakfast.
You are yet to show no proof but opinions of individuals. If this individual is South African or Israeli is not important.
Just for your education:


Apartheid (meaning separateness in Afrikaans cognate to English apart and -hood) was a system of legal racial segregation enforced by the National Party government of South Africa.....
Apartheid legislation classified inhabitants and visitors into racial groups (black, white, coloured, and Indian or Asian). South African blacks were stripped of their citizenship, legally becoming citizens of one of ten tribally based and nominally self-governing bantustans (tribal homelands), four of which became nominally independent states. The homelands occupied relatively small and economically unproductive areas of the country. Many black South Africans, however, never resided in their identified "homelands". The homeland system disenfranchised black people residing in "white South Africa"[2] by restricting their voting rights to their own identified black homeland.

You can try and read it and the rest, since it is not your link. Then you can play with "find similarities". Like Arab citizen of Israel possible and black citizen of South Africa - not. en.wikipedia.org...
Just as Israeli soldiers (me included ) shoot Palestinian kids for fun, there is an apartheid in Israel. Continue spewing nonsence and hate.
Edit:
Say hello to manson_322 for me, will you? Your style is really similar.

[edit on 23-1-2009 by ZeroKnowledge]



posted on Jan, 23 2009 @ 01:59 PM
link   
reply to post by ZeroKnowledge
 


even holocaust is largely based on witness accounts .... which are opinions
so then holocaust is not true? that iranian admadinjed(idiot) must be right

you israelis are a bunch of hypocrites , keep denying facts




uth African blacks were stripped of their citizenship, legally becoming citizens of one of ten tribally based and nominally self-governing bantustans


this is what
While South Africa's white supremacists imposed minority rule over its vast African population, Israel intended to distinguish itself as the only "democracy" in the Middle East. This was accomplished by driving out Palestine's majority Arab population, thereby creating a Jewish majority.



Armed Zionist gangs, including the Irgun, led by future Israeli Prime Minister Menachin Begin, and the Stern Gang, initially massacred 254 unarmed Palestinian men, women and children in the village of Dier Yassin. The terror spread to 40 other Palestinian villages as tens of thousands of Palestinians fled their homeland in desperation, with only their clothes on their backs. By 1949, Israel controlled 78 percent of Palestine and had driven approximately 750,000 Palestinians from their homes. They have never been allowed to return.

Times have changed. The majority of Palestine's Arab population is now hermetically sealed and relegated to sub-human status within Israel's occupied post-1967 borders. But what Israel fears most is the imposition of one person/one vote--destroying any claim to the "democratic" model so carefully engineered to give Jews a majority--should those borders ever reopen. If Israel were to return to a democratic, secular state, Palestinians will soon outnumber Jews.


statement of Ariel Sharon
Following South Africa's example of moving its African population into segregated cantons without citizenship rights, Sharon infamously argued that "the Bantustan plan was the most suitable solution to [Israel's] conflict," as reported in Haaretz on June 18, 2007.


Continue spewing nonsence and hate.

continue parroting israeli propaganda



Apartheid (meaning separateness in Afrikaans cognate to English apart and -hood) was a system of legal racial segregation enforced by the National Party government of South Africa..... Apartheid legislation classified inhabitants and visitors into racial groups (black, white, coloured, and Indian or Asian). South African blacks were stripped of their citizenship, legally becoming citizens of one of ten tribally based and nominally self-governing bantustans (tribal homelands), four of which became nominally independent states. The homelands occupied relatively small and economically unproductive areas of the country. Many black South Africans, however, never resided in their identified "homelands". The homeland system disenfranchised black people residing in "white South Africa"[2] by restricting their voting rights to their own identified black homeland.


pretty similiar the situation is in gaza ,nominal independence , the productive region occupied by racist settlers , a apartheid wall


[edit on 23-1-2009 by sadchild01]


[edit on 23-1-2009 by sadchild01]

[edit on 23-1-2009 by sadchild01]



posted on Jan, 23 2009 @ 02:18 PM
link   
I don't believe in absolutes like "good and evil", which is why the "axis of evil" approach is foolish and hypocritical. I don't believe in the notion of good or evil at all.

Things like that come down to perspective and circumstance, and we are all involved to some degree, even if by the simple ignorance of not knowing how those vegetables got onto your plate and what was done to get them there.

The Devil isn't even evil.
Don't believe me?

Ask him.

- Lee



posted on Jan, 23 2009 @ 09:15 PM
link   
reply to post by ZeroKnowledge
 


"Twilight Zone / 'Worse than apartheid' I found this article in the Ha'aretz.
www.haaretz.com...

"Equally harsh are the remarks of the editor-in-chief of the Sunday Times of South Africa, Mondli Makhanya, 38. "When you observe from afar you know that things are bad, but you do not know how bad. Nothing can prepare you for the evil we have seen here. In a certain sense, it is worse, worse, worse than everything we endured. The level of the apartheid, the racism and the brutality are worse than the worst period of apartheid."

If it's worse than apatheid, it should be called what it is. Genocide. The above is a comment published in a Jewish article. It was made by someone who is not an Arab. So that eliminates the "Arab/Muslim propaganda" argument.

Genocide is the deliberate and systematic destruction, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group.

Genocide = Evil



posted on Jan, 24 2009 @ 07:31 AM
link   
reply to post by Obliterated
 


Genocide ,apartheid,nazis and all this is propaganda. Person does not have to be Arab, Muslim, Israeli ,American or Martian to participate in propaganda campaign. If Dutch journalist will bash ,say, Muslims - does it make him correct because he is not an Israeli?
If there was genocide in Israel then Arab population of Israel and Palestine would not grow faster then Jewish population of Israel or Jewish settlers.
If there was an apartheid then there would be no such thing as Arab citizens of Israel, Arab parliamentarians or Arab minister.
If Israel was a nazi state then there would be government corporations, single party , autocratic system, expansionist foreign policy,anti-liberalism. I fail to see non-German minister in Nazi Germany. Correct me.
I always state that there are problems, some are very severe. Discrimination exists in Israel proper and in Palestinian autonomy, there are mutual hatred and aggression, racist extremists exist and bunch of other problems. But using wrong descriptions just to achieve propaganda advantage is still not right.
Saying that flue is Ebola and treating it like an Ebola will not help nor patient nor its surroundings.



posted on Jan, 24 2009 @ 08:31 PM
link   
reply to post by ZeroKnowledge
 


The point of the article was to illustrate that someone who would have knowlegde of the aparthied in South Africa has drawn a comparison and has stated that what is happening to the Palestinians is worse then anything they endured.

For someone from a place that was subjected to witnessing and being part of such a horrible situation to be shocked by what is happening to the people of Palestine and saying it is worse, says something about the situation.



posted on Jan, 24 2009 @ 08:48 PM
link   
Evil in what sense, that they have great intelligence capability?

Evil in the sense perhaps that they have lost they're way perhaps,

Evil in the way they do not seek truth nor have they the dispensation to administer there judgements in an open and honest way, to all so as to detract from there plight and others plight?

They are stuck in the ways of old, as most all, and we all know those ways, war, degradation, Dominance, predation, sickness of all variety.

Yea the way of old must and will pass, and in replacement the things we hold truely dear Honour, Justice, Humility, and Truth.

Understanding the mindset of oneself is more important than that of the enemies? What fears do i possess? Are these fears valid? Are they Justified?

Now let these things come to pass and fear them not, for we all know that they must come to pass, all that wich make man desolite must be laid to rest.

[edit on 24-1-2009 by leomurray]





top topics
 
2
<< 1   >>

log in

join