Emotional outbursts don’t help you convince anyone of your platform in a debate, apart from making you look like a person who wishes to remain ignorant to all but your own provided “truth.â€
I did not know this debate reaches an academic level. My bad. I will say when something is bullshit. You should try it, too.
Resorting to character assassination?
No, I'm being unnecessarily aggressive.
The major acts of violence, the elements that would have made newspaper headlines, certainly were recorded. But that was not the original accusation I wrote my reply too.
Smaller acts of violence are recorded too. People don't remain, silent, tailz. Nonetheless. The violence is IRRELEVANT.
Until you can provide me with the date, time, names of the individuals, and the circumstance of their actions, then I would be more than willing to change my stance on this issue in relation to Nets comment.
This is irrelevant as the "first violence" took more of a local character, criminal character, and didn't bear any international strife, while the "massive violence" was more organized, or started from "above".
If we are talking of specific events, such as the actual conflict of arms, soldiers verse soldiers – in that case, yes indeed the Arabs started the conflict. They sent in their military forces and commenced invasion. But your not making a proposal of such limited confides, your proposing that it was the Arabs who started the conflict, as a whole. That it was Arabs who by their actions shed the first drop of Jewish blood. And in that instance, I disagree with you. Although each side is more than willing to point an accusing finger at the other and claim “They started it.†I do not agree, the conflict has been going on at such a low key level before soldiers were mustered to the field of battle, that identity of those who first took up arms against each other, is lost to the shadows of history. I doubt it was even written down. Who knows, it may have just been two thugs beating the snot out of each other in a back alley argument over who has the right to be where.
It is not lost to the shadows of history, and this is where I disagree with you. Frankly, I have never proposed what you are accusing me of. I have always agreed to the fact that its mainly the nature of the Jew, and his connection to Eretz Israel, Arab intransigence, pride and Imperial power politics that has brought this about. If Arabs and Jews were "more compatible" this problem of "difference" could've been solved long ago. The fact remains, though, that Jews do not want to live under Arab rule, unless you want to relegate the nature of this area to tribal conflict, and will create a "pure" Jewish country for Jews, regardless of its "inhumanity".
The fact of who killed who first is indeed irrelevant today. Yet being able to claim that “That started it†still seems to carry a lot of emotional baggage, even today.
I'd say the Jews started it by inviting the Romans to come "bring peace" to Judea, or whatever Jews did which resulted in inevitable destruction. "It is I who invites destruction upon myself."
I say, and I think you agree with me, that pointing fingers is somewhat useless. I'll tell you a secret that people here don't point the finger that much at the others, but at themselves. This is the nature of the Jew. This disqualifies all the fearing, scared people, who think all their problems are because of "them".
So what do you plan to do about it then? How do you plan to make good, what was made wrong? Whatever that may be?
As of now, I don't plan anything. I just study, and am depressed, and have a hard time getting out of bed. All I can do is try to understand. The more I learn, though, the more I see the futility in everything. Tailz, Australia will never happen here. It's multi-cultural but instead of being a mixing bowl (the Jewish contingent is a mixing bowl as all Jewish cultures from around the globe are eventually converging into one, it's amazing, frankly... I was in the bus yesterday and in one corner EVERY person could speak 2-3 languages (same people were mixing either finnish, english, hebrew, spanish in same sentences etc) . One girl I was with, speaks 5.
:D) but Arab and Jew have this weird "agreement" of not just living with each other. Then again, earlier in Tel Aviv, I did spot one of my school mates, who's an Arab, and went to say hi to her. These days, it's mainly the Jew who acts arrogantly toward the lowly Arab, but it's not that self-explanatory. Arabs are feared because they "hate us" which is true if you're a soldier and walk though any West Bank town, but it is not true There is no question. I heard that Arabs have been moving into Jewish areas of Jerusalem, and its creating problems. I wouldn't care less, but the "Jews are afraid of the Arabs coming". It's like 70 years ago, but reversed!
Your history of written article on PoFo and the side you support.
It is not obvious. What I am on PoFo is only one part of me, and it's really not me.
I’d rather have the whole story, and the background events that accompany all these other events. I don’t want tunnel vision!
I understand...
Is that enough to break the stereo type for you?
I usually shy away from stereotype, as it doesn't correspond to reality, nonetheless giving some sort of rhetorical compass in conversation. I could give many stereotypes about Jews, and they'll most likely be accurate in some way, but it's only half of the story!
Whichever is which, that is exactly my point. There are elements of good and evil in both sides of this conflict. There has been Palestinians intent on launching rockets into Israel, while Zionist Settlers tow shipping containers onto Palestinian land to create instant settlements. Yet there have been movements made up of Israeli and Palestinian teachers trying to peacefully bridge the gap. This is not a conflict of light and dark, but many shades of grey.
No, it's a conflict between light and dark. The grey are in the middle, and the dark lighted darkness, which is me, will destroy everything. I am the harbringer of doom!
Certainly the history of Australia is a little sparse for a historian, considering white settlement is only 200+ years old, but still that’s quite a bit there alone, but I live here so I don’t find it as interesting as somewhere I’ve not been too. But I think the thing that attracts me to study the history of the conflict is that it is controversial – and thus, so much more interesting to find out the reality behind the rhetoric.
What I find interesting and fascinating on your part is that you are actively interested but have never been "fanatical" about either side, which is wonderful. You possess a rare view of the situation, because you don't possess either sides dogma, allegiance or irrational behavior and emotional ties.
- By ingliz
- By Potemkin
- By Puffer Fish