Jump to content

I heard the news today, oh boy..

SeanMacGabhann

By SeanMacGabhann
in The Lounge

 Share

Recommended Posts

DaveR

DaveR

Posted
Posted

H, I don't mean to be disrespectful, but have you read much recent Middle Eastern history? The Arab-Israeli conflict is hardly theological in origin.


"A wish to obliterate Israel is no more outrageous than the conviction that you have the right to create your own homeland in someone else's backyard."


Do you really believe this? One the one hand genocide, on the other, a dispute about land rights created at least in part, and some would say the major part, by British indecision/deception over Palestine in the '40s?


I'm not taking sides - I'm pointing out that the default position in this country is ludicrously biased. And there are many words for people who wear kefiyehs to "show their solidarity" whilst never having opened a book on the subject in question, and "w@nker" is probably the politest.

mockney piers

mockney piers

Posted
Posted

"I'm pointing out that the default position in this country is ludicrously biased. And there are many words for people who wear kefiyehs to "show their solidarity" whilst never having opened a book on the subject in question, and "w@nker" is probably the politest."


I actually completely agree with you on this one, much in the same way that Celtic shirt wearing arseholes bleating on about ETA tend to wind me up also.


I actually know quite a few Israelis, and apart from one of them who's something of a hardliner, most of them have a strange ambivalence towards their country which are equal parts pride and shame. And most that I know personally, are of the opinion that a state based upon permanent occupation is unworkable in the long term and resolution through negotiation is something which will happen sooner or later. Interestingly the debate there is much healthier than it is here.

Huguenot

Huguenot

Posted
Posted

Maybe I'm misinformed DaveR, but the opening text of the Israeli proclamation of independence reads as follows:


"Eretz Israel [Hebrew: The Land of Israel] was the birthplace of the Jewish people. Here their spiritual, religious and national identity was formed. Here they achieved independence and created a culture of national and universal significance. Here they wrote and gave the Bible to the world.


"Exiled from their land, the Jewish people remained faithful to it in all the countries of their dispersion, never ceasing to pray and hope for their return and for the restoration in it of their national freedom.


"Impelled by this historic association, Jews strove in every successive generation to to re-establish themselves in their ancient homeland.[...] Loving peace but knowing how to defend itself, they brought the blessing of progress to all inhabitants of the country.


"In the year 5657 (1897), at the summons of the spiritual father of the Jewish State, Theodore Herzl, the First Zionist Congress convened and proclaimed the right of the Jewish people to national rebirth in its own country."


That pretty clearly suggests to me that it was the first Zionist congress who decided that having gone walkabout, the Jewish people faniced their own state, that they were having it where God said they could, and that they were up for a fight.


Given that it's unreasonable for a non-Jewish local to wish to be ruled by Jewish laws, you can see how this can be interpreted as a pretty exsclusive arrangement. You might note that the date is well before any British agreements, and that they make pretty clear that it was their own idea.

DaveR

DaveR

Posted
Posted

Obviously this debate could go on and on


Suffice to say that Herzl himself was neither particularly observant nor motivated by religion, that Zionism almost since day one has been primarily a secular political/nationalist movement (just as the Arab League et al have never been Islamic movements) and that Israel is and always has been essentially a secular state.


The date of the declaration was either on the day or the day after the end of the British mandate - I can't be bothered to check - and was pretty clearly intended as an inspiration/call to arms rather than a practical political statement

mockney piers

mockney piers

Posted
Posted

Just read this:

"An adviser to the [McCain] campaign told The New York Sun that, in a speech to be

delivered in Albuquerque, N.M., the senator will call for an increase in combat

troops and the creation of a special Afghanistan tsar to coordinate policy

toward the country. "There will be a surge for Afghanistan. It will be moving

combat troops in and applying the lessons from Iraq and the strategy that was

successful in Iraq and taking that to Afghanistan," this official said."


Funny on two levels. 1, appointing a tsar to a country that lost a million people trying to get rid of the Russians is very poor use of language, and 2. The success of the surge has nowt to do with the extra troops and much more to do with talking with the enemy and paying them to stop them killing you. Frankly a very pragmatic policy which could very well be successful in Afghanistan. It's just I'm not convinced McCain seems to understand this point and seems to be advocating killing more, not fewer people. Let's hope somebody sets him right.

david_carnell

david_carnell

Posted
Posted

I hear you with the whole "tsar" thing, MP. I've got a feeling it's a meedja term though. The guys real title will be something rather dull like "Administrative Oversight Controller" but that never looks good on paper does it. "TSAR!!" on the other hand reeks of imperial presence. But, yes, the semantic implications of that one haven't really been thought through....


On a lighter note in the American campaign, the Colbert Report (like a funnier version of the Daily Show) has been running a thematic where you have to make McCain more exciting. He gave a speech behind a green background the other week and it's allowed the photoshop nerds out there to play havoc with it; with hilarious results.


Link

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing
  • Advertise Here

  • Latest Discussions

    • Sue
      Cllr Williams to stand down

      By Sue · Posted

      As I said, it was my understanding. I worded it very carefully. I didn't/don't know for sure, so clearly not a fact. And hardly an "opinion", which is something completely different.
    • first mate
      Nasty kids in Peckham Park

      By first mate · Posted

      Also, just to add, the threat to kill someone's dog and try to kick it, is an additional extremely unpleasant layer. I have noticed a lot of the burst water balloons lying around in the park too- that is not great for the environment either.
    • Dulwich dweller
      Cllr Williams to stand down

      By Dulwich dweller · Posted

      Is that a fact or an opinion?
    • Sephiroth
      Cllr Williams to stand down

      By Sephiroth · Posted

      I’m basing it on the fact that Jeremy Corbyn had repeatedly and on record said he is against mandatory vaccinations in any situation, and he wouldn’t disclose wether he had the Covid vaccine himself    as I said. Not as bad as his brother but very definitely a bit weird about the whole thing. Just say you had the vaccination Jeremy, say that everyone should and stop being weird in the middle of a global pandemic    it’s the same slippery evasive nonsense about Brexit and him. About Putin poisonings and him.     if you are happy with his evasiveness then you do you.  But there is a reason the country wouldn’t get behind him 

East Dulwich Forum

Established in 2006, we are an online community discussion forum for people who live, work in and visit SE22.

Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...