Meanwhile in Palestine

[Orogun01]

 

The Swedish Left would seem unconcievably irreligious and LGBTQ- friendly for an American, so I don't understand how anyone in their right mind could ever believe that orthodox Muslims would vote for them.

 

On the other hand it might very well be true that Arabs vote for parties to the Left consistently. That is because a lot of the refugees who come from the Middle East has historically been irreligious, socialist or even communist, persecuted in the countries they've fled from.

And it would seem that you've answered your own question, correctly I might add. Another reason that they'll vote for the Left is because the Left is interested in showing its--*AHEM*--moral superiority through the enlightened values of tolerance and multi-culturalism. The Right would, quite sensibly, tell the damned Third Worlders to shape up or go back where they came from and that's not something that the Third Worlders care to hear.

 

Personally, I'd begin the mass deportations immediately and shoot dead any who resisted. These people have no interest in becoming Swedes--embracing your ways and mores; rather, they wish to intimidate and come to dominate Sweden. This is nothing less than an invasion by a hostile people and should be treated as such.

I'm sorry but I'm going to have to call your credentials into question, because I really can believe that someone from Michigan knows more about Sweden than someone from Stockholm. 

[Tsuga C]

I'm sorry but I'm going to have to call your credentials into question, because I really can believe that someone from Michigan knows more about Sweden than someone from Stockholm.

I read a fair bit and the Left world 'round has certain conceits in common, so I'm confident that I'm quite close to the mark.

[JFSOCC]

Funny how much you can disagree with someone's politics and while still liking them.

[Rostere]

 

I'd say there's nothing "Swedish" to keep, so...

 

Interesting. Care to elaborate? Like what is typically Swedish? Or German, French, English, Japanese or Chinese? For example, should Scotland declare itself independent from the UK? Why or why not? 

 

It is still somewhat topic-related since it goes back on how you should identify an Israeli/Palestinian nationstate.

 

When I've removed all the stuff which I consider traits of any advanced democracy, I don't really know what's Swedish, that's my point.

 

If the Scottish feel oppressed by the English I think that they should declare independence. But if I were a (true) Scotsman today I'd probably think that was not the case.

 

In a larger perspective, I think that countries should approach each other and try to unite instead of splitting apart, which is why I'm for one single democratic state on the land of Israel/Palestine. Even if the Scottish were actually oppressed by the English I would as a Scotsman view my declaration of independence as a tragedy and a temporary historical setback rather than a victory.

 

 

The Swedish Left would seem unconcievably irreligious and LGBTQ- friendly for an American, so I don't understand how anyone in their right mind could ever believe that orthodox Muslims would vote for them.

 

On the other hand it might very well be true that Arabs vote for parties to the Left consistently. That is because a lot of the refugees who come from the Middle East has historically been irreligious, socialist or even communist, persecuted in the countries they've fled from.

And it would seem that you've answered your own question, correctly I might add. Another reason that they'll vote for the Left is because the Left is interested in showing its--*AHEM*--moral superiority through the enlightened values of tolerance and multi-culturalism. The Right would, quite sensibly, tell the damned Third Worlders to shape up or go back where they came from and that's not something that the Third Worlders care to hear.

 

Personally, I'd begin the mass deportations immediately and shoot dead any who resisted. These people have no interest in becoming Swedes--embracing your ways and mores; rather, they wish to intimidate and come to dominate Sweden. This is nothing less than an invasion by a hostile people and should be treated as such.

 

Just don't conflate "Muslim" and "Arab" which are not at all the same thing. Actually, most of the actively believing Muslims in Sweden are probably from Somalia and Eritrea, so, they're really Africans. I have an entirely different perspective compared to yours. I would rather liken Sweden to an incubator to which religious Somali families (for example) come, and when they leave (which they have been doing in increasing numbers since the situation in Somalia has stabilized), their children have grown up with McDonalds, European and American TV shows and movies, and clothing from Nike, Levi's and Adidas. So when they come back to Somalia they are imprinted with Western culture and when they look around themselves they are going to compare Somalia critically with a modern democracy.

 

It's no hidden fact that immigrants from the Middle East have strengthened the position of the left- wing radical "Vänsterpartiet" (the formerly Communist party, furthest to the left in the Swedish parliament). But that has only led to that they are polling a stable 5% which does not look to increase today, they're a very marginal party which has never been part of any Swedish government. As long as immigrants respect democracy, they're fine with me.

 

Also, I just want to say that I've made some generalizations - of course not all Arab refugees are PKK Kurds or from other left- wing movements, but they do vote for these parties more often than today's Swedes do. If that's a Global Left conspiracy to you, fine, to me it's a side effect of a humanitarian refugee policy. Also, Sweden has had a Rightist government since 2006, so if it is a conspiracy, it's failed miserably.

[Rostere]

So, coming up: http://forward.com/articles/172475/aipac-tries-to-brand-israel-as-liberal-cause/

 

AIPAC, the lobbying bureau of the "pro-Israel" right-wing, now tries increasingly to sell their "pro-Israel" stance to liberals instead of conservatives.

 

They've probably made their math about which party the next president will come from. Also, I read an article some time back which detailed a trip some Chinese students made to Israel, probably organized by another lobbying institute.

 

What do you think, will "pro-Israel" groups manage to shift their PR efforts when the power shifts in the world?

[Wrath of Dagon]

It's ridiculous to call AIPAC right wing. You do know that 2/3 of American Jews vote Democrat, right?

[Rostere]

It's ridiculous to call AIPAC right wing. You do know that 2/3 of American Jews vote Democrat, right?

 

I definitely know that. Let me make a clarification: AIPAC's views on the Israeli-Palestine reflect those of the Israeli Right (Likud, mainly).

 

So, I didn't mean to connect them to a Left-Right scale in American politics. I'm sorry if that bit was a little unclear.

 

Nonetheless, in recent history Republicans seem to have been the ones in American politics who are closest to Likud - but you're right, it might have only appeared that way during the recent election due to Netanyahu's support for Romney.

 

So what do you think, WoD? It's my impression that AIPAC's views are held my most Republicans, but incidents like this show that Democrats have another take on the issue. Do you think it's possible to change?

[TrashMan]

 

 

I would rather liken Sweden to an incubator to which religious Somali families (for example) come, and when they leave (which they have been doing in increasing numbers since the situation in Somalia has stabilized), their children have grown up with McDonalds, European and American TV shows and movies, and clothing from Nike, Levi's and Adidas. So when they come back to Somalia they are imprinted with Western culture and when they look around themselves they are going to compare Somalia critically with a modern democracy.

 

Hooray?

 

All glory to the superior western culture and consumerism?

[HoonDing]

Better that than stoning and burying people alive.

[Wrath of Dagon]

 

It's ridiculous to call AIPAC right wing. You do know that 2/3 of American Jews vote Democrat, right?

 

I definitely know that. Let me make a clarification: AIPAC's views on the Israeli-Palestine reflect those of the Israeli Right (Likud, mainly).

 

So, I didn't mean to connect them to a Left-Right scale in American politics. I'm sorry if that bit was a little unclear.

 

Nonetheless, in recent history Republicans seem to have been the ones in American politics who are closest to Likud - but you're right, it might have only appeared that way during the recent election due to Netanyahu's support for Romney.

 

So what do you think, WoD? It's my impression that AIPAC's views are held my most Republicans, but incidents like this show that Democrats have another take on the issue. Do you think it's possible to change?

I think centrist Democrats are mostly pro-Israel, and certainly most Democrat members of Congress are. But the further to the left you get in the Democratic party, the more anti-Israel they become. The party activists in both parties are more extreme than the party itself, and that's who tends to go to the conventions, so that's what you saw at the Democratic convention (plus they're Obama delegates, another indicator of their left wing tendencies). I don't think most Democrats would've booed God either.

[JFSOCC]

My views on Palestine are irrespective of my political leanings.

[Rostere]

 

 

It's ridiculous to call AIPAC right wing. You do know that 2/3 of American Jews vote Democrat, right?

 

I definitely know that. Let me make a clarification: AIPAC's views on the Israeli-Palestine reflect those of the Israeli Right (Likud, mainly).

 

So, I didn't mean to connect them to a Left-Right scale in American politics. I'm sorry if that bit was a little unclear.

 

Nonetheless, in recent history Republicans seem to have been the ones in American politics who are closest to Likud - but you're right, it might have only appeared that way during the recent election due to Netanyahu's support for Romney.

 

So what do you think, WoD? It's my impression that AIPAC's views are held my most Republicans, but incidents like this show that Democrats have another take on the issue. Do you think it's possible to change?

I think centrist Democrats are mostly pro-Israel, and certainly most Democrat members of Congress are. But the further to the left you get in the Democratic party, the more anti-Israel they become. The party activists in both parties are more extreme than the party itself, and that's who tends to go to the conventions, so that's what you saw at the Democratic convention (plus they're Obama delegates, another indicator of their left wing tendencies). I don't think most Democrats would've booed God either.

 

I don't really like the "pro-Israel" label. You might have noticed that I've used quotation marks on that word in older posts, as I find most current uses of the word rather misleading. "pro-Israel" seems today to be synonymous with "pro-Likud", which is about as bizarre as if I would call you anti-American because you disagree with Obama's policies.

 

I don't think there's a single anti-Israel politician in the American congress by my definition of the word. Those masked far-left demonstrators you saw in the video above are probably anti-Israel, though.

 

There's an awful inflation going on regarding the meanings of words such as "anti-Semitic" and "pro-Israel", which for example Chuck Hagel's hearings showed.

[Walsingham]

 

I'd say there's nothing "Swedish" to keep, so...

 

Interesting. Care to elaborate? Like what is typically Swedish? Or German, French, English, Japanese or Chinese? For example, should Scotland declare itself independent from the UK? Why or why not? 

 

It is still somewhat topic-related since it goes back on how you should identify an Israeli/Palestinian nationstate.

 

I'd care to run with the ball on this one point. I've been going beyond my normal stamping grounds - 19th Century Britain - as far back as the 1500s. My country is fething bonkers.

 

And yet, here we are, a tiny landmass, without whom one cannot explain almost any significant historical happenstance of the last 500 years!

 

Why? Because we are a nation. I don't suggest we are a logically founded nation. If anything perhaps we share much with Israel. We exist by virtue of our fiery opponents: Spain, France, Germany. Nations who have all undergone clamity, while we endured.

 

Apologies for an unfocused post. But I shall flatter the forum by expecting you to make sense of what I cannot.

[Wrath of Dagon]

Hamas got huge mileage out of this, few people will read the retraction: http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/un-report-errant-palestinian-rocket-most-likely-killed-gaza-baby-in-november-clash/2013/03/11/b9ecd652-8a58-11e2-a88e-461ffa2e34e4_story.html

[Zoraptor]

Wait, let me guess. It's the UN report saying that Hamas accidentally blew up a BBC reporters home based on... absolutely no evidence whatsoever and without even visiting the home at the time? The one where 'unofficial' Israeli sources actually admitted it was their strike (which I bet won't be mentioned) and Hamas/ other militants did not apologise as they do in all other cases of friendly fire? The one which occurred when Israel said there had been no rocket launches from Gaza at the time? That one?

 

(Yep, it's that one, and no the WP strangely didn't mention any of the counter evidence. I'm sure it's an oversight)

[Wrath of Dagon]

It's funny how your information is always more reliable than the UN's. Also the article does present plenty of evidence. And why would Hamas apologize for something that's a huge propaganda coup for them and they're blaming on Israel? Really your logic needs some work.

[Zoraptor]

My logic needs no work whatsoever, all that stuff was reported extensively at the time. The UN- heh, nice to see you defending them- report presents no actual prima facie evidence, didn't talk to the primary people effected, visited the site 4 weeks (!) late and ignores that both 'unofficial' Israeli sources said it was them and Israel said there were zero (Palestinian) missile launches at that time. The UN can speculate like a truther in a Montanan log cabin all it wants, when it comes to actual evidence its conclusions are clearly incorrect- or Israel lied twice for absolutely no benefit (and rather a lot of negative).

[Rostere]

I wouldn't be surprised if Hamas' rockets hit "friendly targets". They aren't exactly known for their accuracy. The large majority of all rockets hit nothing and the very few which manage to hit something (in Israel) kill more Bedouins than Jewish Israelis, which could hardly be the intent of those firing.

 

That said, it appears there was never really any hard evidence for either case in this matter. I guess people just assumed from the start they had been killed by Israeli fire (we're talking about Gaza after all), and a later investigation showed that there could have been other possibilities. We really need more information to be able to shed any light on the matter, so I guess it's kind of pointless to discuss right now.

[Agiel]

Those rockets aren't too far-removed from the Katyusha rockets from the Second World War. Even then (as well as with its immediate successor, the BM-21 Grad), their conceit was volume of fire and mobility rather than accuracy.

Edited March 17, 2013 by Agiel

[Rostere]

So, I was thinking of updating this thread with some current thoughts and events. I think it's OK to revive a one- month old thread?

 

Here's a story of a Palestinian who was released during the Gilad Shalit prisoner exchange (that is, deported to Gaza), and recently offered $60,000 for throwing a grenade or shooting at Israeli soldiers. To me it's a fascinating insight into what motivates people into doing these attacks. I've always thought that most people were motivated by their beliefs and not by money, but apparently that is not always the case. I wonder how many of these attacks are actually motivated by money in part or in whole, at least we can tell that there's no shortage of money to buy them.

 

Here's an article on the confusion about what really makes a "hawk" or a "dove" in Israeli politics, and the errors of having a "black or white" approach to this. For example, the Israeli PM who was the closest ever to achieving peace (in 1995) was a retired army general and the chief of staff who won the war in 1967. Israel's current president whom the media portrays as naive and dovish, was the one who originally initiated Israel's nuclear weapons program. Nationalist movements are trying to make the occupation of the West Bank seem like an issue of national defense, which it fundamentally is not - it's a human rights and international law issue.

[Nepenthe]

It depends on exactly what 'based on a certain race' means. There are plenty- just about all, really- countries in Europe which are based on the geographical lines of a 'certain race'- anglo saxons speaking english, celts speaking french, germans speaking german, bulgars speaking bulgarian, turks speaking turkish etc. There's no intrinsic problem with it as a concept, sometimes there are problems with the application, and the tendency to stick with and lionise what you know and are familiar with is certainly a key trait in humanity.

 

These countries will always have borders where the lines become fuzzy, at the very least. There are also successful examples of multilingual countries...

 

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Nb_mH4Q4mw

 

I just can't think of anything else when I see this thread. Damn you Oby!

[Rostere]

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2013/06/20136104317486359.html

 

So, apparently a mass grave in Tel Aviv from the 1948 civil war in Israel/Palestine has been rediscovered. I hope that this will be able to shed some light on what happened during those turbulent days.

 

Some Israeli leaders partially acknowledged that the murder of civilians had occured, but made the excuse that the Palestinians had brought it upon themselves, by the threats of the Arab leaders. Since the state of Israel did not exist as such and did not have a wholly unified standing army in 1948 (but rather a set of armed militias), no one would eventually be held responsible for any war crimes.

 

Starting from somewhere around the late 90s there has been a new revisionist movement which holds that the main reason for the Palestinian exodus from current Israel was not the threat of violence, but orders from Arab leaders - the version which is now taught in today's schools. The important aspect of this stance is the implicit denial of the right of return for Palestinian refugees.

 

To give concrete examples of the effect of this changing perspective on history, a law which was introduced in 2009 allows no government money to be given to organizations or institutions which "deny that Israel is a Jewish state, the state of the Jewish people", "criticize the democratic nature of Israel", "dishonor the prophet Muhammad the national flag or the national symbol" or - relevant here - commemorates the day of mourning for the 1948 Palestinian casualties and refugees. Although this far, the law has only been applied very cautiously (partly because of dissent from within the judicial branch...), the potential effects on society are very chilling. If tomorrow's judges will come from today's growing group of young far-right nationalists, that seems unavoidable.

 

I hope that this (re-)discovery will create a more accurate depiction of history with the help of modern radiocarbon dating, and bring together Israeli and Palestinian views upon the matter.