Why I support Israel...and why you should, too

[Caladan]

This doesn't make any sense. What does the pluses of the Israeli government, to its own citizens, has to do with supporting it wholeheartedly, disregarding its genocidal behavior against Palestinians.

To me the equation is very obvious. Israeli society should be a natural default for people with the same interests. for example (but not exclusive) secular society, democracy, the push for equality in various sectors around the developed world, I wasn't really talking about supporting anyone 'wholeheartedly', but I can certainly understand where such support may come from, when people see the conditions in the societies around Israel, and the social debates in Israel, they feel much more related to the social debates in Israel, for example same sex marriage and gay rights are a very hot issue today around the world, people who want to see gay rights around the world may find themselves gravitating towards Israel in that regard, being that the majority of Israeli citizens support same sex marriage, does that mean that these people have a hatred for the Palestinians? no.

You need to see the difference between opposing certain leaders or parties and individuals, and opposing the whole idea of Israel's leadership. In other words, those who have committed genocides against Palestinians, and the ones who killed children and the ones who continue to this very day to take more land, and inflict collective punishments on people,

First, I think I need to make it clear, that after living here for 31 years, I dont know of any 'genocide'. I know of a conflict, and yes I know of harsh measures by Israeli cabinets, I will easily feel uncomfortable about various Israeli policies, but I think that believing there is a genocide is a poor understanding of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I think that if we had genocide, there would not be terror attacks and rockets launched at Israeli towns for years because the Palestinian ressistance and indeed the Palestinian people themselves would be utterly crushed.

must be opposed and put in their place. However, that doesn't mean that Israel needs to be opposed whole heartedly. Nothing justifies overlooking the downside of the acts of the Israeli government. This thread proposes preposterous reasons to support Israel, and either overlooks the downside, or actually blame it on Palestinians, or Islam. You are not putting in mind what have been said in this thread while voicing your opinion, and not putting in mind whats proposed here.

To be honest I was not aiming any of my posts at the Original post of the thread, I was tackling issues which sprang out further into the thread.

Lebanon is very unstable, and it has problems with Israel, and huge conflicts from within. Thats why my insistence on clarifying that this is not how it is in the rest of the Arab countries.

We have already discussed the thousands of Palestinians who have been killed by the Jordanian army, and the hundreds of thousands who have been expelled in various Arab states.

Don't you think its kind of misleading to even state the two in one sentence?

Egypt is not an enemy at all to Palestinians to start with, and as weak of a help as Egypt is, it still helps. There are incidents that occurred and conflicts but mainly with Hamas.

No, I think its highly relevant, because it shows that despite the criticism of the Israeli blockade, it is not only the Israeli government which believes in using a blockade on the Gaza strip in order to cripple the Hamas leadership, the other nation which borders the Gaza strip, Egypt also enforces a blockade because they see it as important to their own security interests.

Here is once again you present things in a strange way. The death of hundred of thousands of Palestinians and the expulsion of Palestinians are a couple of incidents that happened like more than thirty years ago. The poor conditions and discrimination against Palestinians is the thing that still goes on today.

I am talking about events that happened during the 70s, the 80s, the 90s, and today. and they are certainly not a couple of incidents. I get the strange feeling that you use a dramatic standard when its Israel, and that you downplay the Palestinian issue when it comes to Arab states.

Also, the thread mainly is supposed to be about reasons to support Israel. If we are going to explore all things, which i wouldn't mind, then we must also discuss what Israel does in details.

If we are indeed discussing the Palestinian issue, than I think it is only just and fair that we address all important angles.

 

[FlyingTeaPot]

the mughal soldiers used to forcefully take women the day they become widows, as slaves. So came the custom of 'sati' by which, women could jump into funeral fire of her husband to rescue herself from mughals.

I was responding to this claim of yours. You stated that " ....so came the custom of 'sati'....", which seems to imply that sati came about as the result of mughals, which is false. It may be true that the first recorded instance of mass sati was when mughals invaded india, but not that they started this practice. They, in fact, tried to ban sati.

it is the mass sati, there were no incident of mass sati before the arrival of mughals.

Before the muslim army could enter the fort to rape and take captive the Hindu women as sex slaves, the Hindu women performed sati - a now uncommon Hindu practice of self immolation in a funeral pyre - to save their honour. This is the first recorded incident of Sati in mass numbers

references

1) The Great Moghuls, By B.Gascoigne, Harper Row Publishers, New York, 1972, p.15

2) Same as ref. 1, pp. 68-75

3) The Cambridge History of India, Vol. IV, Mughal India, ed. Lt. Col. Sir W.Haig, Sir R.Burn, S,Chand & Co., Delhi, 1963, pp. 71-73

4) The Builders of The Mogul Empire, By M.Prawdin, Barnes & Noble Inc, New York, 1965, pp. 127-28

5) Same as ref. 1, pp. 88-93

6) Same as ref. 3. pp. 97-99

7) Same as ref. 4, pp. 137-38

8) An Advanced History of India, by R.C.Majumdar, H.C.Raychoudhury, K.Datta, MacMillen & Co., London, 2nd Ed, 1965, pp. 448-450

9) Encyclopedia Britannica, 15 th Ed, Vol.21, 1967, p.65

10) Same as ref. 1, p. 85

the ditry mughal muslims *****, many muslims today are ashamed for their bloody ancestors.

Before you get all red in the face about the muslims, do not ignore the crimes of hindus against other hindus. The caste system was and continues to be brutal towards 60-80% of hindus. You seem to ignore hindus mistreating each other, but get all worked up as soon as any outsiders do the same to hindus. Hypocrisy much? you should be ashamed of the millions of hindus today, much less your ancestors.

 

[Badran]

To me the equation is very obvious. Israeli society should be a natural default for people with the same interests. for example (but not exclusive) secular society, democracy, the push for equality in various sectors around the developed world, I wasn't really talking about supporting anyone 'wholeheartedly', but I can certainly understand where such support may come from, when people see the conditions in the societies around Israel, and the social debates in Israel, they feel much more related to the social debates in Israel, for example same sex marriage and gay rights are a very hot issue today around the world, people who want to see gay rights around the world may find themselves gravitating towards Israel in that regard, being that the majority of Israeli citizens support same sex marriage, does that mean that these people have a hatred for the Palestinians? no.

The Israeli society and government are not the same, thats what i'm saying. If people relate to the Israeli society, thats not what i'm objecting to. But to support the government with no objections is a different story.

First, I think I need to make it clear, that after living here for 31 years, I dont know of any 'genocide'. I know of a conflict, and yes I know of harsh measures by Israeli cabinets, I will easily feel uncomfortable about various Israeli policies, but I think that believing there is a genocide is a poor understanding of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I think that if we had genocide, there would not be terror attacks and rockets launched at Israeli towns for years because the Palestinian ressistance and indeed the Palestinian people themselves would be utterly crushed.

This kind of talk won't help us reach anything.

And calling whats done harsh measures doesn't come any way near a fair assessment. May be genocide is not the most fair or accurate to say, but calling it mere harsh measures is not fair at all. Would you call it criminal acts? and disgusting things? I'm talking about killing civilians and destroying lives, killing children and women, deriving people out of their homes, taking more land to this very day.

To be honest I was not aiming any of my posts at the Original post of the thread, I was tackling issues which sprang out further into the thread.

Okay.

We have already discussed the thousands of Palestinians who have been killed by the Jordanian army, and the hundreds of thousands who have been expelled in various Arab states.

Yes thousands killed in one incident that happened more than thirty years ago, and its called black september or something, its shameful. And hundreds of thousands expelled also happened a long time ago. What is still happening today and in recent times, is the poor conditions for refugees, and apparently some criminal incidents in Lebanon. Perhaps there may be a bit more, but still lumping all this together as happening today is not fair.

No, I think its highly relevant, because it shows that despite the criticism of the Israeli blockade, it is not only the Israeli government which believes in using a blockade on the Gaza strip in order to cripple the Hamas leadership, the other nation which borders the Gaza strip, Egypt also enforces a blockade because they see it as important to their own security interests.

I didn't mean mentioning the blockade, i meant the killings part. As for the blockade. There is more than one possibility here, with putting in mind certain things. First, we must put in mind that Egypt does help Palestinians, in more than one way (but not doing a good job at it). Second, for the reasons, there are speculations, and i'm not sure to be honest. Some of those who criticize Egypt for this, actually say that this is done under pressure from the US and Israel, which would be quite treasonous to say the least. Another possibility is that it is done not as a punishment, but rather because of problems i'm sure you're aware of. In that case, whilst this would be quite disgusting, but at least we do help to an extent.

I am talking about events that happened during the 70s, the 80s, the 90s, and today. and they are certainly not a couple of incidents. I get the strange feeling that you use a dramatic standard when its Israel, and that you downplay the Palestinian issue when it comes to Arab states.

In an earlier part of this post i answer this.

I would add though, it doesn't interest me at all to defend Arab countries. I criticize them all the time. And pretty much most if not all of them are not in anyway shape or form good governments or leaders in my opinion. While they vary of course, but none of them is doing a great job, and some of them are doing a terrible job, and a couple are criminals.

 

[nameless]

But doesn't this mean that this was supposedly the first mass sati, as in the first incident in which it is performed in mass numbers rather than the first time it is performed?

I'm asking because i think FlyingTeaPot's point was that sati was not started by muslims. I think this is what he asked.

yes, it is my fault, it is mass sati instead of sati.

 

[nameless]

They, in fact, tried to ban sati.

hello athiest flyiingteapot, imagine the greatness of mughals to ban sati, who enjoyed molesting the wives after killing their husbands. It is quite clear what they aimed by banning sati. Very interesting to see you believing it is due mughal's awareness of women's right.

Before you get all red in the face about the muslims, do not ignore the crimes of hindus against other hindus. The caste system was and continues to be brutal towards 60-80% of hindus. You seem to ignore hindus mistreating each other, but get all worked up as soon as any outsiders do the same to hindus. Hypocrisy much? you should be ashamed of the millions of hindus today, much less your ancestors.

so you should apreciate american soldiers for gangraping iraqi women, because there existed few struggling community before americans arrived there, proof is that some iraqis celebrated execution of saddam, so should be concluded that americans brought peace to iraq. Shia-Sunni conflictions are worst you can find these days, bombings occur everyday... from your explanations i learn that in these situations any non-islam nation has right to conquer and rape women and kill people over there, just because there already existed confliction. You should take a look at history of various nations, especially those of middle east.. there was no peace anywhere. Still the greatest hypocricy to be known is those of some early muslims, their acts cannot be compared to anyothers. They were simply pure bas**rds.
Also Hindus never conquered any nations in the name of religion, while those of islam is very brutal and vulgur. The list of islamic conquest is never ending, and made world history so dirty. Early muslims were curse to humanity.

You claims to be an athiest at the same time you justify all those bloody acts of mughals, which even muslims feels shame to justfiy.

 

[FlyingTeaPot]

hello athiest flyiingteapot, imagine the greatness of mughals to ban sati, who enjoyed molesting the wives after killing their husbands. It is quite clear what they aimed by banning sati. Very interesting to see you believing it is due mughal's awareness of women's right.

I am talking about historical facts. I am not making assumptions about the mughal intentions like you are.
From wikipedia:
Humayun issued a royal fiat against sati, which he later withdrew.
Akbar required that permission be granted by his officials, and these officials were instructed to delay the woman's decision for as long as possible. The reasoning was that she was less likely to choose to die once the emotions of the moment had passed. In the reign of Shah Jahan, widows with children were not allowed to burn under any circumstances . In other cases, governors did not readily give permission, but could be bribed to do so.[52] Later on in the Mughal period, pensions, gifts and rehabilitative help were offered to the potential sati to wean her away from committing the act. Children were strictly forbidden from following the practice. The later Moghul rulers continued to put obstacles in the way but the practice still persisted in areas outside their capitals.

so you should apreciate american soldiers for gangraping iraqi women, because there existed few struggling community before americans arrived there, proof is that some iraqis celebrated execution of saddam, so should be concluded that americans brought peace to iraq. Shia-Sunni conflictions are worst you can find these days, bombings occur everyday... from your explanations i learn that in these situations any non-islam nation has right to conquer and rape women and kill people over there, just because there already existed confliction. You should take a look at history of various nations, especially those of middle east.. there was no peace anywhere. Still the greatest hypocricy to be known is those of some early muslims, their acts cannot be compared to anyothers. They were simply pure bas**rds.
Also Hindus never conquered any nations in the name of religion, while those of islam is very brutal and vulgur. The list of islamic conquest is never ending, and made world history so dirty. Early muslims were curse to humanity.

You claims to be an athiest at the same time you justify all those bloody acts of mughals, which even muslims feels shame to justfiy.

Please point out where I justified these acts of the mughals.
I would stop making so many assumptions and actually read what the other person posts before going on a rant if I were you.

 

[nameless]

I am talking about historical facts. I am not making assumptions about the mughal intentions like you are.
From wikipedia:
Humayun issued a royal fiat against sati, which he later withdrew.
Akbar required that permission be granted by his officials, and these officials were instructed to delay the woman's decision for as long as possible. The reasoning was that she was less likely to choose to die once the emotions of the moment had passed. In the reign of Shah Jahan, widows with children were not allowed to burn under any circumstances . In other cases, governors did not readily give permission, but could be bribed to do so.[52] Later on in the Mughal period, pensions, gifts and rehabilitative help were offered to the potential sati to wean her away from committing the act. Children were strictly forbidden from following the practice. The later Moghul rulers continued to put obstacles in the way but the practice still persisted in areas outside their capitals.

already told in the last post, it is the same mughals who molested womens after killing their husbands but you are claiming mughals were concerned about women's right. Mughals wanted women to live to take them as slave.

When Humayun defeated rebelling Afghans in 1532, Sher Khan came over to his side. The aggressive Bahadur Shah took over Malwa and forced the Rana of Mewat to submit in 1533. His Gujarat army captured Chitor in 1535; the women and children burned themselves in jauhar.

Shah Jahan made Kasim 'Ali Khan governor of Bengal and ordered him to punish the Portuguese. His army besieged Hughli for three months in 1632 and captured the fort. Thousands of Portuguese were killed; prisoners had to accept Islam, and young women were put in harems.

I am not making assumptions about the mughal intentions like you are

assumptions??? you like to see the bloody history of muslim mughals from your own sources, wikipedia?

 

[FlyingTeaPot]

 

[FlyingTeaPot]

already told in the last post, it is the same mughals who molested womens after killing their husbands but you are claiming mughals were concerned about women's right. Mughals wanted women to live to take them as slave.


assumptions??? you like to see the bloody history of muslim mughals from your own sources, wikipedia?

I did not say Mughals were concerned about women's rights. I was speaking of historical facts; that they did try to ban sati. I said further that I don't know what their intention in banning sati was and I was not willing to make an assumption.

Seriously dude, read and understand what is being said.

And tell me where I justified the mughal acts. You seem to ignore inconvenient questions but seem very good at pointing fingers.

 

[nameless]

I did not say Mughals were concerned about women's rights. I was speaking of historical facts; that they did try to ban sati. I said further that I don't know what their intention in banning sati was and I was not willing to make an assumption.

yes, but their intention behind that was so dirty. I believe you have read my previous post, to mughals, women were nothing but slaves. I have no choice to repeat the same question, how can you consider mughals stood for rights of women, when the same mughals molested wives after killing the innocent husband of theirs? where is the assumption here? Mughals did so not for the welfare of women but to get them alive as slaves.

 

[FlyingTeaPot]

yes, but their intention behind that was so dirty. I believe you have read my previous post, to mughals, women were nothing but slaves. I have no choice to repeat the same question, how can you consider mughals stood for rights of women, when the same mughals molested wives after killing the innocent husband of theirs? where is the assumption here? Mughals did so not for the welfare of women but to get them alive as slaves.

Again, FOR THE HUNDREDTH TIME, WHEN DID I EVER SAY THAT I CONSIDERED MUGHALS STOOD FOR WOMEN'S RIGHTS? PLEASE SHOW ME WHERE I JUSTIFIED THEIR ACTS OR CONDONED THEM IN ANY WAY. YOU SEEM UTTERLY INCAPABLE OF UNDERSTANDING SIMPLE SENTENCES.

I SIMPLY POINTED OUT THAT IT WAS A HISTORICAL FACT THAT MUGHALS TRIED TO BAN SATI. THIS DOES NOT MEAN I SUPPORT THE MUGHALS OR THAT THEIR INTENTIONS WERE GOOD IN BANNING SATI.

TO MAKE IT UTTERLY CLEAR SO THAT YOU UNDERSTAND ME, I DO NOT CONDONE ANY VIOLENCE AGAINST ANYONE, BE IT MUSLIMS OR HINDUS OR CHRISTIANS OR ANY OTHER RELIGION, RACE OR CREED.

 

[nameless]

Again, FOR THE HUNDREDTH TIME, WHEN DID I EVER SAY THAT I CONSIDERED MUGHALS STOOD FOR WOMEN'S RIGHTS? PLEASE SHOW ME WHERE I JUSTIFIED THEIR ACTS OR CONDONED THEM IN ANY WAY. YOU SEEM UTTERLY INCAPABLE OF UNDERSTANDING SIMPLE SENTENCES.

I SIMPLY POINTED OUT THAT IT WAS A HISTORICAL FACT THAT MUGHALS TRIED TO BAN SATI. THIS DOES NOT MEAN I SUPPORT THE MUGHALS OR THAT THEIR INTENTIONS WERE GOOD IN BANNING SATI.

TO MAKE IT UTTERLY CLEAR SO THAT YOU UNDERSTAND ME, I DO NOT CONDONE ANY VIOLENCE AGAINST ANYONE, BE IT MUSLIMS OR HINDUS OR CHRISTIANS OR ANY OTHER RELIGION, RACE OR CREED.

It has absolutely nothing to do with the muslims or the mughal empire. In fact, the mughals tried to ban the practice of sati.

Not explaining the full story about why mughal's tried to ban sati, it does certainly mean mughal's did some good for the women.

 

[FlyingTeaPot]

This certainly does give mughals a clean image.

You had said earlier that sati came about as a result of mughals, which was what prompted me to post that they had nothing to do with the practive of sati, and that they had tried to ban it, which are historical facts, not opinions.

 

[FlyingTeaPot]

Bot not explaining the full story about why mughal's tried to ban sati, you attempted to give mughal's a clean image.

I don't know why the mughals tried to ban sati. Which is why I said about 3 times already that I am not making assumptions about why they did it. If me presenting only the facts seems inconvenient to you, tough luck. I certainly did not attempt to give mughals a clean image. In fact, I despise those mughals who raped innocent women. Jeez louise!

 

[nameless]

You had said earlier that sati came about as a result of mughals, which was what prompted me to post that they had nothing to do with the practive of sati, and that they had tried to ban it, which are historical facts, not opinions.

i already accepted it was my fault, actually it was mass sati instead of sati, which is more worst.

 

[FlyingTeaPot]

Not explaining the full story about why mughal's tried to ban sati, it does certainly mean mughal's did some good for the women, while they were cruel than cannibal's.

Again, I don't know why they did it. From what I have learnt on this topic so far, the later mughal emperors (after humayun) did try to ban sati with good intentions. I will find the sources and post them when I do.

I will agree with you that the early turko-afghani invaders were indeed cruel to women and men (around 700 AD).

 

[nameless]

I don't know why the mughals tried to ban sati. Which is why I said about 3 times already that I am not making assumptions about why they did it. If me presenting only the facts seems inconvenient to you, tough luck. I certainly did not attempt to give mughals a clean image. In fact, I despise those mughals who raped innocent women. Jeez louise!

knowing how bloody was mughal's, when it comes to their attitude towards women, it is certainly awful to say im making assumptions.

 

[FlyingTeaPot]

i already accepted it was my fault, actually it was mass sati instead of sati, which is more worst.

well, alright then. I did not know you had accepted it was a mistake, my apologies. Perhaps your post was not directed at me.

 

[FlyingTeaPot]

knowing how bloody was mughal's, when it comes to their attitude towards women, it is certainly awful to say im making assumptions.

Yes, they were bad to women, but to say that they tried to ban sati solely for the purpose of raping those women is of course an assumption.

 

[nameless]

Yes, they were bad to women, but to say that they tried to ban sati solely for the purpose of raping those women is of course an assumption.

not an assumption, it requires only minimum common sense to understand that, mughal's who enjoyed molesting women have no respect for women and are cold blooded. Where is the possibility for the same mughal's to stand for women's rights? Also should not forget the craving mind for women of mughals.