The zionist questionFollow

How do you know?

My gramps was a Mason. I never knew it until his funeral (all sorts of funky ceremony went on).

I recall being instructed as a child (I'm pretty sure it was at sunday school) that the eye represented God watching over us. There were a couple bible versus to go along with that notion. Creeped me out.




Edited, Aug 3rd 2011 4:17pm by Elinda

Conceptually, the all seeing eye goes back to Egyptian religiousitousness, so I think it's safe to say the symbolism is (and wasn't intended to be on the Great Seal) Christian-specific.

Secret Coptics.

Little know fact, Mohamed is the Joseph Smith of Islam.

No. I think human rights are being violated because they are. It has nothing to do with who owns the land and everything to do with the giant wall, and restricting the movement of people based on their ethnicity and killing innocent people as "collateral damage" against terrorists.

While I recognize that these acts are being perpetuated because the Israelis want to feel "safe" they are no more useful than the rockets that the Palestinians are shooting - when you punish innocent people for the wrongs done by others you create a situation where people feel aggrieved and are much more likely to engage in those acts which make you feel less safe. It is a viscous cycle and Israel is just as guilty as the Palestinians when it comes to perpetuating it.

Where in my post did I say "the Palestinians should own the land. As a result Israel is wrong to deny it to them, their attacks on Israel are justified, and Israel's actions to defend themselves and/or hold onto the land is a violation of the Palestinians rights"? I didn't, and I don't agree with that statement, so please don't put words in my mouth.

I simply believe people should be considered innocent until proven guilty, given the right of habeas corpus, and allowed free movement unless they are convicted of a crime. Living in Gaza isn't a crime - or it shouldn't be - but almost everyone in that place is being treated poorly - having access to basic things which have nothing to do with war restricted, and not allowed to move about freely.

I don't believe in collective punishment, period. Engaging in collective punishment (whereby everyone who happens to live somewhere or belong to a certain ethnic group is subjected to restrictions or has their freedoms curtailed) is a violation of human rights.

It doesn't matter who has a right to the land - that is another question entirely. I believe that no matter who "owns" the land - everyone should be treated fairly and with respect by the state. Even if I did believe the Palestinians should own the land, I wouldn't agree with them engaging in terrorism. Even if I did believe the Israelis should own the land I wouldn't agree with them walling off gaza and restricting people's rights.

As it is, I think anyone who owned the land (individually or collectively) legally, whether Palestinian or Israeli should continue to own that land (I don't believe in state appropriation of personal property, in general). So if a family has had a farm for years, it shouldn't be plowed over - they shouldn't be forcibly moved, regardless of who is in control of the state.

Except for the bit that wants to break off and form its own nation based on ethnicity.

I'm not saying it's the exact same situation as, say, Basque or Chechnyan separatists but the basics are still there: cram people together and they'll try to break up based on these factors absent a stronger force preventing it.

According to lolwiki, as of a 2011 poll, 40% of respondents said they'd vote "yes" on a referendum to declare Quebec sovereignty. Which ain't over half but it's not an insignificant portion of the population either.

Gonna stop right there, since everything else you write flows from this mistake.

They are restricting their movement based on geography, not ethnicity. I already explained this. They don't restrict the movements of Arab Muslims within their own country. Only those living in the occupied areas (which aren't even really occupied anymore btw). It's not their ethnicity. It's the ideology and actions of those living in a specific area to which Israel reacts.


Until you give up this bizarre and incorrect assumption about ethnicity being the driving force behind Israel's actions, you can't possibly speak intelligently about this issue.

Half of them would probably not even bother to vote. The real separatist are a small minority. The majority doesn't want separation and the rest just doesn't care either way. The fact that the Bloc quebecois is pretty much dead since the last federal election is a lot more telling than some poll.

Bad example, 'cause of that Quebec thing. Should have gone with Sweden, or Norway.

They have. Sepratism is dead, Quebecs MP and MPP's are from majority parties that are anti separatist.

(for the rookies in the room, MPs = Federal, MPP's =Provincial)

That most nations were formed out of a shared ethnic identity (race, culture, religion, etc) and those which weren't tend to have much less staying power and fragment, or at least undergo strife, along ethnic lines. So saying you're opposed to a nation created through those means is a little silly.

Edited, Aug 4th 2011 8:29am by Jophiel

I was responding to Olorinus's general statement about nations formed based on religion or ethnicity. Your personal gripes and grouses about Israel notwithstanding.