maybe I am, but if I were one of those civilians, I would want a chance for life. better that terrorists live than civilians die. of course, if letting the terrorists live will cause even more innocent casualties, that may be a different case. ("may", not "is"). besides, where are they going to get human shields from? and if they run away, you gain the territory anyway.
in any case, human lives aren't something you could dismiss as "collateral damage".
first of all, you have my compliments for managing to finish that article. in your place I would have gaged and chocked through the whole thing, if I would have gotten that far.
as to the actual issue:
people need some common "framework" of thought in order to be able to agree on things. for instance, everyone wants better material conditions, the argument is on how to get them. in this case you can have a debate showing actual figures that prove you are right and win over the audience and maybe even the other side. but what about something like same sex marriage? you can recognize it, which is pro-atheist. you can ignore it, which is pro-religious. you can create an alternative, like "civil-union", which is just a different facade on the same thing. you can totally ignore marriage, which then encourages sex without marriage. any policy is going to be against one religious group and supportive of another. they might agree not to recognize marriage (fat chance), because it might offend the least, at least from my point of view.
when people don't have a common framework, like in the same sex issue, they end up forcing their opinion. this is how democracy works in practical terms. you could also end up with things like the American civil war.
everything is based on fallacies: if god exists, and gave me instructions, why should I follow them? I just assume I should. similarly, you assume all humans should live in peace and cooperation. but why should we?
I think maybe I was wrong in my (implied?) statement that humans need to believe in god in order for civilization to exist. that is a subject that requires deeper thinking than I have exhibited so far.
(when you really intend on wrapping up this discussion, say goodbye and I won't keep asking questions)
I AM for the war in Iraq, but civilians shouldn't be killed. if the enemy is killing civilians, well , thats their crime to pay for. but we (ie America, the coalition) should do all thats possible not to kill civilians, as long as we don't risk our soldiers lives either. I'm talking about, say, evacuating all civilians from an area that's going to get some heat before the action starts, or giving them warning, time and an open rout to evacuate before going in to an area controlled by the enemy. even if it means the enemy might get away. maybe this isn't practical, but from my civilian point of view, that's how it should be.
morally speaking, when attacking an enemy town, you should give everyone a warning and a chance to get away from it before attacking.
something like going on the loudspeakers and giving a warning in any possible language the people there might understand. tell them which way is open for escape, then give sufficient time for everyone to get away. after that, you can turn the place into a parking lot to save the lives of your soldiers.
I was really ignoring the "Iranian question" when talking with you.
I never studied logic, I just enjoy arguing, and you are a very good opponent.
my final question to you is this: if there is no superior moral authority, who is to determine that your solution is the correct one?
you might think everyone should be left to mind there own business, and another might think that everyone should be forced to follow his ideas. why is your opinion superior? you consider it superior, but why should I?
so far as I can see, there can be no standard values without god, and without standard values, anyone might decide let's say, that the ideal is that women would be sex slaves to men. the only way then in which you can argue is by winning physical dominance, such as through war.
as far as I can tell, without god you can't have civilization, unless everyone is brainwashed and incapable of independent thoughts, feelings, and desires. there may be other alternatives, but non of them seems to me capable of providing positive existence.
as to the link, I think it's this page. I know it's in that website anyway.
I wrote a lot of stuff, then accidentally went back in history and lost it all. Internet Explorer really is a bad product. I wish I had Firefox on this computer. I miss the spellchecker.
I wasn't trying to convince you there is a god. however, I am trying to show you that those of my faith have good reason (not conclusive proof) to believe. I think that's good, because if there was undeniable evidence, than how can you choose to do wrong? it's the sceptic inside me that thinks maybe there are no consequences to sin, and that enables me to sin. that's good. the ability and temptation to sin are good. sinning isn't good, but why create humans, who are capable of moral choice, if you deny them the ability to make moral choices? on the other hand, there needs to be strong enough evidence so that not only blind fools will believe, but also rational people will have a chance to make a positive choice. otherwise, anyone smart enough to be worthy will turn away from god, believing that god doesn't exist. like this you have two more or less equally appealing options.
I havn't been offended by anything you said.
I really don't understand what you mean by "fallacy". does it mean the same as "unverifiable"?
I really couldn't care less how many people believe in something, but I do care how many witnesses there are.
the Jewish faith is based on mount sinai. the event is documented in the bible as well as passed down father to son, mother to daughter, in oral tradition. we don't use the private revelation moses had, because it is unverifiable. we can't determine in any way if it happened or not. there is however little chance someone would be able to convince an entire nation that they experienced something that never happened, or that a huge event happened to their ancestors that they and their ancestors never heard about. it is possible to convince people that something happened to you when it didn't, because they have no clue, but then it is blind faith. if you really are interested, I can direct you to an article that might explain the reasoning in more clarity, although if you don't want to believe, you'll find reasons not to, that's the nature of things. there are those who claim the voice of god was produced artificially using an electrical device.
if you want to quit here, I feel fine with that. it was fun talking with you.
1, 5 - you're trying to do the right thing. after rereading what I wrote I realized I have written it poorly. the question is hard to write but it's more like "whats wrong with other people trying to do the right thing?". you are trying to do the right thing by making everyone forget about their understanding of right and wrong and standardizing on your morals.
obviously, trying to tell people what they are is stupid and offensive, but this is how I understand you.
I'm not sure you're afraid of doing the right thing, but there are dangers. you know, stuff like the inquisition or the holocaust.
4 - it's just that you were talking to me like I was a Muslim or something. it's Muslims who rely on the testimony of one man, not the Jews. my nick does provide a useful clue when it come to determining my religion/nationality, which is why I mentioned it. I don't really pay much attention to people's nicks either.
6 - if there is no proof, then how can anybody believe it?
3 - then I guess you've only encountered ones that pride themselves on the blind faith of their believers. not mine though.
2 - so testimony becomes invalid after the death of the witness? that's a new one for me. I wonder how you can learn history like that, or keep criminals in prison.
If we don't try to do the right thing, we'll end up living pointless and meaningless lives. If we try to do the right thing, then at least we have a chance at something good.
huh? I can say the same thing about atheism. I mean, they're still trying to convince us that an unproved idea about the mechanism god used for the creation of life somehow proves god doesn't exist.
why do you assume that someone who has confidence must throw logic and reason out the window?
my sources are not fear or hate based. we just want to mind our own business in our home land/promised land. is that so hard to believe?
besides, I differ greatly from the Israeli government in idealogy. the goals of the Israeli government are basically to be accepted and live in peace. the goal of the Jewish people is to set a positive example to the world. obviously, lot's of Jews forgot that goal, but ultimately that is why we exist. either way, being allowed to peacefully mind our own business is important for us.
I never said your not trying to do the right thing. I just disappointed you have the wrong perception on what the right thing is. perhaps you believe that you know the right thing, and therefor everyone else is wrong and should conform to you beliefs. your beliefs allow for people exercising differently in private, but in public they have to comply with your philosophy.
as to "some old fellow saw god somewhere and said so" - notice my nick: "A Jew". that means I believe because all my ancestors, as well as those of all members of my nationality, together experienced divine revelation. not one man, but an entire nation of probably millions, and at least 597,000, people. I really didn't want to say this, but I felt I have to after making a false statement about me. please, disprove this, or agree that there is a rational reason, even if not conclusive proof.
and where is the proof for the "flying spaghetti monster"? how many eye witnesses do you have for that?
about marriage: in a Jewish country, only Jewish marriage is recognized. Jewish law also provides a mechanism for non-Jews to get married. this is no different than marriage certificates issued by the governments of other countries.
besides, it doesn't exactly work like that. for example, just about any marriage that happens outside the state of Israel is recognized, even if it doesn't happen according to Jewish standards. and there are other ways in which they don't comply with Jewish laws of marriage.
I have no idea about gender segregated buses, so I can't comment. from the little I've heard they, are in response to customer demand. the fact that this woman coupled up with those of the reform religion already is telling, since they deny the basics of Judaism.
about "modesty police", I too am fed up with women putting all that emphasis of their sexuality. it's disgusting. If they try to prevent women who dress like prostitutes from strolling down their neighborhoods, I can understand that.
democracy is just a form of government. Judaism doesn't care about that, it cares what policies the government implements.
the democracy in Israel is broken:
the supreme court legislates from the bench and elects itself.
40% of the low level officers in the combat units of the military are "religious-nationalist" (less than 10% in the general population), yet non reach higher levels without submitting to the views of the left-wing supreme court.
the police beats up and sexually attacks non-violent protesters, and arrests people who look "religious" for being in the same neighborhood in which "religious" people are demonstrating.
the main-stream media are are all pro-left, despite the pro-right leaning of the public. the radio is controlled by the government, and it's all pro-left.
people in the government get tried in the supreme court, or have investigations opened against them, in timing which is amazingly convenient for the left. the results always benefit the left. those who don't get sued, get eaten up in the media and kicked out of government anyway.
the democratic mechanism would allow to change this, but right now no one is standing up to the left-wing minority.
actually, the majority are pro Judaism. about anti-religious it's hard to say. I consider myself anti-religious, but I'd be considered normally by most people to be religious-nationalist. the reason is I like Judaism (like most people in Israel), and dislike the sectionalism, ideological corruption, and attempts to force people to abide by the laws, as well as making the law the ideal rather than the principle, so that the more restrictions you make the more "religious" (better Jew) you are. I think a lot of anti-religious people must share similar feelings.
so, the fact that the region known as palestine is the heartland of the Jewish homeland means nothing? that the Romans renamed Judea as Palestine in order to erase the Jewish connection means nothing? the fact that since the Babylonian empire conquered the kingdom of Judea about 2500 years ago the only nation-state to exist in palestine was Jewish, also means nothing? or how about that the majority of population in palestine until the late 1800s was Jewish, and that almost all Arabs and Jews who lived in palestine by 1948 were immigrants, or decedents of immigrants? or that until the foundation of the state of Israel, almost always when people said palestinians they meant the Jews? does all this mean nothing to you? and why do people talking about the Arab refugees always forget to mention the 650,000 Jewish refugees, who fled from Arab countries?
it's not "fundamentalists" who think so, it's the people who've been brainwashed by the anti-religious to think that science and the bible contradict.
those who "couldn't care less about the science curriculum" don't care for other reasons, like it not being important compared to studying the word of god.
Israel is a Jewish state. In America they teach the constitution in school, as well as history. how is that different?
Exactly. the US government should stop sending aid to the middle east. That way Egypt will stop arming it's military against Israel with YOUR money, and Israel won't be restricted by the US in it's arms exports to countries like India. plus, Israel doesn't need the money.
Judging from this, you were never in Israel, or learned anything about Israel that doesn't come from neo-Nazi sources.
1956 - response to the ongoing fidaiyun attacks by Egyptians, who murdered dozens of Israelis. this also happened to coincide with the interests of England and France.
1967 - Egypt had violated the cease fire agreement, throwing out the UN peacekeeping forces. Egypt and Syria had a mutual defense treaty or something of the sorts. Egypt was making proclamations of war. Jordan wouldn't tell Israel that they plan not to be involved, despite Israel urging them to stand aside. Israel struck first.
1973 - despite all intelligence gathered, Israel was taken by surprise by Egypt and Syria.
1978 - never heard of a war happening during this year. maybe nothing happened, after all, you named 1966 as the year of the 6 day war, when it was 1967.
1982 - the PLO was bombarding the northern region of the state of Israel with mortar shells. Israel went in in order to push the PLO out of range, but ended up doing more than was initially planned. I don't remember exactly what happened.
2006 - the Hizballah, a terrorist organization actively supported by Iran, attacked an IDF patrol and covered for it with heavy bombardment of Katyusha rockets on northern Israel.
obviously, you have no understanding of the motives of the Israeli side:
Israeli government - wants to become a nation like all other nations. in other words: seeks to be recognized as Israelis rather than Jews.
Israeli people - are Jews who like being Jewish.
to the Israelis, the tough stance they took in the beginning was in order to show that they are there to stay, and to force recognition of their non-Jewish identity. now they are trying to buy it with land, which suites the Arabs better, because buying land from Jews with empty promises is easier and cheaper than trying to conquer it. other Arab organizations have more pride than that, and won't let there even be an appearance of compromise.
the Arab goal is to take all Jewish land and kill all Jews as well as all others who refuse to accept Islam. notice I grouped other religions such as Christianity in this, but that's because there is no practical difference between being Arab and being Muslim when it comes to the Jews.
obviously, this is not true for every individual, but it is true for the public.
Slashdot Mirror
maybe I am, but if I were one of those civilians, I would want a chance for life. better that terrorists live than civilians die. of course, if letting the terrorists live will cause even more innocent casualties, that may be a different case. ("may", not "is"). besides, where are they going to get human shields from? and if they run away, you gain the territory anyway.
in any case, human lives aren't something you could dismiss as "collateral damage".
first of all, you have my compliments for managing to finish that article. in your place I would have gaged and chocked through the whole thing, if I would have gotten that far.
as to the actual issue:
people need some common "framework" of thought in order to be able to agree on things. for instance, everyone wants better material conditions, the argument is on how to get them. in this case you can have a debate showing actual figures that prove you are right and win over the audience and maybe even the other side. but what about something like same sex marriage? you can recognize it, which is pro-atheist. you can ignore it, which is pro-religious. you can create an alternative, like "civil-union", which is just a different facade on the same thing. you can totally ignore marriage, which then encourages sex without marriage. any policy is going to be against one religious group and supportive of another. they might agree not to recognize marriage (fat chance), because it might offend the least, at least from my point of view.
when people don't have a common framework, like in the same sex issue, they end up forcing their opinion. this is how democracy works in practical terms. you could also end up with things like the American civil war.
everything is based on fallacies: if god exists, and gave me instructions, why should I follow them? I just assume I should. similarly, you assume all humans should live in peace and cooperation. but why should we?
I think maybe I was wrong in my (implied?) statement that humans need to believe in god in order for civilization to exist. that is a subject that requires deeper thinking than I have exhibited so far.
(when you really intend on wrapping up this discussion, say goodbye and I won't keep asking questions)
this makes me a bit sick.
I AM for the war in Iraq, but civilians shouldn't be killed. if the enemy is killing civilians, well , thats their crime to pay for. but we (ie America, the coalition) should do all thats possible not to kill civilians, as long as we don't risk our soldiers lives either. I'm talking about, say, evacuating all civilians from an area that's going to get some heat before the action starts, or giving them warning, time and an open rout to evacuate before going in to an area controlled by the enemy. even if it means the enemy might get away. maybe this isn't practical, but from my civilian point of view, that's how it should be.
and a day is 24 hours, even when the earth and the sun don't exist.
morally speaking, when attacking an enemy town, you should give everyone a warning and a chance to get away from it before attacking.
something like going on the loudspeakers and giving a warning in any possible language the people there might understand. tell them which way is open for escape, then give sufficient time for everyone to get away. after that, you can turn the place into a parking lot to save the lives of your soldiers.
I was really ignoring the "Iranian question" when talking with you.
I never studied logic, I just enjoy arguing, and you are a very good opponent.
my final question to you is this: if there is no superior moral authority, who is to determine that your solution is the correct one?
you might think everyone should be left to mind there own business, and another might think that everyone should be forced to follow his ideas. why is your opinion superior? you consider it superior, but why should I?
so far as I can see, there can be no standard values without god, and without standard values, anyone might decide let's say, that the ideal is that women would be sex slaves to men. the only way then in which you can argue is by winning physical dominance, such as through war.
as far as I can tell, without god you can't have civilization, unless everyone is brainwashed and incapable of independent thoughts, feelings, and desires. there may be other alternatives, but non of them seems to me capable of providing positive existence.
as to the link, I think it's this page. I know it's in that website anyway.
I wrote a lot of stuff, then accidentally went back in history and lost it all. Internet Explorer really is a bad product. I wish I had Firefox on this computer. I miss the spellchecker.
I wasn't trying to convince you there is a god. however, I am trying to show you that those of my faith have good reason (not conclusive proof) to believe. I think that's good, because if there was undeniable evidence, than how can you choose to do wrong? it's the sceptic inside me that thinks maybe there are no consequences to sin, and that enables me to sin. that's good. the ability and temptation to sin are good. sinning isn't good, but why create humans, who are capable of moral choice, if you deny them the ability to make moral choices? on the other hand, there needs to be strong enough evidence so that not only blind fools will believe, but also rational people will have a chance to make a positive choice. otherwise, anyone smart enough to be worthy will turn away from god, believing that god doesn't exist. like this you have two more or less equally appealing options.
I havn't been offended by anything you said.
I really don't understand what you mean by "fallacy". does it mean the same as "unverifiable"?
I really couldn't care less how many people believe in something, but I do care how many witnesses there are.
the Jewish faith is based on mount sinai. the event is documented in the bible as well as passed down father to son, mother to daughter, in oral tradition. we don't use the private revelation moses had, because it is unverifiable. we can't determine in any way if it happened or not. there is however little chance someone would be able to convince an entire nation that they experienced something that never happened, or that a huge event happened to their ancestors that they and their ancestors never heard about. it is possible to convince people that something happened to you when it didn't, because they have no clue, but then it is blind faith. if you really are interested, I can direct you to an article that might explain the reasoning in more clarity, although if you don't want to believe, you'll find reasons not to, that's the nature of things. there are those who claim the voice of god was produced artificially using an electrical device.
if you want to quit here, I feel fine with that. it was fun talking with you.
1, 5 - you're trying to do the right thing. after rereading what I wrote I realized I have written it poorly. the question is hard to write but it's more like "whats wrong with other people trying to do the right thing?". you are trying to do the right thing by making everyone forget about their understanding of right and wrong and standardizing on your morals.
obviously, trying to tell people what they are is stupid and offensive, but this is how I understand you.
I'm not sure you're afraid of doing the right thing, but there are dangers. you know, stuff like the inquisition or the holocaust.
4 - it's just that you were talking to me like I was a Muslim or something. it's Muslims who rely on the testimony of one man, not the Jews. my nick does provide a useful clue when it come to determining my religion/nationality, which is why I mentioned it. I don't really pay much attention to people's nicks either.
6 - if there is no proof, then how can anybody believe it?
3 - then I guess you've only encountered ones that pride themselves on the blind faith of their believers. not mine though.
2 - so testimony becomes invalid after the death of the witness? that's a new one for me. I wonder how you can learn history like that, or keep criminals in prison.
If we don't try to do the right thing, we'll end up living pointless and meaningless lives. If we try to do the right thing, then at least we have a chance at something good.
Then I completely misunderstood you. Of course one has to always question everything, although my question of choice is "why".
huh? I can say the same thing about atheism. I mean, they're still trying to convince us that an unproved idea about the mechanism god used for the creation of life somehow proves god doesn't exist.
why do you assume that someone who has confidence must throw logic and reason out the window?
sorry for my mistake.
my sources are not fear or hate based. we just want to mind our own business in our home land/promised land. is that so hard to believe?
besides, I differ greatly from the Israeli government in idealogy. the goals of the Israeli government are basically to be accepted and live in peace. the goal of the Jewish people is to set a positive example to the world. obviously, lot's of Jews forgot that goal, but ultimately that is why we exist. either way, being allowed to peacefully mind our own business is important for us.
I never said your not trying to do the right thing. I just disappointed you have the wrong perception on what the right thing is. perhaps you believe that you know the right thing, and therefor everyone else is wrong and should conform to you beliefs. your beliefs allow for people exercising differently in private, but in public they have to comply with your philosophy.
as to "some old fellow saw god somewhere and said so" - notice my nick: "A Jew". that means I believe because all my ancestors, as well as those of all members of my nationality, together experienced divine revelation. not one man, but an entire nation of probably millions, and at least 597,000, people. I really didn't want to say this, but I felt I have to after making a false statement about me. please, disprove this, or agree that there is a rational reason, even if not conclusive proof.
and where is the proof for the "flying spaghetti monster"? how many eye witnesses do you have for that?
yeah. to a large part they hate you for your corrupt morals.
what's wrong about being a "religious fanatic"? ie, whats wrong about having confidence in what you believe?
BTW, religious parties have about 20% of the vote. and they don't strive for leadership, only for influence.
why do you think that "religion" is irrational?
whats so wrong about trying to do the right thing? do you lack the self confidence necessary to trying? are you afraid of failure?
about marriage: in a Jewish country, only Jewish marriage is recognized. Jewish law also provides a mechanism for non-Jews to get married. this is no different than marriage certificates issued by the governments of other countries.
besides, it doesn't exactly work like that. for example, just about any marriage that happens outside the state of Israel is recognized, even if it doesn't happen according to Jewish standards. and there are other ways in which they don't comply with Jewish laws of marriage.
I have no idea about gender segregated buses, so I can't comment. from the little I've heard they, are in response to customer demand. the fact that this woman coupled up with those of the reform religion already is telling, since they deny the basics of Judaism.
about "modesty police", I too am fed up with women putting all that emphasis of their sexuality. it's disgusting. If they try to prevent women who dress like prostitutes from strolling down their neighborhoods, I can understand that.
democracy is just a form of government. Judaism doesn't care about that, it cares what policies the government implements.
the democracy in Israel is broken:
the supreme court legislates from the bench and elects itself.
40% of the low level officers in the combat units of the military are "religious-nationalist" (less than 10% in the general population), yet non reach higher levels without submitting to the views of the left-wing supreme court.
the police beats up and sexually attacks non-violent protesters, and arrests people who look "religious" for being in the same neighborhood in which "religious" people are demonstrating.
the main-stream media are are all pro-left, despite the pro-right leaning of the public. the radio is controlled by the government, and it's all pro-left.
people in the government get tried in the supreme court, or have investigations opened against them, in timing which is amazingly convenient for the left. the results always benefit the left. those who don't get sued, get eaten up in the media and kicked out of government anyway.
the democratic mechanism would allow to change this, but right now no one is standing up to the left-wing minority.
actually, the majority are pro Judaism. about anti-religious it's hard to say. I consider myself anti-religious, but I'd be considered normally by most people to be religious-nationalist. the reason is I like Judaism (like most people in Israel), and dislike the sectionalism, ideological corruption, and attempts to force people to abide by the laws, as well as making the law the ideal rather than the principle, so that the more restrictions you make the more "religious" (better Jew) you are. I think a lot of anti-religious people must share similar feelings.
accidentally hit submit before reviewing the above comment I made.
so, the fact that the region known as palestine is the heartland of the Jewish homeland means nothing? that the Romans renamed Judea as Palestine in order to erase the Jewish connection means nothing? the fact that since the Babylonian empire conquered the kingdom of Judea about 2500 years ago the only nation-state to exist in palestine was Jewish, also means nothing? or how about that the majority of population in palestine until the late 1800s was Jewish, and that almost all Arabs and Jews who lived in palestine by 1948 were immigrants, or decedents of immigrants? or that until the foundation of the state of Israel, almost always when people said palestinians they meant the Jews? does all this mean nothing to you? and why do people talking about the Arab refugees always forget to mention the 650,000 Jewish refugees, who fled from Arab countries?
it's not "fundamentalists" who think so, it's the people who've been brainwashed by the anti-religious to think that science and the bible contradict.
those who "couldn't care less about the science curriculum" don't care for other reasons, like it not being important compared to studying the word of god.
Israel is a Jewish state. In America they teach the constitution in school, as well as history. how is that different?
Exactly. the US government should stop sending aid to the middle east. That way Egypt will stop arming it's military against Israel with YOUR money, and Israel won't be restricted by the US in it's arms exports to countries like India. plus, Israel doesn't need the money.
Judging from this, you were never in Israel, or learned anything about Israel that doesn't come from neo-Nazi sources.
1956 - response to the ongoing fidaiyun attacks by Egyptians, who murdered dozens of Israelis. this also happened to coincide with the interests of England and France.
1967 - Egypt had violated the cease fire agreement, throwing out the UN peacekeeping forces. Egypt and Syria had a mutual defense treaty or something of the sorts. Egypt was making proclamations of war. Jordan wouldn't tell Israel that they plan not to be involved, despite Israel urging them to stand aside. Israel struck first.
1973 - despite all intelligence gathered, Israel was taken by surprise by Egypt and Syria.
1978 - never heard of a war happening during this year. maybe nothing happened, after all, you named 1966 as the year of the 6 day war, when it was 1967.
1982 - the PLO was bombarding the northern region of the state of Israel with mortar shells. Israel went in in order to push the PLO out of range, but ended up doing more than was initially planned. I don't remember exactly what happened.
2006 - the Hizballah, a terrorist organization actively supported by Iran, attacked an IDF patrol and covered for it with heavy bombardment of Katyusha rockets on northern Israel.
obviously, you have no understanding of the motives of the Israeli side:
Israeli government - wants to become a nation like all other nations. in other words: seeks to be recognized as Israelis rather than Jews.
Israeli people - are Jews who like being Jewish.
to the Israelis, the tough stance they took in the beginning was in order to show that they are there to stay, and to force recognition of their non-Jewish identity. now they are trying to buy it with land, which suites the Arabs better, because buying land from Jews with empty promises is easier and cheaper than trying to conquer it. other Arab organizations have more pride than that, and won't let there even be an appearance of compromise.
the Arab goal is to take all Jewish land and kill all Jews as well as all others who refuse to accept Islam. notice I grouped other religions such as Christianity in this, but that's because there is no practical difference between being Arab and being Muslim when it comes to the Jews.
obviously, this is not true for every individual, but it is true for the public.
I'm curious to know, who is pointing nukes at Iran?