|
On November 19 2012 05:56 BeMannerDuPenner wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2012 05:53 Feartheguru wrote:On November 19 2012 05:51 Pureh wrote:On November 19 2012 05:40 Feartheguru wrote:On November 19 2012 05:32 Pureh wrote:On November 19 2012 05:27 Feartheguru wrote:On November 19 2012 05:21 Pureh wrote:On November 19 2012 03:43 moskonia wrote:On November 19 2012 03:36 SlashCare wrote:
Why can´t they just set aside their differnces. That would be much better for the people in both countries. You seem confused, this is between a country, Israel, to a terrorism organization, Hamas, not a country. If it was a war between countries it would have been much simpler. You have got things mixed there. Israel was founded through terrorist actions, I see that being completely left out. So if we follow what you say, then Hamas turning itself into a Gaza-country will just abolish all terrorist actions they've done? Nice reasoning you got there mate. Alternate history is cool. Care to explain there? You're telling me that Palestinians came from nowhere or were dropped from UFOs? I mean there are so much made up stories coming from everyone, but let's just not be too extreme. Uh.... Palestinians never ruled over Palestine, there was a power vacuum after the British left, the Arabs tried to get the land for the Palestinians, the Jews there tried to form their own state, they won, they got their state. Please take your advice, you're the one making extreme claims lol. So if you are looking at it from that perspective, Brits and Ottomans were sharing conflicts over the area of Palestine, I see you are leaving Ottomans right out of the subject. Brits won but without experiencing revolts every now and then, they grow tired of it. Afterwards they just say, hell let's just give it to the jews? All during that conflict, surprise surprise Palestinians were living there. So just because they had no super guns, they didn't exist? Ottomans controlled it before the British and still had influence there true. I left it out because I don't find it relevant. Are you saying because the previous rulers have more cultural similarities to the Palestinians, they have a stronger claim to the land than the Jews? they were living there. their home. thats what gives em a stronger claim. not some political/historical whatver crap. its that simple.
There were Jews there too. They were living there. Their home. They also have a claim on some of the land they control now. Jews would have been happy to split the land. Arabs tried to take it all and lost. You lose your land claim when you lose a war in which to try to take someone else's land. That's obvious logic.
Germany tried to get land in the East by attacking U.S.S.R. you lost the war now they control Kalinigrad Oblast and you have no claim on it anymore. Same logic here.
|
On November 19 2012 05:56 Feartheguru wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2012 05:54 Caihead wrote:On November 19 2012 05:48 Feartheguru wrote:On November 19 2012 05:46 Caihead wrote:On November 19 2012 05:42 Feartheguru wrote:On November 19 2012 05:39 calderon wrote:On November 19 2012 05:36 Feartheguru wrote:On November 19 2012 05:31 calderon wrote:On November 19 2012 05:30 Feartheguru wrote:On November 19 2012 05:27 calderon wrote:
[quote]
lol. The last time I checked it was Israel who made the preemptive strike in the six day war.
lol. I assumed you have the intelligence to know that when you preemptively attack knowing the other side is about to invade, the other side is the one starting the war. Don't worry, won't make that mistake again. The area has been under rule by Arabs for the last 1500 years, is it Jewish land because they once occupied millenia ago? It's been ruled by the Jews for 60 years, is it Arab land because they once occupied it half a century ago? The land belongs to whoever is able to control it. You don't have some god given right to the land because you took it over and lived on it for a while. So if USA invaded Canada tomoro and took control of it its all fair game? sure. LOL I'm using YOUR logic in a similar example to show how stupid it is. I'm glad you realize it's awful logic Now make the connection ----->>>> Centering the argument on "who can hold the land" just removes any resemblance of civilization, we might as well not talk about it because it will just be a "whatever the most powerful says goes". We rebute the claims of historical precedence because we are forced to since it's a great portion of the Israeli rhetoric, not because we want to use that as a medium to argue that the Palestinians belong there. Get out of your house and give it to a descendant of whatever aboriginal group lived in your area, then we'll talk. What the hell is that supposed to mean? Here's the logic flow: Israel centers a great portion of its claim to the land not on political or diplomatic maneuvers, but by claims that they once belonged there according to religious text and scripture, and then began attempting to back it up with Archaeological evidence post occupation. Those who disagree with this occupation have to address the claims based on precedence from Israel, but their main focal point is not that the Palestinians had a "historical claim" to the land. The main focal point is how the occupation is taking place and the present situation. We would protest this regardless of whether or not either party had historical claims to the land, because the historical claims (dating back thousands of years) are not actually relevant. You are saying my assertion that whoever control the land owns it for the moment is false. That historical claim is how we should view it because that's the civilized way to view land conflicts. Aboriginals have a historical claim to all of the land in Canada, why does your land belong to you?
So you're saying Jewish people have claim to the land in Israel/Palestine because they have a weak historical claim from 2 millenia ago?
|
On November 19 2012 06:00 calderon wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2012 05:56 Feartheguru wrote:On November 19 2012 05:54 Caihead wrote:On November 19 2012 05:48 Feartheguru wrote:On November 19 2012 05:46 Caihead wrote:On November 19 2012 05:42 Feartheguru wrote:On November 19 2012 05:39 calderon wrote:On November 19 2012 05:36 Feartheguru wrote:On November 19 2012 05:31 calderon wrote:On November 19 2012 05:30 Feartheguru wrote:
[quote]
lol. I assumed you have the intelligence to know that when you preemptively attack knowing the other side is about to invade, the other side is the one starting the war. Don't worry, won't make that mistake again.
The area has been under rule by Arabs for the last 1500 years, is it Jewish land because they once occupied millenia ago? It's been ruled by the Jews for 60 years, is it Arab land because they once occupied it half a century ago? The land belongs to whoever is able to control it. You don't have some god given right to the land because you took it over and lived on it for a while. So if USA invaded Canada tomoro and took control of it its all fair game? sure. LOL I'm using YOUR logic in a similar example to show how stupid it is. I'm glad you realize it's awful logic Now make the connection ----->>>> Centering the argument on "who can hold the land" just removes any resemblance of civilization, we might as well not talk about it because it will just be a "whatever the most powerful says goes". We rebute the claims of historical precedence because we are forced to since it's a great portion of the Israeli rhetoric, not because we want to use that as a medium to argue that the Palestinians belong there. Get out of your house and give it to a descendant of whatever aboriginal group lived in your area, then we'll talk. What the hell is that supposed to mean? Here's the logic flow: Israel centers a great portion of its claim to the land not on political or diplomatic maneuvers, but by claims that they once belonged there according to religious text and scripture, and then began attempting to back it up with Archaeological evidence post occupation. Those who disagree with this occupation have to address the claims based on precedence from Israel, but their main focal point is not that the Palestinians had a "historical claim" to the land. The main focal point is how the occupation is taking place and the present situation. We would protest this regardless of whether or not either party had historical claims to the land, because the historical claims (dating back thousands of years) are not actually relevant. You are saying my assertion that whoever control the land owns it for the moment is false. That historical claim is how we should view it because that's the civilized way to view land conflicts. Aboriginals have a historical claim to all of the land in Canada, why does your land belong to you? So you're saying Jewish people have claim to the land in Israel/Palestine because they have a weak historical claim from 2 millenia ago?
No, I believe his point is that historical claims in general are a very poor means with which to ascertain the validity of land "ownership".
|
Guys, stick to the subject, that is, what is going now in Gaza. Someone wants to debate other (more or less related) topics, should do this in the proper thread (and there is plenty of them)
MFA: Hamas detains foreign journalists in the Gaza Strip
"Hamas is not allowing at least 22 foreign nationals who wish to exit the Gaza Strip for Israel to do so. Among the foreigners being detained are nine Italian citizens, one Canadian, one South Korean, a French national and six journalists from Japan. In addition, two Turkish Red Crescent members have been refused exit.
This violation of the human rights of neutral foreigners is yet another example of Hamas’ attempts to manipulate and pressure the press.
For its part, Israel is keeping the Erez crossing into Gaza open, allowing passage to the foreign press, diplomats and humanitarian workers."
|
On November 19 2012 05:55 EtherealBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2012 05:49 Goozen wrote:On November 19 2012 05:45 EtherealBlade wrote:On November 19 2012 05:40 Feartheguru wrote:On November 19 2012 05:32 Pureh wrote:On November 19 2012 05:27 Feartheguru wrote:On November 19 2012 05:21 Pureh wrote:On November 19 2012 03:43 moskonia wrote:On November 19 2012 03:36 SlashCare wrote:
Why can´t they just set aside their differnces. That would be much better for the people in both countries. You seem confused, this is between a country, Israel, to a terrorism organization, Hamas, not a country. If it was a war between countries it would have been much simpler. You have got things mixed there. Israel was founded through terrorist actions, I see that being completely left out. So if we follow what you say, then Hamas turning itself into a Gaza-country will just abolish all terrorist actions they've done? Nice reasoning you got there mate. Alternate history is cool. Care to explain there? You're telling me that Palestinians came from nowhere or were dropped from UFOs? I mean there are so much made up stories coming from everyone, but let's just not be too extreme. Uh.... Palestinians never ruled over Palestine, there was a power vacuum after the British left, the Arabs tried to get the land for the Palestinians, the Jews there tried to form their own state, they won, they got their state. Please take your advice, you're the one making extreme claims lol. The difference is, the natives were expecting to finally gain independence after centuries of Ottoman and decades of British rule. If you look at some African borders, decolonisation happened without much care over ethnical borders, this is why so many border conflicts happen there to this day. Now in Palestine however, it's not just a border conflict, but an entire "state" was created over another one. If people had to guess who would rule Palestine after the British Mandate is over, it would have been the majority population obviously, and that would definitely create Israel over there... 2 States were offered (see partition plan), now you could argue that the British had no right to promise some of the land they owned, but they did. Had the arabs not decided to go "all in" it would be different today. This is exactly the problem, they had no right. "We're putting an end to colonialism, but hey, here's one last deicision we'd liket to make:" Can you blame them for going all in though? I'm not saying they should have, or that it was a smart deicision but the stakes were high, who wouldn't have wanted the entire land in their position.
Here is the catch though, had they won it wouldn't have been Palestine, it would be a mix of Jordan, Syria. Egypt and the other nations who attacked. Hence why the whole idea of Palastinian independence didnt come in to play till post 67. As far as the British having "no right" international law at the time says otherwise, Their land, their choice.
|
On November 19 2012 06:01 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2012 06:00 calderon wrote:On November 19 2012 05:56 Feartheguru wrote:On November 19 2012 05:54 Caihead wrote:On November 19 2012 05:48 Feartheguru wrote:On November 19 2012 05:46 Caihead wrote:On November 19 2012 05:42 Feartheguru wrote:On November 19 2012 05:39 calderon wrote:On November 19 2012 05:36 Feartheguru wrote:On November 19 2012 05:31 calderon wrote:
[quote]
The area has been under rule by Arabs for the last 1500 years, is it Jewish land because they once occupied millenia ago? It's been ruled by the Jews for 60 years, is it Arab land because they once occupied it half a century ago? The land belongs to whoever is able to control it. You don't have some god given right to the land because you took it over and lived on it for a while. So if USA invaded Canada tomoro and took control of it its all fair game? sure. LOL I'm using YOUR logic in a similar example to show how stupid it is. I'm glad you realize it's awful logic Now make the connection ----->>>> Centering the argument on "who can hold the land" just removes any resemblance of civilization, we might as well not talk about it because it will just be a "whatever the most powerful says goes". We rebute the claims of historical precedence because we are forced to since it's a great portion of the Israeli rhetoric, not because we want to use that as a medium to argue that the Palestinians belong there. Get out of your house and give it to a descendant of whatever aboriginal group lived in your area, then we'll talk. What the hell is that supposed to mean? Here's the logic flow: Israel centers a great portion of its claim to the land not on political or diplomatic maneuvers, but by claims that they once belonged there according to religious text and scripture, and then began attempting to back it up with Archaeological evidence post occupation. Those who disagree with this occupation have to address the claims based on precedence from Israel, but their main focal point is not that the Palestinians had a "historical claim" to the land. The main focal point is how the occupation is taking place and the present situation. We would protest this regardless of whether or not either party had historical claims to the land, because the historical claims (dating back thousands of years) are not actually relevant. You are saying my assertion that whoever control the land owns it for the moment is false. That historical claim is how we should view it because that's the civilized way to view land conflicts. Aboriginals have a historical claim to all of the land in Canada, why does your land belong to you? So you're saying Jewish people have claim to the land in Israel/Palestine because they have a weak historical claim from 2 millenia ago? No, I believe his point is that historical claims in general are a very poor means with which to ascertain the validity of land "ownership".
But thats what the Israeli Government and is the argument that MANY Israelis use when trying to justify their position.
|
On November 19 2012 06:00 calderon wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2012 05:56 Feartheguru wrote:On November 19 2012 05:54 Caihead wrote:On November 19 2012 05:48 Feartheguru wrote:On November 19 2012 05:46 Caihead wrote:On November 19 2012 05:42 Feartheguru wrote:On November 19 2012 05:39 calderon wrote:On November 19 2012 05:36 Feartheguru wrote:On November 19 2012 05:31 calderon wrote:On November 19 2012 05:30 Feartheguru wrote:
[quote]
lol. I assumed you have the intelligence to know that when you preemptively attack knowing the other side is about to invade, the other side is the one starting the war. Don't worry, won't make that mistake again.
The area has been under rule by Arabs for the last 1500 years, is it Jewish land because they once occupied millenia ago? It's been ruled by the Jews for 60 years, is it Arab land because they once occupied it half a century ago? The land belongs to whoever is able to control it. You don't have some god given right to the land because you took it over and lived on it for a while. So if USA invaded Canada tomoro and took control of it its all fair game? sure. LOL I'm using YOUR logic in a similar example to show how stupid it is. I'm glad you realize it's awful logic Now make the connection ----->>>> Centering the argument on "who can hold the land" just removes any resemblance of civilization, we might as well not talk about it because it will just be a "whatever the most powerful says goes". We rebute the claims of historical precedence because we are forced to since it's a great portion of the Israeli rhetoric, not because we want to use that as a medium to argue that the Palestinians belong there. Get out of your house and give it to a descendant of whatever aboriginal group lived in your area, then we'll talk. What the hell is that supposed to mean? Here's the logic flow: Israel centers a great portion of its claim to the land not on political or diplomatic maneuvers, but by claims that they once belonged there according to religious text and scripture, and then began attempting to back it up with Archaeological evidence post occupation. Those who disagree with this occupation have to address the claims based on precedence from Israel, but their main focal point is not that the Palestinians had a "historical claim" to the land. The main focal point is how the occupation is taking place and the present situation. We would protest this regardless of whether or not either party had historical claims to the land, because the historical claims (dating back thousands of years) are not actually relevant. You are saying my assertion that whoever control the land owns it for the moment is false. That historical claim is how we should view it because that's the civilized way to view land conflicts. Aboriginals have a historical claim to all of the land in Canada, why does your land belong to you? So you're saying Jewish people have claim to the land in Israel/Palestine because they have a weak historical claim from 2 millenia ago?
Wrong post, sorry
|
On November 19 2012 06:00 calderon wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2012 05:56 Feartheguru wrote:On November 19 2012 05:54 Caihead wrote:On November 19 2012 05:48 Feartheguru wrote:On November 19 2012 05:46 Caihead wrote:On November 19 2012 05:42 Feartheguru wrote:On November 19 2012 05:39 calderon wrote:On November 19 2012 05:36 Feartheguru wrote:On November 19 2012 05:31 calderon wrote:On November 19 2012 05:30 Feartheguru wrote:
[quote]
lol. I assumed you have the intelligence to know that when you preemptively attack knowing the other side is about to invade, the other side is the one starting the war. Don't worry, won't make that mistake again.
The area has been under rule by Arabs for the last 1500 years, is it Jewish land because they once occupied millenia ago? It's been ruled by the Jews for 60 years, is it Arab land because they once occupied it half a century ago? The land belongs to whoever is able to control it. You don't have some god given right to the land because you took it over and lived on it for a while. So if USA invaded Canada tomoro and took control of it its all fair game? sure. LOL I'm using YOUR logic in a similar example to show how stupid it is. I'm glad you realize it's awful logic Now make the connection ----->>>> Centering the argument on "who can hold the land" just removes any resemblance of civilization, we might as well not talk about it because it will just be a "whatever the most powerful says goes". We rebute the claims of historical precedence because we are forced to since it's a great portion of the Israeli rhetoric, not because we want to use that as a medium to argue that the Palestinians belong there. Get out of your house and give it to a descendant of whatever aboriginal group lived in your area, then we'll talk. What the hell is that supposed to mean? Here's the logic flow: Israel centers a great portion of its claim to the land not on political or diplomatic maneuvers, but by claims that they once belonged there according to religious text and scripture, and then began attempting to back it up with Archaeological evidence post occupation. Those who disagree with this occupation have to address the claims based on precedence from Israel, but their main focal point is not that the Palestinians had a "historical claim" to the land. The main focal point is how the occupation is taking place and the present situation. We would protest this regardless of whether or not either party had historical claims to the land, because the historical claims (dating back thousands of years) are not actually relevant. You are saying my assertion that whoever control the land owns it for the moment is false. That historical claim is how we should view it because that's the civilized way to view land conflicts. Aboriginals have a historical claim to all of the land in Canada, why does your land belong to you? So you're saying Jewish people have claim to the land in Israel/Palestine because they have a weak historical claim from 2 millenia ago?
Wtf.... I'm saying if you disregard the aboriginals land claim, but think the Palestinians' land claim is valid when they are based on the same "recently lived there" logic then you're a hypocrite.
|
On November 19 2012 06:02 Goozen wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2012 05:55 EtherealBlade wrote:On November 19 2012 05:49 Goozen wrote:On November 19 2012 05:45 EtherealBlade wrote:On November 19 2012 05:40 Feartheguru wrote:On November 19 2012 05:32 Pureh wrote:On November 19 2012 05:27 Feartheguru wrote:On November 19 2012 05:21 Pureh wrote:On November 19 2012 03:43 moskonia wrote:On November 19 2012 03:36 SlashCare wrote:
Why can´t they just set aside their differnces. That would be much better for the people in both countries. You seem confused, this is between a country, Israel, to a terrorism organization, Hamas, not a country. If it was a war between countries it would have been much simpler. You have got things mixed there. Israel was founded through terrorist actions, I see that being completely left out. So if we follow what you say, then Hamas turning itself into a Gaza-country will just abolish all terrorist actions they've done? Nice reasoning you got there mate. Alternate history is cool. Care to explain there? You're telling me that Palestinians came from nowhere or were dropped from UFOs? I mean there are so much made up stories coming from everyone, but let's just not be too extreme. Uh.... Palestinians never ruled over Palestine, there was a power vacuum after the British left, the Arabs tried to get the land for the Palestinians, the Jews there tried to form their own state, they won, they got their state. Please take your advice, you're the one making extreme claims lol. The difference is, the natives were expecting to finally gain independence after centuries of Ottoman and decades of British rule. If you look at some African borders, decolonisation happened without much care over ethnical borders, this is why so many border conflicts happen there to this day. Now in Palestine however, it's not just a border conflict, but an entire "state" was created over another one. If people had to guess who would rule Palestine after the British Mandate is over, it would have been the majority population obviously, and that would definitely create Israel over there... 2 States were offered (see partition plan), now you could argue that the British had no right to promise some of the land they owned, but they did. Had the arabs not decided to go "all in" it would be different today. This is exactly the problem, they had no right. "We're putting an end to colonialism, but hey, here's one last deicision we'd liket to make:" Can you blame them for going all in though? I'm not saying they should have, or that it was a smart deicision but the stakes were high, who wouldn't have wanted the entire land in their position. Here is the catch though, had they won it wouldn't have been Palestine, it would be a mix of Jordan, Syria. Egypt and the other nations who attacked. Hence why the whole idea of Palastinian independence didnt come in to play till post 67. As far as the British having "no right" international law at the time says otherwise, Their land, their choice.
Doesn't make it right. Same goes for so many things. But i agree, these are issues that cannot be resolved anymore, ever. It's actually more interesting to discuss, what can happen to get a bit of peace. Realistic, i mean. Not some "they just need to put their weapons down and blabla", we all know thats not gonna happen. Even when hamas is gone, the rockets wont stop. So, suggestions?
|
On November 19 2012 06:03 calderon wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2012 06:01 farvacola wrote:On November 19 2012 06:00 calderon wrote:On November 19 2012 05:56 Feartheguru wrote:On November 19 2012 05:54 Caihead wrote:On November 19 2012 05:48 Feartheguru wrote:On November 19 2012 05:46 Caihead wrote:On November 19 2012 05:42 Feartheguru wrote:On November 19 2012 05:39 calderon wrote:On November 19 2012 05:36 Feartheguru wrote:
[quote]
It's been ruled by the Jews for 60 years, is it Arab land because they once occupied it half a century ago?
The land belongs to whoever is able to control it. You don't have some god given right to the land because you took it over and lived on it for a while. So if USA invaded Canada tomoro and took control of it its all fair game? sure. LOL I'm using YOUR logic in a similar example to show how stupid it is. I'm glad you realize it's awful logic Now make the connection ----->>>> Centering the argument on "who can hold the land" just removes any resemblance of civilization, we might as well not talk about it because it will just be a "whatever the most powerful says goes". We rebute the claims of historical precedence because we are forced to since it's a great portion of the Israeli rhetoric, not because we want to use that as a medium to argue that the Palestinians belong there. Get out of your house and give it to a descendant of whatever aboriginal group lived in your area, then we'll talk. What the hell is that supposed to mean? Here's the logic flow: Israel centers a great portion of its claim to the land not on political or diplomatic maneuvers, but by claims that they once belonged there according to religious text and scripture, and then began attempting to back it up with Archaeological evidence post occupation. Those who disagree with this occupation have to address the claims based on precedence from Israel, but their main focal point is not that the Palestinians had a "historical claim" to the land. The main focal point is how the occupation is taking place and the present situation. We would protest this regardless of whether or not either party had historical claims to the land, because the historical claims (dating back thousands of years) are not actually relevant. You are saying my assertion that whoever control the land owns it for the moment is false. That historical claim is how we should view it because that's the civilized way to view land conflicts. Aboriginals have a historical claim to all of the land in Canada, why does your land belong to you? So you're saying Jewish people have claim to the land in Israel/Palestine because they have a weak historical claim from 2 millenia ago? No, I believe his point is that historical claims in general are a very poor means with which to ascertain the validity of land "ownership". But thats what the Israeli Government and is the argument that MANY Israelis use when trying to justify their position.
Its one part of it, but no where near as strong as the recent and practical ones.
|
On November 19 2012 06:04 m4inbrain wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2012 06:02 Goozen wrote:On November 19 2012 05:55 EtherealBlade wrote:On November 19 2012 05:49 Goozen wrote:On November 19 2012 05:45 EtherealBlade wrote:On November 19 2012 05:40 Feartheguru wrote:On November 19 2012 05:32 Pureh wrote:On November 19 2012 05:27 Feartheguru wrote:On November 19 2012 05:21 Pureh wrote:On November 19 2012 03:43 moskonia wrote:
[quote]
You seem confused, this is between a country, Israel, to a terrorism organization, Hamas, not a country. If it was a war between countries it would have been much simpler. You have got things mixed there. Israel was founded through terrorist actions, I see that being completely left out. So if we follow what you say, then Hamas turning itself into a Gaza-country will just abolish all terrorist actions they've done? Nice reasoning you got there mate. Alternate history is cool. Care to explain there? You're telling me that Palestinians came from nowhere or were dropped from UFOs? I mean there are so much made up stories coming from everyone, but let's just not be too extreme. Uh.... Palestinians never ruled over Palestine, there was a power vacuum after the British left, the Arabs tried to get the land for the Palestinians, the Jews there tried to form their own state, they won, they got their state. Please take your advice, you're the one making extreme claims lol. The difference is, the natives were expecting to finally gain independence after centuries of Ottoman and decades of British rule. If you look at some African borders, decolonisation happened without much care over ethnical borders, this is why so many border conflicts happen there to this day. Now in Palestine however, it's not just a border conflict, but an entire "state" was created over another one. If people had to guess who would rule Palestine after the British Mandate is over, it would have been the majority population obviously, and that would definitely create Israel over there... 2 States were offered (see partition plan), now you could argue that the British had no right to promise some of the land they owned, but they did. Had the arabs not decided to go "all in" it would be different today. This is exactly the problem, they had no right. "We're putting an end to colonialism, but hey, here's one last deicision we'd liket to make:" Can you blame them for going all in though? I'm not saying they should have, or that it was a smart deicision but the stakes were high, who wouldn't have wanted the entire land in their position. Here is the catch though, had they won it wouldn't have been Palestine, it would be a mix of Jordan, Syria. Egypt and the other nations who attacked. Hence why the whole idea of Palastinian independence didnt come in to play till post 67. As far as the British having "no right" international law at the time says otherwise, Their land, their choice. Doesn't make it right. Same goes for so many things. But i agree, these are issues that cannot be resolved anymore, ever. It's actually more interesting to discuss, what can happen to get a bit of peace. Realistic, i mean. Not some "they just need to put their weapons down and blabla", we all know thats not gonna happen. Even when hamas is gone, the rockets wont stop. So, suggestions?
For anything to change violence needs to stop and the Palestinians need 1 government not 2 so that negotiations can be held.
|
On November 19 2012 06:03 calderon wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2012 06:01 farvacola wrote:On November 19 2012 06:00 calderon wrote:On November 19 2012 05:56 Feartheguru wrote:On November 19 2012 05:54 Caihead wrote:On November 19 2012 05:48 Feartheguru wrote:On November 19 2012 05:46 Caihead wrote:On November 19 2012 05:42 Feartheguru wrote:On November 19 2012 05:39 calderon wrote:On November 19 2012 05:36 Feartheguru wrote:
[quote]
It's been ruled by the Jews for 60 years, is it Arab land because they once occupied it half a century ago?
The land belongs to whoever is able to control it. You don't have some god given right to the land because you took it over and lived on it for a while. So if USA invaded Canada tomoro and took control of it its all fair game? sure. LOL I'm using YOUR logic in a similar example to show how stupid it is. I'm glad you realize it's awful logic Now make the connection ----->>>> Centering the argument on "who can hold the land" just removes any resemblance of civilization, we might as well not talk about it because it will just be a "whatever the most powerful says goes". We rebute the claims of historical precedence because we are forced to since it's a great portion of the Israeli rhetoric, not because we want to use that as a medium to argue that the Palestinians belong there. Get out of your house and give it to a descendant of whatever aboriginal group lived in your area, then we'll talk. What the hell is that supposed to mean? Here's the logic flow: Israel centers a great portion of its claim to the land not on political or diplomatic maneuvers, but by claims that they once belonged there according to religious text and scripture, and then began attempting to back it up with Archaeological evidence post occupation. Those who disagree with this occupation have to address the claims based on precedence from Israel, but their main focal point is not that the Palestinians had a "historical claim" to the land. The main focal point is how the occupation is taking place and the present situation. We would protest this regardless of whether or not either party had historical claims to the land, because the historical claims (dating back thousands of years) are not actually relevant. You are saying my assertion that whoever control the land owns it for the moment is false. That historical claim is how we should view it because that's the civilized way to view land conflicts. Aboriginals have a historical claim to all of the land in Canada, why does your land belong to you? So you're saying Jewish people have claim to the land in Israel/Palestine because they have a weak historical claim from 2 millenia ago? No, I believe his point is that historical claims in general are a very poor means with which to ascertain the validity of land "ownership". But thats what the Israeli Government and is the argument that MANY Israelis use when trying to justify their position.
Holy crap you need to improve reading comprehension buddy. The only people who used that awful logic used it to satirically make fun of YOUR logic that YOU deserve the land because of historical claims. You're saying Israelis are using a bad argument when you're the one making that argument.
|
On November 19 2012 06:04 Feartheguru wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2012 06:00 calderon wrote:On November 19 2012 05:56 Feartheguru wrote:On November 19 2012 05:54 Caihead wrote:On November 19 2012 05:48 Feartheguru wrote:On November 19 2012 05:46 Caihead wrote:On November 19 2012 05:42 Feartheguru wrote:On November 19 2012 05:39 calderon wrote:On November 19 2012 05:36 Feartheguru wrote:On November 19 2012 05:31 calderon wrote:
[quote]
The area has been under rule by Arabs for the last 1500 years, is it Jewish land because they once occupied millenia ago? It's been ruled by the Jews for 60 years, is it Arab land because they once occupied it half a century ago? The land belongs to whoever is able to control it. You don't have some god given right to the land because you took it over and lived on it for a while. So if USA invaded Canada tomoro and took control of it its all fair game? sure. LOL I'm using YOUR logic in a similar example to show how stupid it is. I'm glad you realize it's awful logic Now make the connection ----->>>> Centering the argument on "who can hold the land" just removes any resemblance of civilization, we might as well not talk about it because it will just be a "whatever the most powerful says goes". We rebute the claims of historical precedence because we are forced to since it's a great portion of the Israeli rhetoric, not because we want to use that as a medium to argue that the Palestinians belong there. Get out of your house and give it to a descendant of whatever aboriginal group lived in your area, then we'll talk. What the hell is that supposed to mean? Here's the logic flow: Israel centers a great portion of its claim to the land not on political or diplomatic maneuvers, but by claims that they once belonged there according to religious text and scripture, and then began attempting to back it up with Archaeological evidence post occupation. Those who disagree with this occupation have to address the claims based on precedence from Israel, but their main focal point is not that the Palestinians had a "historical claim" to the land. The main focal point is how the occupation is taking place and the present situation. We would protest this regardless of whether or not either party had historical claims to the land, because the historical claims (dating back thousands of years) are not actually relevant. You are saying my assertion that whoever control the land owns it for the moment is false. That historical claim is how we should view it because that's the civilized way to view land conflicts. Aboriginals have a historical claim to all of the land in Canada, why does your land belong to you? So you're saying Jewish people have claim to the land in Israel/Palestine because they have a weak historical claim from 2 millenia ago? Wtf.... I'm saying if you disregard the aboriginals land claim, but think the Palestinians' land claim is valid when they are based on the same "recently lived there" logic then you're a hypocrite.
My first statement was aimed at the fact that MANY Israeli supporters claim that they have a right to the land because of historical claims from centuries ago. I was not saying that the Palistenians land claims are valid, I'm saying they are equally if not more valid than the Israelis because of the length of time they were there in modern history and the time lapsed since occupying the land.
Suddenly you misquote me and starting using my quote against an argument that I didn't even make then claim that I'm the idiot? Good work buddy.
|
On November 19 2012 06:02 bonse wrote:Guys, stick to the subject, that is, what is going now in Gaza. Someone wants to debate other (more or less related) topics, should do this in the proper thread (and there is plenty of them) Show nested quote +MFA: Hamas detains foreign journalists in the Gaza Strip
"Hamas is not allowing at least 22 foreign nationals who wish to exit the Gaza Strip for Israel to do so. Among the foreigners being detained are nine Italian citizens, one Canadian, one South Korean, a French national and six journalists from Japan. In addition, two Turkish Red Crescent members have been refused exit.
This violation of the human rights of neutral foreigners is yet another example of Hamas’ attempts to manipulate and pressure the press.
For its part, Israel is keeping the Erez crossing into Gaza open, allowing passage to the foreign press, diplomats and humanitarian workers."
Im sure that not the case and they just decided they really like the humus there.
|
On November 19 2012 06:07 Feartheguru wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2012 06:03 calderon wrote:On November 19 2012 06:01 farvacola wrote:On November 19 2012 06:00 calderon wrote:On November 19 2012 05:56 Feartheguru wrote:On November 19 2012 05:54 Caihead wrote:On November 19 2012 05:48 Feartheguru wrote:On November 19 2012 05:46 Caihead wrote:On November 19 2012 05:42 Feartheguru wrote:On November 19 2012 05:39 calderon wrote:
[quote]
So if USA invaded Canada tomoro and took control of it its all fair game? sure. LOL I'm using YOUR logic in a similar example to show how stupid it is. I'm glad you realize it's awful logic Now make the connection ----->>>> Centering the argument on "who can hold the land" just removes any resemblance of civilization, we might as well not talk about it because it will just be a "whatever the most powerful says goes". We rebute the claims of historical precedence because we are forced to since it's a great portion of the Israeli rhetoric, not because we want to use that as a medium to argue that the Palestinians belong there. Get out of your house and give it to a descendant of whatever aboriginal group lived in your area, then we'll talk. What the hell is that supposed to mean? Here's the logic flow: Israel centers a great portion of its claim to the land not on political or diplomatic maneuvers, but by claims that they once belonged there according to religious text and scripture, and then began attempting to back it up with Archaeological evidence post occupation. Those who disagree with this occupation have to address the claims based on precedence from Israel, but their main focal point is not that the Palestinians had a "historical claim" to the land. The main focal point is how the occupation is taking place and the present situation. We would protest this regardless of whether or not either party had historical claims to the land, because the historical claims (dating back thousands of years) are not actually relevant. You are saying my assertion that whoever control the land owns it for the moment is false. That historical claim is how we should view it because that's the civilized way to view land conflicts. Aboriginals have a historical claim to all of the land in Canada, why does your land belong to you? So you're saying Jewish people have claim to the land in Israel/Palestine because they have a weak historical claim from 2 millenia ago? No, I believe his point is that historical claims in general are a very poor means with which to ascertain the validity of land "ownership". But thats what the Israeli Government and is the argument that MANY Israelis use when trying to justify their position. The only people who used that awful logic used it to satirically make fun of YOUR logic that YOU deserve the land because of historical claims.
really? I've heard this argument made COUNTLESS times throughout this thread by Israelis. We've been arguing for the same thing yet I didnt' take a "pro-Israeli" stance so it got up your goat and you starting making personal insults. READING COMPREHNSION?
|
On November 19 2012 06:07 calderon wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2012 06:04 Feartheguru wrote:On November 19 2012 06:00 calderon wrote:On November 19 2012 05:56 Feartheguru wrote:On November 19 2012 05:54 Caihead wrote:On November 19 2012 05:48 Feartheguru wrote:On November 19 2012 05:46 Caihead wrote:On November 19 2012 05:42 Feartheguru wrote:On November 19 2012 05:39 calderon wrote:On November 19 2012 05:36 Feartheguru wrote:
[quote]
It's been ruled by the Jews for 60 years, is it Arab land because they once occupied it half a century ago?
The land belongs to whoever is able to control it. You don't have some god given right to the land because you took it over and lived on it for a while. So if USA invaded Canada tomoro and took control of it its all fair game? sure. LOL I'm using YOUR logic in a similar example to show how stupid it is. I'm glad you realize it's awful logic Now make the connection ----->>>> Centering the argument on "who can hold the land" just removes any resemblance of civilization, we might as well not talk about it because it will just be a "whatever the most powerful says goes". We rebute the claims of historical precedence because we are forced to since it's a great portion of the Israeli rhetoric, not because we want to use that as a medium to argue that the Palestinians belong there. Get out of your house and give it to a descendant of whatever aboriginal group lived in your area, then we'll talk. What the hell is that supposed to mean? Here's the logic flow: Israel centers a great portion of its claim to the land not on political or diplomatic maneuvers, but by claims that they once belonged there according to religious text and scripture, and then began attempting to back it up with Archaeological evidence post occupation. Those who disagree with this occupation have to address the claims based on precedence from Israel, but their main focal point is not that the Palestinians had a "historical claim" to the land. The main focal point is how the occupation is taking place and the present situation. We would protest this regardless of whether or not either party had historical claims to the land, because the historical claims (dating back thousands of years) are not actually relevant. You are saying my assertion that whoever control the land owns it for the moment is false. That historical claim is how we should view it because that's the civilized way to view land conflicts. Aboriginals have a historical claim to all of the land in Canada, why does your land belong to you? So you're saying Jewish people have claim to the land in Israel/Palestine because they have a weak historical claim from 2 millenia ago? Wtf.... I'm saying if you disregard the aboriginals land claim, but think the Palestinians' land claim is valid when they are based on the same "recently lived there" logic then you're a hypocrite. My first statement was aimed at the fact that MANY Israeli supporters claim that they have a right to the land because of historical claims from centuries ago. I was not saying that the Palistenians land claims are valid, I'm saying they are equally if not more valid than the Israelis because of the length of time they were there in modern history and the time lapsed since occupying the land. Suddenly you misquote me and starting using my quote against an argument that I didn't even make then claim that I'm the idiot? Good work buddy.
NO ISRAELI SUPPORTER made that claim. You're making up a claim then arguing against it. Good work buddy.
Find one person that made that claim and show me. I'm waiting.
|
On November 19 2012 05:32 Feartheguru wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2012 05:29 Vivax wrote:
So, assuming Israel finishes the job and inglobates Palestine after some sort of capitulation (expressed by an underground group -the hamas- lol) : Where you gonna put all those palestinians? Think you can all just coexist peacefully as if nothing happened? It isn't a coincidence that lots of wars ended up with genocide attempts or some sort of super oppressive regime. The US army can withdraw from the middle east after beating the governing powers, you can't just withdraw from the zone in front of your own home.
Either both accept things as they are or one finishes the job fast, anything else just doesn't solve a thing.
Yeah, the situation sucks for both parties, but at least Israel has defense systems against rockets. Israel is not gonna "accept" that they're going to be hit by rockets. They are also not willing to commit genocide, so...
The Isrealis ARE committing genocide. Dude, what planet are you on?
|
On November 19 2012 05:58 Goozen wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2012 05:54 Caihead wrote:On November 19 2012 05:48 Feartheguru wrote:On November 19 2012 05:46 Caihead wrote:On November 19 2012 05:42 Feartheguru wrote:On November 19 2012 05:39 calderon wrote:On November 19 2012 05:36 Feartheguru wrote:On November 19 2012 05:31 calderon wrote:On November 19 2012 05:30 Feartheguru wrote:On November 19 2012 05:27 calderon wrote:
[quote]
lol. The last time I checked it was Israel who made the preemptive strike in the six day war.
lol. I assumed you have the intelligence to know that when you preemptively attack knowing the other side is about to invade, the other side is the one starting the war. Don't worry, won't make that mistake again. The area has been under rule by Arabs for the last 1500 years, is it Jewish land because they once occupied millenia ago? It's been ruled by the Jews for 60 years, is it Arab land because they once occupied it half a century ago? The land belongs to whoever is able to control it. You don't have some god given right to the land because you took it over and lived on it for a while. So if USA invaded Canada tomoro and took control of it its all fair game? sure. LOL I'm using YOUR logic in a similar example to show how stupid it is. I'm glad you realize it's awful logic Now make the connection ----->>>> Centering the argument on "who can hold the land" just removes any resemblance of civilization, we might as well not talk about it because it will just be a "whatever the most powerful says goes". We rebute the claims of historical precedence because we are forced to since it's a great portion of the Israeli rhetoric, not because we want to use that as a medium to argue that the Palestinians belong there. Get out of your house and give it to a descendant of whatever aboriginal group lived in your area, then we'll talk. What the hell is that supposed to mean? Here's the logic flow: Israel centers a great portion of its claim to the land not on political or diplomatic maneuvers, but by claims that they once belonged there according to religious text and scripture, and then began attempting to back it up with Archaeological evidence post occupation. Those who disagree with this occupation have to address the claims based on precedence from Israel, but their main focal point is not that the Palestinians had a "historical claim" to the land. The main focal point is how the occupation is taking place and the present situation. We would protest this regardless of whether or not either party had historical claims to the land, because the historical claims (dating back thousands of years) are not actually relevant. Once gain your ignorance on the subject shows. History and religion was justification during Ottoman and British rule to move to Israel, Getting promised part of it by British and winning many wars of life or death for the rest of it is the justification.
So the justification is that others had done it before, so it's okay for the Israelis to do it also? As long as the British say it's okay, a "might makes right" approach is the only justification that you need to take Palestine?
Past claims mean literally nothing, because political entities and demographics change so much over time. Italy has no right to suddenly attempt to conquer the people of the Mediterranean just because the Roman empire did so. Sweden has no right to sail for the UK just because the Vikings did so in ages past. I'm not trying to make a strawman here but to make equal comparisons, because the only difference is that Israel has already occupied much of Palestine and the UK endorsed it.
|
On November 19 2012 06:09 Phoenix2003 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2012 05:32 Feartheguru wrote:On November 19 2012 05:29 Vivax wrote:
So, assuming Israel finishes the job and inglobates Palestine after some sort of capitulation (expressed by an underground group -the hamas- lol) : Where you gonna put all those palestinians? Think you can all just coexist peacefully as if nothing happened? It isn't a coincidence that lots of wars ended up with genocide attempts or some sort of super oppressive regime. The US army can withdraw from the middle east after beating the governing powers, you can't just withdraw from the zone in front of your own home.
Either both accept things as they are or one finishes the job fast, anything else just doesn't solve a thing.
Yeah, the situation sucks for both parties, but at least Israel has defense systems against rockets. Israel is not gonna "accept" that they're going to be hit by rockets. They are also not willing to commit genocide, so... The Isrealis ARE committing genocide. Dude, what planet are you on?
Sorry I'm using the word in context to what the Arabs would do. I.E. KILL EVERYONE. While the Israeli kill what they need to for their national security. My mistake that your extremism changed the definition of the word for me.
P.S. actually learn the word means before making hilarious claims please. Killing a few thousands people for military purposes (with large civilians bystander casualties is not genocide lmfao.)
America killed hundreds of thousands of of German civilians with bombs, that's magnitudes worse.
|
On November 19 2012 06:02 Goozen wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2012 05:55 EtherealBlade wrote:On November 19 2012 05:49 Goozen wrote:On November 19 2012 05:45 EtherealBlade wrote:On November 19 2012 05:40 Feartheguru wrote:On November 19 2012 05:32 Pureh wrote:On November 19 2012 05:27 Feartheguru wrote:On November 19 2012 05:21 Pureh wrote:On November 19 2012 03:43 moskonia wrote:On November 19 2012 03:36 SlashCare wrote:
Why can´t they just set aside their differnces. That would be much better for the people in both countries. You seem confused, this is between a country, Israel, to a terrorism organization, Hamas, not a country. If it was a war between countries it would have been much simpler. You have got things mixed there. Israel was founded through terrorist actions, I see that being completely left out. So if we follow what you say, then Hamas turning itself into a Gaza-country will just abolish all terrorist actions they've done? Nice reasoning you got there mate. Alternate history is cool. Care to explain there? You're telling me that Palestinians came from nowhere or were dropped from UFOs? I mean there are so much made up stories coming from everyone, but let's just not be too extreme. Uh.... Palestinians never ruled over Palestine, there was a power vacuum after the British left, the Arabs tried to get the land for the Palestinians, the Jews there tried to form their own state, they won, they got their state. Please take your advice, you're the one making extreme claims lol. The difference is, the natives were expecting to finally gain independence after centuries of Ottoman and decades of British rule. If you look at some African borders, decolonisation happened without much care over ethnical borders, this is why so many border conflicts happen there to this day. Now in Palestine however, it's not just a border conflict, but an entire "state" was created over another one. If people had to guess who would rule Palestine after the British Mandate is over, it would have been the majority population obviously, and that would definitely create Israel over there... 2 States were offered (see partition plan), now you could argue that the British had no right to promise some of the land they owned, but they did. Had the arabs not decided to go "all in" it would be different today. This is exactly the problem, they had no right. "We're putting an end to colonialism, but hey, here's one last deicision we'd liket to make:" Can you blame them for going all in though? I'm not saying they should have, or that it was a smart deicision but the stakes were high, who wouldn't have wanted the entire land in their position. Here is the catch though, had they won it wouldn't have been Palestine, it would be a mix of Jordan, Syria. Egypt and the other nations who attacked. Hence why the whole idea of Palastinian independence didnt come in to play till post 67. As far as the British having "no right" international law at the time says otherwise, Their land, their choice.
Yes, but the whole idea of letting mandates and colonies go on without interfering in their affairs is the opposite of what they have actually done in the end (and not just in the Middle East).
Also if I remember correctly it was actually a League of Nations mandate - a failed organisation. There were solutions on the table that would have been better for both parties but instead they chose the worst possible option and they were never held responsible. And I guess Israel is not going to disown it's own founders - no sane nation would do that - and early zionists, even if they are the ones truly responsible for the long conflict that ensued.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
