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.
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.
Sigh... do you people know what genocide means? What the Arabs want to do to Israelis, that's genocide. Not gonna respond to you anymore. This post shows beyond a doubt this is a waste of my time.
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.
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.
Did you read what i said? situation was crap for jews in Europe so alot moved legaly to Ottoman and British controlled Palestine. Due to zionisim they wanted a nation and had historical connections to Israel so they asked the British and the said sure. And yes it is a straw man argument.
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.
Difference between arguing on TL and the rest of the internet:
Internet outside of TL:
DON'T FORGET IF YOU REALLY NEED TO MAKE A POINT IT'S ALWAYS BETTER TO TYPE IN CAPS AND OUTRIGHT INSULT ALL WHO DISAGREE!!!
TL: Be sure to prove your intelligent, civilized human nature by including a polite passive aggressive remark whilst refuting their points instead of resorting to blatant insults and physical violence.
Example:
Incorrect ---> person 1:
"u are 1 ****ing cheeky kunt mate i swear i am goin 2 wreck u i swear on my mums life"
Correct ---> person 2:
"Thats not very nice! this wouldve been a nice way to say it
You are one audacious chap; I give you my word and solemn oath that I am going to inflict physical damage on you, and in doing so i pledge that it will be done so be the existence of my mother!
I think most of the arguments in this thread are simply missing the point; All of these arguments about who 'deserves' the land simply don't matter in the real world; Israel is not, in fact, going to go away, and neither are the Palestinian people or government. The question is how, to the maximum extent possible, these groups can coexist peacefully. Those on both sides that are making these all-or-nothing arguments (for instance, Israeli 'settlers' and Palestinian militants) are looking to fuel the conflict for their own ends, and should, at the very least, be shunned by all on both sides. There are so many who simply wish to go on with their lives in peace, but their voices are not heard amidst the war cries of the insane.
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.
Did you read what i said? situation was crap for jews in Europe so alot moved legaly to Ottoman and British controlled Palestine. Due to zionisim they wanted a nation and had historical connections to Israel so they asked the British and the said sure. And yes it is a straw man argument.
i wonder what would have happened if the jews moved to Uganda instead
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.
Did you read this thread? several pages ago i posted the official Israeli response and it was:" The Israeli military said the attacks were pinpoint strikes on Hamas communication devices located on the buildings' roofs, and accused the Islamist group of using reporters as human shields to try and protect their operations... ...Israeli military spokeswoman Avital Leibovich denied that journalists were the target of the strike.
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.
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.
Did you read what i said? situation was crap for jews in Europe so alot moved legaly to Ottoman and British controlled Palestine. Due to zionisim they wanted a nation and had historical connections to Israel so they asked the British and the said sure. And yes it is a straw man argument.
i wonder what would have happened if the jews moved to Uganda instead
The British Uganda Program was a plan to give a portion of British East Africa to the Jewish people as a homeland.
The offer was first made by British Colonial Secretary Joseph Chamberlain to Theodore Herzl's Zionist group in 1903. He offered 5,000 square miles (13,000 km2) of the Mau Plateau in what is today Kenya. The offer was a response to pogroms against the Jews in Russia, and it was hoped the area could be a refuge from persecution for the Jewish people.
The idea was brought to the World Zionist Organization's Zionist Congress at its sixth meeting in 1903 meeting in Basel. There a fierce debate ensued. The African land was described as an "ante-chamber to the Holy Land", but other groups felt that accepting the offer would make it more difficult to establish a Jewish state in Palestine. Before the vote on the matter, the Russian delegation stormed out in opposition. In the end, the motion passed by 295 to 177 votes.
The next year, a three-man delegation was sent to inspect the plateau. Its high elevation gave it a temperate climate, making it suitable for European settlement. However, the observers found a dangerous land filled with lions and other creatures. Moreover, it was populated by a large number of Maasai who did not seem at all amenable to an influx of Europeans.
After receiving this report, the Congress decided in 1905 to politely decline the British offer. Some Jews, who viewed this as a mistake, formed the Jewish Territorialist Organization with the aim of establishing a Jewish state anywhere.[4]
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.
Sigh... do you people know what genocide means? What the Arabs want to do to Israelis, that's genocide.
I never said its genocide, I was responding to your "While the Israeli kill what they need to for their national security."
And your point? there's more to national security that destroying rocket sites. I never said the Israelis are saints, I'm not claiming they are not some high and mighty good guys fighting against the evil forces arrayed against them. I'm saying they're not the aggressors and have a right to do what they deem necessary for their people's safety. If that means 5 dead Palestinians to save one of their own, so be it. Every country in the world would make that trade if it's within their power.
Still waiting for your examples.... so many Israelis made those claims, can't be very hard to find a few right?
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.
Did you read what i said? situation was crap for jews in Europe so alot moved legaly to Ottoman and British controlled Palestine. Due to zionisim they wanted a nation and had historical connections to Israel so they asked the British and the said sure. And yes it is a straw man argument.
i wonder what would have happened if the jews moved to Uganda instead
The British Uganda Program was a plan to give a portion of British East Africa to the Jewish people as a homeland.
The offer was first made by British Colonial Secretary Joseph Chamberlain to Theodore Herzl's Zionist group in 1903. He offered 5,000 square miles (13,000 km2) of the Mau Plateau in what is today Kenya. The offer was a response to pogroms against the Jews in Russia, and it was hoped the area could be a refuge from persecution for the Jewish people.
The idea was brought to the World Zionist Organization's Zionist Congress at its sixth meeting in 1903 meeting in Basel. There a fierce debate ensued. The African land was described as an "ante-chamber to the Holy Land", but other groups felt that accepting the offer would make it more difficult to establish a Jewish state in Palestine. Before the vote on the matter, the Russian delegation stormed out in opposition. In the end, the motion passed by 295 to 177 votes.
The next year, a three-man delegation was sent to inspect the plateau. Its high elevation gave it a temperate climate, making it suitable for European settlement. However, the observers found a dangerous land filled with lions and other creatures. Moreover, it was populated by a large number of Maasai who did not seem at all amenable to an influx of Europeans.
After receiving this report, the Congress decided in 1905 to politely decline the British offer. Some Jews, who viewed this as a mistake, formed the Jewish Territorialist Organization with the aim of establishing a Jewish state anywhere.[4]
On November 19 2012 06:00 calderon wrote: 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?
Jewish people have a claim to the land of Israel because it's in their soul. It just is. They are home. If you can't understand this, you can never understand what is going on. The problem is people seem to believe that claims are exclusionary. They are not. Several peoples can call a place home and live in harmony. In Israel there is an astounding amount of peoples, and 99.9% live in harmony. White, Black, Brown and Yellow Jews, Druze, Circassians, Bedouins, Armenians, Maronites, Samaritans, Copts, Black Hebrews (something different from the Ethyopian Jews), Assyrians, Bahais even a group of Vietnamese call this place home (wikipedia link). Even a huge percent of the Israeli Arabs declare that they are proud to be Israelis and wave Israeli flags. Everybody lives together in harmony. Israelis showed that it can be done. What about the Palestinians? And then, people like you come saying that Israelis must go back to Poland. Don't you feel a bit ridiculous? (Just imagine Yemenite Jews, Copts and Bahais together "back" in Poland - yeah, the wet dream of many ppl on forums)
On November 19 2012 05:42 Feartheguru wrote: [quote]
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.
Did you read what i said? situation was crap for jews in Europe so alot moved legaly to Ottoman and British controlled Palestine. Due to zionisim they wanted a nation and had historical connections to Israel so they asked the British and the said sure. And yes it is a straw man argument.
i wonder what would have happened if the jews moved to Uganda instead
The British Uganda Program was a plan to give a portion of British East Africa to the Jewish people as a homeland.
The offer was first made by British Colonial Secretary Joseph Chamberlain to Theodore Herzl's Zionist group in 1903. He offered 5,000 square miles (13,000 km2) of the Mau Plateau in what is today Kenya. The offer was a response to pogroms against the Jews in Russia, and it was hoped the area could be a refuge from persecution for the Jewish people.
The idea was brought to the World Zionist Organization's Zionist Congress at its sixth meeting in 1903 meeting in Basel. There a fierce debate ensued. The African land was described as an "ante-chamber to the Holy Land", but other groups felt that accepting the offer would make it more difficult to establish a Jewish state in Palestine. Before the vote on the matter, the Russian delegation stormed out in opposition. In the end, the motion passed by 295 to 177 votes.
The next year, a three-man delegation was sent to inspect the plateau. Its high elevation gave it a temperate climate, making it suitable for European settlement. However, the observers found a dangerous land filled with lions and other creatures. Moreover, it was populated by a large number of Maasai who did not seem at all amenable to an influx of Europeans.
After receiving this report, the Congress decided in 1905 to politely decline the British offer. Some Jews, who viewed this as a mistake, formed the Jewish Territorialist Organization with the aim of establishing a Jewish state anywhere.[4]
Ya, although its over done calling him "the father of Israel" at the start Hitler would have "probably" been happy just to kick out the jews, (possibly kill them later or just keep them out of the riech, no way to know for sure) he always hated them but this may have solved his "problem". But history speaks for itself.
The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a testament to the failure of the international system in the face of basic, human conflict. Again and again the world intervenes to 'stop the fighting,' and each time this ceasfire is simply a temporary condition that resolves nothing, but which paves the way for future generations to continue the fight.
In the past, a conflict of this magnitude is resolved by the total destruction of one faction. The savagery of such a defeat is what the modern world refuses to witness, 'civilized' as they believe themselves to be. Yet, the alternative they offer is a sustained bleeding, a tortured existence that has no end.
I am reminded of two soldiers, on opposite sides, waking up each day to slaughter the other, only for the loser to be resuscitated at night by a doctor driven to save lives whatever the cost. The doctor has great intentions, but the result of his actions is that neither side is able to achieve victory, and so the slaughter goes on and on.
clearly israel should be allowed to drive palestinians into the sea to fulfill this essential human function of conflict. the desire for victory must be fulfilled rather than treated
On November 19 2012 07:04 Azarkon wrote: The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a testament to the failure of the international system in the face of basic, human conflict. Again and again the world intervenes to 'stop the fighting,' and each time this ceasfire is simply a temporary condition that resolves nothing, but which paves the way for future generations to continue the fight.
In the past, a conflict of this magnitude is resolved by the total destruction of one faction. The savagery of such a defeat is what the modern world refuses to witness, 'civilized' as they believe themselves to be. Yet, the alternative they offer is a sustained bleeding, a tortured existence that has no end.
I am reminded of two soldiers, on opposite sides, waking up each day to slaughter the other, only for the loser to be resuscitated at night by a doctor driven to save lives whatever the cost. The doctor has great intentions, but the result of his actions is that neither side is able to achieve victory, and so the slaughter goes on and on.
I think it is more about how creating nation-state in the era of post-decolonization is quite constrained. In the past, Israel could have done a more effective job of ethnic cleansing and nobody really would have cared, just as countries like America are founded on genocide, but we aren't even giving back the Black Hills, much less large parts of the country. But after World War II (and ironically in large part because of the Holocaust), there is a broad international consensus against that sort of thing. So only half measures are possible, yes, but I think you underestimate how effective these can be in the long run.
Israel is doing quite well with the status quo. They have managed to create a good deal of security for their citizens without sacrificing the zeal their notional insecurity brings, and they are creating facts on the ground through settlements and such that will become increasingly morally problematic to reverse as time goes on. Meanwhile, more and more of the living victims of expulsion in 1948 are dying. Eventually, Israel really will be able to say that Palestinians' grievances are all "in the past" as it were, and so with every passing day, the outline of what Israel would realistically have to give up to achieve peace becomes smaller and smaller. On the other hand, perhaps the chances of peace become smaller as well, as the Palestinians see they have less to gain, but that's no matter for Israel, since they have no real need for peace as much as the Palestinians anyway.
On November 19 2012 07:04 Azarkon wrote: The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a testament to the failure of the international system in the face of basic, human conflict. Again and again the world intervenes to 'stop the fighting,' and each time this ceasfire is simply a temporary condition that resolves nothing, but which paves the way for future generations to continue the fight.
In the past, a conflict of this magnitude is resolved by the total destruction of one faction. The savagery of such a defeat is what the modern world refuses to witness, 'civilized' as they believe themselves to be. Yet, the alternative they offer is a sustained bleeding, a tortured existence that has no end.
I am reminded of two soldiers, on opposite sides, waking up each day to slaughter the other, only for the loser to be resuscitated at night by a doctor driven to save lives whatever the cost. The doctor has great intentions, but the result of his actions is that neither side is able to achieve victory, and so the slaughter goes on and on.
Terrorism won't just suddenly end if they occupy Gaza and the West bank, if anything it would create even more hatred and turn more people into hard-liners who would want to join organizations like Hamas. If you are literally saying they should just go in and murder every man woman and child, then all their problems will be solved.... I probably shouldn't reply, you must know you are just, fucking, nuts. Anyway, what kind of problem solving is that? It's like deleting an entire programs worth of coding because you messed up a line somewhere along the way and you can't locate it. Except the words are people. Empathy is a good thing, maybe try it out some time.
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.
Sigh... do you people know what genocide means? What the Arabs want to do to Israelis, that's genocide.
I never said its genocide, I was responding to your "While the Israeli kill what they need to for their national security."
And your point? there's more to national security that destroying rocket sites. I never said the Israelis are saints, I'm not claiming they are not some high and mighty good guys fighting against the evil forces arrayed against them. I'm saying they're not the aggressors and have a right to do what they deem necessary for their people's safety. If that means 5 dead Palestinians to save one of their own, so be it. Every country in the world would make that trade if it's within their power.
Still waiting for your examples.... so many Israelis made those claims, can't be very hard to find a few right?
My point is.. that you said that i claimed this was genocide, I did not say that. So my point is to stop putting words in my mouth.
I'm at work atm and can't go trawling throught this thread, I do remember reading atleast 2 comments of this nature.
On November 19 2012 06:00 calderon wrote: 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?
Jewish people have a claim to the land of Israel because it's in their soul. It just is. They are home. If you can't understand this, you can never understand what is going on. The problem is people seem to believe that claims are exclusionary. They are not. Several peoples can call a place home and live in harmony. In Israel there is an astounding amount of peoples, and 99.9% live in harmony. White, Black, Brown and Yellow Jews, Druze, Circassians, Bedouins, Armenians, Maronites, Samaritans, Copts, Black Hebrews (something different from the Ethyopian Jews), Assyrians, Bahais even a group of Vietnamese call this place home (wikipedia link). Even a huge percent of the Israeli Arabs declare that they are proud to be Israelis and wave Israeli flags. Everybody lives together in harmony. Israelis showed that it can be done. What about the Palestinians? And then, people like you come saying that Israelis must go back to Poland. Don't you feel a bit ridiculous? (Just imagine Yemenite Jews, Copts and Bahais together "back" in Poland - yeah, the wet dream of many ppl on forums)
EPT
