|
Stay on topic. I cannot put it more clearly then that. Derailments will be met with consequences. ~Nyovne |
On November 02 2011 00:57 konadora wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2011 00:54 HackBenjamin wrote:On November 02 2011 00:47 konadora wrote:On November 02 2011 00:46 SirMilford wrote:On November 02 2011 00:44 konadora wrote:
uh, what kind of stupid law is that that forces a government to cut financial ties to a global organisation because of one country? on what basis? It would be from their relation with Israel almost certainly. sorry i'm not really into politics, but what was the relation between the US, israel and palestine? genuinely curious. The super abridged version? Israel and Palestine don't like eachother. Israel used to be small, Palestine used to be big. Now it's the opposite. Check out this picture ![[image loading]](http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_pEfVJ93Cwa8/TDjQIyH5mGI/AAAAAAAAGmk/EA9TbmokMRE/s1600/israel-palestine-map.jpg) Make sense? holy... how on earth did that even happen and no one raised the issue over the course of decades?
On November 02 2011 09:25 XRaDiiX wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2011 00:54 HackBenjamin wrote:On November 02 2011 00:47 konadora wrote:On November 02 2011 00:46 SirMilford wrote:On November 02 2011 00:44 konadora wrote:
uh, what kind of stupid law is that that forces a government to cut financial ties to a global organisation because of one country? on what basis? It would be from their relation with Israel almost certainly. sorry i'm not really into politics, but what was the relation between the US, israel and palestine? genuinely curious. The super abridged version? Israel and Palestine don't like eachother. Israel used to be small, Palestine used to be big. Now it's the opposite. Check out this picture Make sense? That's exactly how it happened Israel simply had help from the Allies and/or British and kicked the Palestinians out Literally The Israelis actually believe that they are the Chosen ones and the land belongs to them. But in Reality they exterminated/kicked out/ forced people to migrate out of their home-land where they had been living for 100's of years or more. Palestine is what the land Used to be called until Israelis came in claiming it their chosen land and kicked the Palestinians out. Essentially.
lol.... Israel and Palestine (and their ancestors) have been fighting since humans (notably Abraham, father of Moses) migrated from Sumer and the Babolynian area in early BCE. Basically since the beginning of mankind lol. During WWII, England promised both Palestine and Isreal the Holy Land (which is what you can see in the images on the first page [Jerusalem and friends]). Palestine for their assistance in defeating the Turkish, and Israel for lending them money so they don't go bankrupt. After WWII, England forced the 2 peoples into what became the 2nd image in the timeline. The Jewish people populated much faster however, and took a popular rule, took down the Palestine flag, and put up an Israeli flag. Then things escalated.
Anyways, the USA won't lose influence in those organizations, because they have influence everywhere. Even if they withdraw funding, they still have military deployments in a ridiculous percentage of the world, and hold influential power in the majority of national governments world wide. Not only that, but nobody wants to become an enemy with the United States since the USA is the only country really capable of unleashing a military beating on whomever they please, at any given moment.
The influence that the USA has, although it's economy and just about everything else has completely gone down the tubes, is immense, and thus nobody in these organizations will be bold enough to allow countries to do things if the USA disapproves of it.
Edit: added 2nd quote
|
On November 02 2011 09:25 XRaDiiX wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2011 00:54 HackBenjamin wrote:On November 02 2011 00:47 konadora wrote:On November 02 2011 00:46 SirMilford wrote:On November 02 2011 00:44 konadora wrote:
uh, what kind of stupid law is that that forces a government to cut financial ties to a global organisation because of one country? on what basis? It would be from their relation with Israel almost certainly. sorry i'm not really into politics, but what was the relation between the US, israel and palestine? genuinely curious. The super abridged version? Israel and Palestine don't like eachother. Israel used to be small, Palestine used to be big. Now it's the opposite. Check out this picture Make sense? That's exactly how it happened Israel simply had help from the Allies and/or British and kicked the Palestinians out Literally The Israelis actually believe that they are the Chosen ones and the land belongs to them. But in Reality they exterminated/kicked out/ forced people to migrate out of their home-land where they had been living for 100's of years or more. Palestine is what the land Used to be called until Israelis came in claiming it their chosen land and kicked the Palestinians out. Essentially.
Please read a history book for god's sake. In reality Israel was INVADED by the surrounding Arab nations and gained territory during the war. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_Arab–Israeli_War
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab–Israeli_conflict
Also a pretty essential read considering how little people here seem to know or care about the actual history of the conflict. Originally, Jewish settlers bought land from the Ottoman sultans, not forcibly taken from Palestinians. The Palestinians who lost their homes lost them because of the impending invasion of 5 major Arab nations into the region.
|
On November 02 2011 09:07 Ripps wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2011 08:48 Derez wrote:On November 02 2011 07:56 Ripps wrote:Wow. I can't help but feeling that Nash was right with regards to this thread. The success of particular Jews has nothing to do with American foreign policy and I think that throwing around all these accusations of a Jewish kleptocracy is treading a thin line between thick-headed naievety and outright anti-semitism. I don't think I'm being unfair or playing a trump card. Review this thread yourselves and read the rest of my post before you disagree. I'm not exactly the biggest supporter of Israeli policy with regards to Palestine, but is there nobody here that see's SOME of Israel's security concerns as legitimate? Are you really so partisan as to post an image that depicts a shrinking Palestine without regerence to the Arab aggression and UN resolutions that caused this to happen? Israel has been attacked again and again and again by united Arab coalitions who outnumber them exponentially in both numbers and finances. They've been attacked from all sides by half a dozen governments all bent on their eradication. If Israel doesn't want to create yet another Arab state whose sole foreign-policy goal is to "wipe Israel off the map", then I think they are right to do so. Read the Hamas (the ruling party of Palestine's )constitution. It's terrifying: Read it yourself on wikipedia: Hamas Charter"The Charter identifies Hamas as the Muslim Brotherhood in Palestine and declares its members to be Muslims who "fear God and raise the banner of Jihad in the face of the oppressors." The charter states that "our struggle against the Jews is very great and very serious" and calls for the eventual creation of an Islamic state in Palestine, in place of Israel and the Palestinian Territories." Everything about the charter is anti-semitic, militant, and dogmaticly Islamist. Hamas and Fatah fight each other, the IDF, the Israeli population, and even use their own people as "civilian shields". To put this into context, I'm of Irish-Catholic descent, so I'm not exactly partial to apartheid and people denying others the right to self-determination. I've been to Belfast. I've seen the "peace walls." On the other hand, as a Canadian citizen, I'd think twice about letting Quebec seperate if the Bloc Quebecois had a constitution that called for the eradication of the Canadian state and it's replacement with a militantly French theocratic government. tl;dr This issue is way more complicated than the previous posters have let on. As much as the Palestinians don't like it, there needs to be peace before there can be justice with regards to the apartheid, and there needs to be justice before there can be a two-state solution. You can't just "ratify" a state into existence through the impostition of an inept international beuraucratic behemoth. Edit: Most Canadians don't share my opinions on this matter. Hamas isn't the ruling party in Palestine, it's the ruling party in the Gaza strip and its succes is largely due to 1) Israeli behaviour and 2) being able to provide basic social goods to the general population. Hamas isn't just popular because of it's terrorist parts, it's popular because even before taking power in the Gaza strip, they provided services to the population that neither the Palestinian government nor the international community could provide. Next to that, a constitution isn't the same thing as a charter and the hardline israeli settlers are just as bad. Neither Hamas nor Israeli hardliners actually want a two-state solution, seeing how their entire ideology and political relevance depends on the conflict itself, and voila, frozen conflict. For one, I'll edit my post to say "the majority party" rather than the "ruling party". That was my mistake, although I think its trivial. The source of Hamas' popularity, however, is irrelevant. They still are what they are. It's true that a charter isn't quite a constitition. It's what the constitution WOULD ideally be if they gained their own state. Again, I think this distinction is trivial, but I'll change it for accuracy's sake.
My point was that you can't simply see Hamas as a terrorist organisation, and the same goes Hezbollah or the Muslim Brotherhood. While it is true that these organisations started that way, it does no justice to the role they currently play in Palestine/Lebanon/etc. A convenient fact that often gets overlooked in the West is that these organisations are legitimate political organisations, that fullfill functions way beyond 'terrorism'. And they are playing more and more by 'the rules'. The decision by Hamas to participate in the elections had more to do with obtaining legitimacy in the West then it had with asserting control over the Gaza strip, which they de-facto had way before the elections. Hamas is slowly entering 'mainstream' politics, and as someone else pointed out, their 'charter' is largely considered irrelevant by their own political leadership.
A more accurate comparison would be Sinn Fein - IRA distinction, where parts of the organisation are in fact terrorist in nature, but a much larger part of Hamas simply consists of people trying to organise their own society, which they perceive to be under constant attack from Israel. There are factions within Hamas that don't agree with the new, more mainstream direction their party is taking, much like IRA splinter groups such as the Real IRA and you name it.
On November 02 2011 09:07 Ripps wrote:Show nested quote +
I honestly don't see what you're arguing here. Just let them rot for another 20 years? The current situation isn't benefitting anyone. A major cause of the anti-western hatred in the Arab world is the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and it is actively used/exploited by terrorist organisations to gain popular support. 'Doing nothing' and 'waiting for the problem to fix itself' hasn't worked over the last 50 years, and with both sides becoming more entrenched a solution becomes harder every single day.
Yea, it's a complicated issue. It's also more complicated then 'all palestinians are hamas and therefore terrorists' and 'all israeli's are people that only want to protect what they have and live in peace'. There have been plently of moderate palestinians and palestinian leaders, and there are plently of crazed israeli settlers that feel that all of palestine pretty much belongs to them.
As for security concerns, how much does Israel actually have to fear from a unified Palestine with it's own sovereign territory? A solution will lessen tensions, not heighten them and they're dirt poor to begin with and no match for the Israeli military. The bigger risk for Israel is doing fuck all, continue to enrage the arab world, and then wait and see how Egypt feels about it once/if they get a democracy off the ground.
Let's not forget that the arabs/palestinians have valid grievances about the israeli's too. Breaking the arms of people throwing rocks at tanks isn't something that's acceptable, and neither were the sabra and shatila massacres.
This point is very relevant. I was arguing that the posts prior to mine were awful. They were misleading, inflammatory, unfair, and sometimes just plain wrong. I wanted to show that the situation was a lot more complicated than that, and that Israel does have some legitimate concerns with regards to the very existence of their state. That was all my post did. The rest of the stuff you make up is a strawman ("All palestinians are Hamas and therefore terrorists") that you created in place of my actual position, which I did not yet state. Personally, I think Israel is an oppressive, apartheid regime and that the Palestinians have a right to their own state, but only under the condition that they recognize the legitimacy of Israel's existence and agree to certain terms of disamarmament and border control. Border control probably won't be a problem, however, since Israel decided to build a giant "apartheid" wall where they want the border to be. My solution was not "do nothing". This is another strawman. I didn't offer a solution. That wasn't the point of my post. Just because Israel does unacceptable things, doesn't mean the Arabs don't have to accept their existence. I'll assert their right to exist and to deny Palestine their own state whilst Palestine takes such a hardline stance. I do not support their oppressive policies. I hope this clarifies my position.
I agree that any debate on Israel brings out the worst in people, and I might have responded too aggresively to what I perceived to be your position on it. As for the strawman part, notice the 'I honestly don't see what you're arguing here'. The first 'strawman' you see was based on your perception of Hamas, as explained above and I stand by that (because that actually seems to be your position; 'they still are what they are'). The second strawman thing is fair game, and I shouldn't have inferred your position from the post you made.
My point was simply that in order for any progress to be made, there needs to be an inclusive process, as opposed to the current exclusive one. It's convenient (for the west) to place any muslim organisation that resists oppression (the only way you can reasonably describe israeli behaviour) with violence as just 'another terrorist organisation', but it does no justice to the actual situation. Hamas isn't Al-Quaida, nor do they actually believe they're ever getting rid of Israel.
Any peace process is going to have to include Hamas, and that will require the West to change it's stance on the organisation. When it came to Northern Ireland, the US had the power to do this, and to force the different parties to accept Sinn Fein (and by proxy the IRA) as a legitimate partner in that process. Doing so will draw Hamas further into the mainstream, make them politically responsible for the actual results of the peace process and in the end, force them to make concessions.
|
On November 02 2011 09:24 SupLilSon wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2011 09:21 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:On November 02 2011 09:15 SupLilSon wrote:On November 02 2011 08:48 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:You forgot the part about "against targets requiring their use." I don't think Palestinian civilians are targets requiring the use of white phosphorous  . And Israeli civilians are valid targets of women and children suicide bombers? Please... both sides have committed terrible wrong doings... stop trying to project the idea that Israel is solely responsible for these kinds of actions... Of course not. But we were talking about white phosphorous, not about explosives  . You're attacking a hallucination / strawman, mate . I'm over here *waves* No one was talking about white phosphorous until you brought it up solely to discredit Israel. I fail to see how this is a strawman. :D
I see you have not been reading the thread carefully. I will quote you who started it. I was the 3rd comment concerning WP.
You created a strawman because you're saying my argument is that I'm condemning Israel for using WP and not Palestinians for using explosives and somehow I'm making Israel out to be all evil-like, when my whole argument was pointing out that using WP in war may be legal, but using it against civilians is not. That's a strawman, mate.
On November 02 2011 07:59 IveReturned wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2011 07:50 blinken wrote:On November 02 2011 01:53 SnK-Arcbound wrote:On November 02 2011 00:54 HackBenjamin wrote:On November 02 2011 00:47 konadora wrote:On November 02 2011 00:46 SirMilford wrote:On November 02 2011 00:44 konadora wrote:
uh, what kind of stupid law is that that forces a government to cut financial ties to a global organisation because of one country? on what basis? It would be from their relation with Israel almost certainly. sorry i'm not really into politics, but what was the relation between the US, israel and palestine? genuinely curious. The super abridged version? Israel and Palestine don't like eachother. Israel used to be small, Palestine used to be big. Now it's the opposite. Check out this picture Make sense? This is essentially what happened over the past 70 years. Israel has accepted every single peace treaty presented and the palestinians have denied every single peace treaty presented, even the one giving the palestinians 95% of the land. The reason why palestine doesn't have a state is because they refuse to make one. edit: and more on topic, the law came from one written back in 1990 if I remember correctly, so it's not like this is a surprise. I think the US should leave the UN and stop funding them anyways. I hope you're joking. Israel has never agreed to give the Palestinian's anywhere close to 95% of the land. They won't even agree to the 1967 borders, which is why Obama caused such a stir a few months ago. Don't state things like fact if you have utterly no idea what you're talking about. Or maybe you do know what you're talking about... Wait... are you Alan Dershowitz? EDIT: Also, people claiming that the IDF is the best trained army in the world make me laugh. War breeds a culture of military experience and understanding. Israel's "war" is jet planes versus people throwing stones. Israel's superiority is its Technology. Its also known that they used chemical bombs (The one with Phosphorus) in 2009(Or 2008 Im not sure)
On November 02 2011 09:30 Shinta) wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2011 00:57 konadora wrote:On November 02 2011 00:54 HackBenjamin wrote:On November 02 2011 00:47 konadora wrote:On November 02 2011 00:46 SirMilford wrote:On November 02 2011 00:44 konadora wrote:
uh, what kind of stupid law is that that forces a government to cut financial ties to a global organisation because of one country? on what basis? It would be from their relation with Israel almost certainly. sorry i'm not really into politics, but what was the relation between the US, israel and palestine? genuinely curious. The super abridged version? Israel and Palestine don't like eachother. Israel used to be small, Palestine used to be big. Now it's the opposite. Check out this picture Make sense? holy... how on earth did that even happen and no one raised the issue over the course of decades? lol.... Israel and Palestine (and their ancestors) have been fighting since humans (notably Abraham, father of Moses) migrated from Sumer and the Babolynian area in early BCE. Basically since the beginning of mankind lol.
These two sentences wanted to make me pull my hair out. It's not because of you, it's just things like what you said that are thrown around so much and yet so wrong that someone like me just is in pure astonishment as to how such things can even be thought up.
First of all (this didn't make me want to pull my hair out, so I'll take care of it first), you're making a huge fallacy of making out ancient mythology to be fact. We may as well talk about the Minotaur in the labyrinth in Crete and how Marduk slayed Tiamat (like how Yahweh slayed the Leviathan; not the one in StarCraft, mind you) if you're going to bring this up.
Secondly, there was no state called Palestine in ancient times, and what was called Israel back then was completely irrelevant to Israel today, and this is referring to the Kingdom of Israel which only lasted 100 years or less. In fact, today's Palestinians are the overwhelming majority of the descendants of the ancient peoples of Judah, Samaria, Philistia, southern Phoenicia, northern Edom, western Aram, etc., not today's Israelis. There were many nations just within present day Israel even at the height of the state. Araibu peoples, Phoenicians, Edomites, Aramites, Philistines, and others, including a plethora of lesser polities, all had territory in present-day Israel. Also you forget that the Hebrews split into two nations, and these Hebrews constantly warring against each other while warring with all these other people as well. So what you're saying is just so inaccurate and just plain wrong. There was no "israelis vs. palestinians" back then, and the majority of Israelis today are not descended from anyone in the Mideast, so don't make it out that way. It started out as "Israelites each other whiel fighting two shitloads of other peoples in Canaan" and then "Israelites still fighting each other (but now as two established polities rather than as semi-civilized tribes) and a shitton of people in Canaan and then even as far away as Mesopotamia", which is a far cry from what you're saying.
Judah even allied with the Assyrians against King Menahem of Samaria as just one example (in the Tanakh / Old Testament, of course, the northern kingdom wasn't conquered because the Assyrians were overwhelmingly powerful, but because Yahweh the patron god of the Hebrews, a Canaanite god subordinate to Enlil / El, was angry that the Hebrews were polytheistic; lolwut).
That said, the most likely story are the Hebrews were a small people in some city-state that ended up conquering neighboring peoples and acculturated them, meaning that sometime before 1000 BC, the Israelite tribes made some local conquests and acculturated the other cultures and peoples who were conquered in much of the boundaries of modern-day Israel. There's no reason why else that by 900 BC so many cultures in Canaan had vanished.
Thirdly, very few of the Jews in Israel are descended from anywhere in the Mideast (they are mostly from Europe by far), and most of the Jews actually from the Mideast are recent immigrants to Israel from other places in the Mideast in the past 80 years, so it's not like it was their ancestors or something in ancient Canaan, although even the 'israelites vs. palestinians' thing was straight up wrong as shown in the last paragraph. I don't know why you claim that.
Also, the beginning of mankind was at least tens (hundreds?) of thousands of years before there was even civilization in Sumer, nevermind in the Levant. So no, it wasn't the beginning of mankind.
So much to address two sentences, but it had to be done.
|
On November 02 2011 09:33 SupLilSon wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2011 09:25 XRaDiiX wrote:On November 02 2011 00:54 HackBenjamin wrote:On November 02 2011 00:47 konadora wrote:On November 02 2011 00:46 SirMilford wrote:On November 02 2011 00:44 konadora wrote:
uh, what kind of stupid law is that that forces a government to cut financial ties to a global organisation because of one country? on what basis? It would be from their relation with Israel almost certainly. sorry i'm not really into politics, but what was the relation between the US, israel and palestine? genuinely curious. The super abridged version? Israel and Palestine don't like eachother. Israel used to be small, Palestine used to be big. Now it's the opposite. Check out this picture Make sense? That's exactly how it happened Israel simply had help from the Allies and/or British and kicked the Palestinians out Literally The Israelis actually believe that they are the Chosen ones and the land belongs to them. But in Reality they exterminated/kicked out/ forced people to migrate out of their home-land where they had been living for 100's of years or more. Palestine is what the land Used to be called until Israelis came in claiming it their chosen land and kicked the Palestinians out. Essentially. Please read a history book for god's sake. In reality Israel was INVADED by the surrounding Arab nations and gained territory during the war. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_Arab–Israeli_Warhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab–Israeli_conflictAlso a pretty essential read considering how little people here seem to know or care about the actual history of the conflict. Originally, Jewish settlers bought land from the Ottoman sultans, not forcibly taken from Palestinians. The Palestinians who lost their homes lost them because of the impending invasion of 5 major Arab nations into the region.
For you reading history is a good part but understanding history is good as well...
Seriously, what he said is true, the jews in palestine kicked the arabs during the civil war, then the surrounding nation declared war to the new Israel.
You're clueless, it started way before the actual conflict.
|
On November 02 2011 09:39 Derez wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2011 09:07 Ripps wrote:On November 02 2011 08:48 Derez wrote:On November 02 2011 07:56 Ripps wrote:Wow. I can't help but feeling that Nash was right with regards to this thread. The success of particular Jews has nothing to do with American foreign policy and I think that throwing around all these accusations of a Jewish kleptocracy is treading a thin line between thick-headed naievety and outright anti-semitism. I don't think I'm being unfair or playing a trump card. Review this thread yourselves and read the rest of my post before you disagree. I'm not exactly the biggest supporter of Israeli policy with regards to Palestine, but is there nobody here that see's SOME of Israel's security concerns as legitimate? Are you really so partisan as to post an image that depicts a shrinking Palestine without regerence to the Arab aggression and UN resolutions that caused this to happen? Israel has been attacked again and again and again by united Arab coalitions who outnumber them exponentially in both numbers and finances. They've been attacked from all sides by half a dozen governments all bent on their eradication. If Israel doesn't want to create yet another Arab state whose sole foreign-policy goal is to "wipe Israel off the map", then I think they are right to do so. Read the Hamas (the ruling party of Palestine's )constitution. It's terrifying: Read it yourself on wikipedia: Hamas Charter"The Charter identifies Hamas as the Muslim Brotherhood in Palestine and declares its members to be Muslims who "fear God and raise the banner of Jihad in the face of the oppressors." The charter states that "our struggle against the Jews is very great and very serious" and calls for the eventual creation of an Islamic state in Palestine, in place of Israel and the Palestinian Territories." Everything about the charter is anti-semitic, militant, and dogmaticly Islamist. Hamas and Fatah fight each other, the IDF, the Israeli population, and even use their own people as "civilian shields". To put this into context, I'm of Irish-Catholic descent, so I'm not exactly partial to apartheid and people denying others the right to self-determination. I've been to Belfast. I've seen the "peace walls." On the other hand, as a Canadian citizen, I'd think twice about letting Quebec seperate if the Bloc Quebecois had a constitution that called for the eradication of the Canadian state and it's replacement with a militantly French theocratic government. tl;dr This issue is way more complicated than the previous posters have let on. As much as the Palestinians don't like it, there needs to be peace before there can be justice with regards to the apartheid, and there needs to be justice before there can be a two-state solution. You can't just "ratify" a state into existence through the impostition of an inept international beuraucratic behemoth. Edit: Most Canadians don't share my opinions on this matter. Hamas isn't the ruling party in Palestine, it's the ruling party in the Gaza strip and its succes is largely due to 1) Israeli behaviour and 2) being able to provide basic social goods to the general population. Hamas isn't just popular because of it's terrorist parts, it's popular because even before taking power in the Gaza strip, they provided services to the population that neither the Palestinian government nor the international community could provide. Next to that, a constitution isn't the same thing as a charter and the hardline israeli settlers are just as bad. Neither Hamas nor Israeli hardliners actually want a two-state solution, seeing how their entire ideology and political relevance depends on the conflict itself, and voila, frozen conflict. For one, I'll edit my post to say "the majority party" rather than the "ruling party". That was my mistake, although I think its trivial. The source of Hamas' popularity, however, is irrelevant. They still are what they are. It's true that a charter isn't quite a constitition. It's what the constitution WOULD ideally be if they gained their own state. Again, I think this distinction is trivial, but I'll change it for accuracy's sake. My point was that you can't simply see Hamas as a terrorist organisation, and the same goes Hezbollah or the Muslim Brotherhood. While it is true that these organisations started that way, it does no justice to the role they currently play in Palestine/Lebanon/etc. A convenient fact that often gets overlooked in the West is that these organisations are legitimate political organisations, that fullfill functions way beyond 'terrorism'. And they are playing more and more by 'the rules'. The decision by Hamas to participate in the elections had more to do with obtaining legitimacy in the West then it had with asserting control over the Gaza strip, which they de-facto had way before the elections. Hamas is slowly entering 'mainstream' politics, and as someone else pointed out, their 'charter' is largely considered irrelevant by their own political leadership. A more accurate comparison would be Sinn Fein - IRA distinction, where parts of the organisation are in fact terrorist in nature, but a much larger part of Hamas simply consists of people trying to organise their own society, which they perceive to be under constant attack from Israel. There are factions within Hamas that don't agree with the new, more mainstream direction their party is taking, much like IRA splinter groups such as the Real IRA and you name it. Show nested quote +On November 02 2011 09:07 Ripps wrote:
I honestly don't see what you're arguing here. Just let them rot for another 20 years? The current situation isn't benefitting anyone. A major cause of the anti-western hatred in the Arab world is the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and it is actively used/exploited by terrorist organisations to gain popular support. 'Doing nothing' and 'waiting for the problem to fix itself' hasn't worked over the last 50 years, and with both sides becoming more entrenched a solution becomes harder every single day.
Yea, it's a complicated issue. It's also more complicated then 'all palestinians are hamas and therefore terrorists' and 'all israeli's are people that only want to protect what they have and live in peace'. There have been plently of moderate palestinians and palestinian leaders, and there are plently of crazed israeli settlers that feel that all of palestine pretty much belongs to them.
As for security concerns, how much does Israel actually have to fear from a unified Palestine with it's own sovereign territory? A solution will lessen tensions, not heighten them and they're dirt poor to begin with and no match for the Israeli military. The bigger risk for Israel is doing fuck all, continue to enrage the arab world, and then wait and see how Egypt feels about it once/if they get a democracy off the ground.
Let's not forget that the arabs/palestinians have valid grievances about the israeli's too. Breaking the arms of people throwing rocks at tanks isn't something that's acceptable, and neither were the sabra and shatila massacres.
This point is very relevant. I was arguing that the posts prior to mine were awful. They were misleading, inflammatory, unfair, and sometimes just plain wrong. I wanted to show that the situation was a lot more complicated than that, and that Israel does have some legitimate concerns with regards to the very existence of their state. That was all my post did. The rest of the stuff you make up is a strawman ("All palestinians are Hamas and therefore terrorists") that you created in place of my actual position, which I did not yet state. Personally, I think Israel is an oppressive, apartheid regime and that the Palestinians have a right to their own state, but only under the condition that they recognize the legitimacy of Israel's existence and agree to certain terms of disamarmament and border control. Border control probably won't be a problem, however, since Israel decided to build a giant "apartheid" wall where they want the border to be. My solution was not "do nothing". This is another strawman. I didn't offer a solution. That wasn't the point of my post. Just because Israel does unacceptable things, doesn't mean the Arabs don't have to accept their existence. I'll assert their right to exist and to deny Palestine their own state whilst Palestine takes such a hardline stance. I do not support their oppressive policies. I hope this clarifies my position. I agree that any debate on Israel brings out the worst in people, and I might have responded too aggresively to what I perceived to be your position on it. As for the strawman part, notice the 'I honestly don't see what you're arguing here'. The first 'strawman' you see was based on your perception of Hamas, as explained above and I stand by that (because that actually seems to be your position; 'they still are what they are'). The second strawman thing is fair game, and I shouldn't have inferred your position from the post you made. My point was simply that in order for any progress to be made, there needs to be an inclusive process, as opposed to the current exclusive one. It's convenient (for the west) to place any muslim organisation that resists oppression (the only way you can reasonably describe israeli behaviour) with violence as just 'another terrorist organisation', but it does no justice to the actual situation. Hamas isn't Al-Quaida, nor do they actually believe they're ever getting rid of Israel. Any peace process is going to have to include Hamas, and that will require the West to change it's stance on the organisation. When it came to Northern Ireland, the US had the power to do this, and to force the different parties to accept Sinn Fein (and by proxy the IRA) as a legitimate partner in that process. Doing so will draw Hamas further into the mainstream, make them politically responsible for the actual results of the peace process and in the end, force them to make concessions.
First off, great post. All good points.
However, I'll defend my portrayal of Hamas. I do not think I said anything untrue while trying to portray Israel's legitimate concerns. I think Hamas needs to move more towards the ballot box and away from the Armalite, if you catch my drift. Drawing them into the mainstream is definitely important, and an inclusive process is definitely a good way to go about things. The one point that is still contentious is how far Hamas supporters have come with regards to being committed to the peace process. I'm not sure on this point myself.
One thing I'm sure we both agree on is that Israel needs to come just as far, if not farther, than Hamas.
|
This kind of "the USA being way too far in bed with Israel" thing reminds me of how Jordan wanted to start a nuclear power program for its population and asked the USA if it could. Once Israel objected to the USA, the USA declined. Jordan. Israel's closest Arab ally and one of the few who don't want to destroy Israel. In any event, I think it's absurd how anti-Palestine the USA (and because because of Harper, Canada)'s being. They obviously satisfy all the requirements to being a state on the soil they currently hold, but because something about that angers neo-cons they have to be a giant zoo?
|
On November 02 2011 06:43 Falling wrote:
I am aware of Deir Yassin. It's a terrible blot in Israel's past and could be legitimately called a war crime. But I was specifically talking about that Israel was beating them only with the help of American weapons and while true of later wars it was simply not the case in 1948 where it was illegal to sell weapons to any Jewish paramilitary organization.
A vast majority of Arabs fled country without seeing soldiers at all- something like Deir Yassin would cause widespread panic. Particularly as it was wrapped up in propaganda to make things seem even worse. But it also wasn't a unified strategy of Jewish paramilitary organizations. The Irgun and the Stern Gang in particular were very extreme and I would call them terrorists. The Haganah and Palmach as much more benign. However all the organizations as a whole were pretty decentralized so you have loose cannons that commit great travesties, but it's not necessarily indicative of the whole. King David Hotel same thing- there's so many different organizations with different goals and views on ends/means justification. There was the goal from David Ben Gurion and others to keep "purity in arms." However as war is messy, there are many examples of individual cases were this is not the case. But as a whole the Haganah and the organizations that fell under Ben Gurion and the Jewish Agency adhered to these ideas. Yet on the other side, you have the Hadassah Medical Convoy ambush by the Arabs, but I'm not sure that's indicative of the whole either.
In addition the declaration of war the day after independence was declared while partially wrapped up in thinks like Deir Yassin, their opposition also predates the massacre. Post-partition vote had at least some with the sentiment to drive the Jews into the sea. You probably won't find one single cause however.
Listen, I never said all Israelis are terrorist. I'm just saying : it's not the bad muslim that lead to war in the middle east, the jews are in fact the agressor in MOST CONFLICT IF NOT ALL. And you know what ? I can live with that, they wanted a country since the dawn of time.
My problem is that they are the agressor and the dominant power in the middle east, so they need to stop trying to make us believe they are the victim and are only doing this shit to preserve themselves from the all bad muslim.
|
From what I can tell, both sides are so, so wrong. A while ago I did a lot of reading, watched a lot of documentaries on both sides, etc. It's incredibly complex, and there seems to be no middle ground on it. People seem to be at extremes, siding with either side vehemently. (Either that, or just want nothing to do with it/know nothing about it.)
On topic:
It seems to me a very peculiar law that requires them to pull funding... In Britain no government can commit a future government to something, I'm sure it must be fairly similar in the US. I mean, if they hadn't wanted to pull funding the could have not.
|
On November 02 2011 10:14 Deadeight wrote:
From what I can tell, both sides are so, so wrong. A while ago I did a lot of reading, watched a lot of documentaries on both sides, etc. It's incredibly complex, and there seems to be no middle ground on it. People seem to be at extremes, siding with either side vehemently. (Either that, or just want nothing to do with it/know nothing about it.)
On topic:
It seems to me a very peculiar law that requires them to pull funding... In Britain no government can commit a future government to something, I'm sure it must be fairly similar in the US. I mean, if they hadn't wanted to pull funding the could have not.
What you are telling is absolutly false. It's true that there is a lot of misinformation on the subject, but you just have to open a book with the statistics of the casualties on both sides since 1967 to understand every there is to understand about the conflict.
A quick view for you
Deaths from terrorists in Israel1920-1999 total 2,580
Deaths from terrorists in Israel 1967-1999 total 1,065 (Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs, April 2006
1,113 people have been killed by Palestinian violence and terrorism since September 2000
Palestinians killed from September 2000-February 2005 total 4,009 (in five years, more than all the jews killed by terrorism since 1920, and yes it's 1920 because at that time, the zionism already existed and built Khibouz in Palestine)
Palestinians killed by Israeli occupation forces from September 2000 total 5,144
Post-1967 avoidable mortality (excess mortality) in the Occupied Palestinian Territories totals 300,000 and the post-1967 under-5 infant mortality 183,000 (of which about 90% was avoidable)
Approximately 1.5 million Palestinian civilians have died since 1948,including the victims of the ethnic cleansing campaigns in the west in 1948-50 and in the east since 1967
|
Eh, we pay too much money to these types of organizations as it is... Membership to our clubs should require equal monetary commitments.
I have no interest in paying 50 billion a year for that type of shit.
|
Hell, its about time...
No but seriously, something seems wrong. Why now? Why today? There is, according to human history, always a diplomatic or political reason behind this move by the UNESCO and the US.
Note that UNESCO is not the UN. But still, Palestine is gaining momentum (why now?).
Yes, the US has some pretty silly and puzzling laws. It makes you ask yourself some questions about their policies (hahaha).
|
On November 02 2011 10:00 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2011 09:33 SupLilSon wrote:On November 02 2011 09:25 XRaDiiX wrote:On November 02 2011 00:54 HackBenjamin wrote:On November 02 2011 00:47 konadora wrote:On November 02 2011 00:46 SirMilford wrote:On November 02 2011 00:44 konadora wrote:
uh, what kind of stupid law is that that forces a government to cut financial ties to a global organisation because of one country? on what basis? It would be from their relation with Israel almost certainly. sorry i'm not really into politics, but what was the relation between the US, israel and palestine? genuinely curious. The super abridged version? Israel and Palestine don't like eachother. Israel used to be small, Palestine used to be big. Now it's the opposite. Check out this picture Make sense? That's exactly how it happened Israel simply had help from the Allies and/or British and kicked the Palestinians out Literally The Israelis actually believe that they are the Chosen ones and the land belongs to them. But in Reality they exterminated/kicked out/ forced people to migrate out of their home-land where they had been living for 100's of years or more. Palestine is what the land Used to be called until Israelis came in claiming it their chosen land and kicked the Palestinians out. Essentially. Please read a history book for god's sake. In reality Israel was INVADED by the surrounding Arab nations and gained territory during the war. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_Arab–Israeli_Warhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab–Israeli_conflictAlso a pretty essential read considering how little people here seem to know or care about the actual history of the conflict. Originally, Jewish settlers bought land from the Ottoman sultans, not forcibly taken from Palestinians. The Palestinians who lost their homes lost them because of the impending invasion of 5 major Arab nations into the region. For you reading history is a good part but understanding history is good as well... Seriously, what he said is true, the jews in palestine kicked the arabs during the civil war, then the surrounding nation declared war to the new Israel. You're clueless, it started way before the actual conflict.
I'm clueless? I'm the one actually presenting historical documentation backing what I say. You on the other hand just make baseless assertions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1936–1939_Arab_revolt_in_Palestine
If I am reading correctly, the Palestinians were the ones who started the revolt, inducing a civil war. There is nothing in there about Jews kicking Arabs out of Palestine, instead the exact opposite is the case where the Palestinians were the ones trying to stop Jews from emigrating to Palestine. I will gladly change my view on this if you can provide some documentation to back up your statements.
|
On November 02 2011 10:05 Wafflelisk wrote:
This kind of "the USA being way too far in bed with Israel" thing reminds me of how Jordan wanted to start a nuclear power program for its population and asked the USA if it could. Once Israel objected to the USA, the USA declined. Jordan. Israel's closest Arab ally and one of the few who don't want to destroy Israel. In any event, I think it's absurd how anti-Palestine the USA (and because because of Harper, Canada)'s being. They obviously satisfy all the requirements to being a state on the soil they currently hold, but because something about that angers neo-cons they have to be a giant zoo?
1) Jordan is not an ally of Israel. lol. Also, Jordan was involved in a few wars against Israel.
2) Who are these Arab countries that want to destroy Israel? This is a funny conspiracy theory. Seriously, if there was some grand conspiracy among the majority of Mideastern countries to destroy Israel, it would have happened. While the Gulf Arabs are socially backwards as hell, they alone are also ridiculously rich and influential as fuck (unlike their northern secular neighbor which has been reduced to ashes the past 20 years and which fought for their protection against the biggest jihad since the 7th century).
Let's be serious here. If one other nation, like say Egypt, besides Iranian political propaganda (I don't think Iran is too serious and are just political bs'ing) that wanted Israel destroyed, then it would be destroyed. But the entirety of the Arab world + Iran + possibly Turkey wanting Israel destroyed as you claim? Dude, there'd have to be a huge order for updated maps with Israel omitted. Let's just use some good sense here.
Other than that, yes, the Israel lobby is overwhelmingly powerful in the US. I'm glad you've figured it out. Also, I wouldn't blame Harper so much. American political influence in Canada (and much of Europe and a few other places) is quite significant, so it's no surprise something like that would fall into your political foreign policy.
On November 02 2011 10:21 SupLilSon wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2011 10:00 WhiteDog wrote:On November 02 2011 09:33 SupLilSon wrote:On November 02 2011 09:25 XRaDiiX wrote:On November 02 2011 00:54 HackBenjamin wrote:On November 02 2011 00:47 konadora wrote:On November 02 2011 00:46 SirMilford wrote:On November 02 2011 00:44 konadora wrote:
uh, what kind of stupid law is that that forces a government to cut financial ties to a global organisation because of one country? on what basis? It would be from their relation with Israel almost certainly. sorry i'm not really into politics, but what was the relation between the US, israel and palestine? genuinely curious. The super abridged version? Israel and Palestine don't like eachother. Israel used to be small, Palestine used to be big. Now it's the opposite. Check out this picture Make sense? That's exactly how it happened Israel simply had help from the Allies and/or British and kicked the Palestinians out Literally The Israelis actually believe that they are the Chosen ones and the land belongs to them. But in Reality they exterminated/kicked out/ forced people to migrate out of their home-land where they had been living for 100's of years or more. Palestine is what the land Used to be called until Israelis came in claiming it their chosen land and kicked the Palestinians out. Essentially. Please read a history book for god's sake. In reality Israel was INVADED by the surrounding Arab nations and gained territory during the war. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_Arab–Israeli_Warhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab–Israeli_conflictAlso a pretty essential read considering how little people here seem to know or care about the actual history of the conflict. Originally, Jewish settlers bought land from the Ottoman sultans, not forcibly taken from Palestinians. The Palestinians who lost their homes lost them because of the impending invasion of 5 major Arab nations into the region. For you reading history is a good part but understanding history is good as well... Seriously, what he said is true, the jews in palestine kicked the arabs during the civil war, then the surrounding nation declared war to the new Israel. You're clueless, it started way before the actual conflict. I'm clueless? I'm the one actually presenting historical documentation backing what I say. You on the other hand just make baseless assertions. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1936–1939_Arab_revolt_in_PalestineIf I am reading correctly, the Palestinians were the ones who started the revolt, inducing a civil war. There is nothing in there about Jews kicking Arabs out of Palestine, instead the exact opposite is the case where the Palestinians were the ones trying to stop Jews from emigrating to Palestine. I will gladly change my view on this if you can provide some documentation to back up your statements.
Okay, it was obvious from the first few pages of the thread that you were trolling, but now you're hitting the NOS.
The civil war was almost a decade after the 1930s revolution, so it's not a cause-effect thing. That alone makes your argument wrong. Your argument also fails in that you're claiming that illegal immigration (yes, the British said this immigration was illegal and made efforts to stem it), which largely includes religious extremist terrorists, is a good thing, which would be absolutely idiotic. Seeing as how many of the immigrants were Zionists hellbent on removing the Palestinians from the land and which they were attempting to do even before this revolution, then yes, the reality of the situation still stands that these foreigners came and were terrorizing and kicking Palestinians out.
So you're saying 1) it is alright that foreigners immigrate illegally, and 2) it is alright that foreigners immigrate illegally to claim that land is there's and it is perfectly fine to engage in violence and terrorism against the native population. Are you sane? Any way you put it, how is it even in the right either that the Zionist immigrants have the right to come and kill and terrorize and ethnically cleanse people until they get out? You're seriously trying to justify that?
Also, by the time of this revolution, Zionist Jewish terror groups like Irgun were already in full force before this civil war. Many of these groups that were terrorizing the people in Palestine were founded by the immigrants from Europe. So a people have a revolution because they are being oppressed by foreign imperialists and being terrorized by religious extremists who come from foreign countries? Oh by the way, the revolution was almost entirely focused upon British colonialism, which further invalidates your argument. That sounds perfectly reasonable to me, unless you want to accept the fact that the Malaysians were retards for opposing British colonialism. You just shot yourself in the foot.
I think I'm being trolled. The ignorance and weird logic in your post is just astounding.
|
On November 02 2011 10:13 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2011 06:43 Falling wrote:
I am aware of Deir Yassin. It's a terrible blot in Israel's past and could be legitimately called a war crime. But I was specifically talking about that Israel was beating them only with the help of American weapons and while true of later wars it was simply not the case in 1948 where it was illegal to sell weapons to any Jewish paramilitary organization.
A vast majority of Arabs fled country without seeing soldiers at all- something like Deir Yassin would cause widespread panic. Particularly as it was wrapped up in propaganda to make things seem even worse. But it also wasn't a unified strategy of Jewish paramilitary organizations. The Irgun and the Stern Gang in particular were very extreme and I would call them terrorists. The Haganah and Palmach as much more benign. However all the organizations as a whole were pretty decentralized so you have loose cannons that commit great travesties, but it's not necessarily indicative of the whole. King David Hotel same thing- there's so many different organizations with different goals and views on ends/means justification. There was the goal from David Ben Gurion and others to keep "purity in arms." However as war is messy, there are many examples of individual cases were this is not the case. But as a whole the Haganah and the organizations that fell under Ben Gurion and the Jewish Agency adhered to these ideas. Yet on the other side, you have the Hadassah Medical Convoy ambush by the Arabs, but I'm not sure that's indicative of the whole either.
In addition the declaration of war the day after independence was declared while partially wrapped up in thinks like Deir Yassin, their opposition also predates the massacre. Post-partition vote had at least some with the sentiment to drive the Jews into the sea. You probably won't find one single cause however. Listen, I never said all Israelis are terrorist. I'm just saying : it's not the bad muslim that lead to war in the middle east, the jews are in fact the agressor in MOST CONFLICT IF NOT ALL. And you know what ? I can live with that, they wanted a country since the dawn of time. My problem is that they are the agressor and the dominant power in the middle east, so they need to stop trying to make us believe they are the victim and are only doing this shit to preserve themselves from the all bad muslim.
I honestly can't tell if you are trolling or if you seriously believe what you are saying. Either way, I'm done with this thread since everyone is way too emotionally invested to even bother referencing historical documentation before going caps lock commando. I'll include myself in this category since I am pretty biased towards Israel.
|
On November 02 2011 10:21 SupLilSon wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2011 10:00 WhiteDog wrote:On November 02 2011 09:33 SupLilSon wrote:On November 02 2011 09:25 XRaDiiX wrote:On November 02 2011 00:54 HackBenjamin wrote:On November 02 2011 00:47 konadora wrote:On November 02 2011 00:46 SirMilford wrote:On November 02 2011 00:44 konadora wrote:
uh, what kind of stupid law is that that forces a government to cut financial ties to a global organisation because of one country? on what basis? It would be from their relation with Israel almost certainly. sorry i'm not really into politics, but what was the relation between the US, israel and palestine? genuinely curious. The super abridged version? Israel and Palestine don't like eachother. Israel used to be small, Palestine used to be big. Now it's the opposite. Check out this picture Make sense? That's exactly how it happened Israel simply had help from the Allies and/or British and kicked the Palestinians out Literally The Israelis actually believe that they are the Chosen ones and the land belongs to them. But in Reality they exterminated/kicked out/ forced people to migrate out of their home-land where they had been living for 100's of years or more. Palestine is what the land Used to be called until Israelis came in claiming it their chosen land and kicked the Palestinians out. Essentially. Please read a history book for god's sake. In reality Israel was INVADED by the surrounding Arab nations and gained territory during the war. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_Arab–Israeli_Warhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab–Israeli_conflictAlso a pretty essential read considering how little people here seem to know or care about the actual history of the conflict. Originally, Jewish settlers bought land from the Ottoman sultans, not forcibly taken from Palestinians. The Palestinians who lost their homes lost them because of the impending invasion of 5 major Arab nations into the region. For you reading history is a good part but understanding history is good as well... Seriously, what he said is true, the jews in palestine kicked the arabs during the civil war, then the surrounding nation declared war to the new Israel. You're clueless, it started way before the actual conflict. I'm clueless? I'm the one actually presenting historical documentation backing what I say. You on the other hand just make baseless assertions. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1936–1939_Arab_revolt_in_PalestineIf I am reading correctly, the Palestinians were the ones who started the revolt, inducing a civil war. There is nothing in there about Jews kicking Arabs out of Palestine, instead the exact opposite is the case where the Palestinians were the ones trying to stop Jews from emigrating to Palestine. I will gladly change my view on this if you can provide some documentation to back up your statements.
No you showed nothing...
The first phase was directed primarily by the urban and elitist Higher Arab Committee (HAC) and was focused mainly around strikes and other forms of political protest
You're saying strikes and other forms of political protest is the start of the civil war ?
The second phase, which began late in 1937, was a violent and peasant-led resistance movement that increasingly targeted British forces.
Then they fought against the british force. You're still clueless.
Read this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_Palestinian_exodus
The 1948 Palestinian exodus (Arabic: الهجرة الفلسطينية, al-Hijra al-Filasṭīnīya), also known as the Nakba (Arabic: النكبة, an-Nakbah, lit. "disaster", "catastrophe", or "cataclysm"), occurred when approximately 711,000 to 725,000 Palestinian Arabs left, fled or were expelled from their homes, during the 1948 Arab-Israeli War and the Civil War that preceded it. The exact number of refugees is a matter of dispute. The causes remain the subject of fundamental disagreement between Arabs and Israelis.
Nur-eldeen Masalha writes that over 80 percent of the Arab inhabitants left their towns and villages in 1948, while Rashid Khalidi puts the percentage at 50.
Stop talking when you don't know shit seriously... it's serious matter.
This is an exemple of a massacre : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deir_Yassin_massacre
And here is a quote that might help you understanding history better, it's a quote from Menachem Begin, leader of the Irgun at the time (Irgun was a zionist palamilitary organisation) about the Deir Yassin massacre :
"Panic overwhelmed the Arabs of Eretz Israel. Kolonia village, which had previously repulsed every attack of the Haganah, was evacuated overnight and fell without further fighting. Beit-Iksa was also evacuated. These two places overlooked the main road; and their fall, together with the capture of al-Qastal by the Haganah, made it possible to keep open the road to Jerusalem. In the rest of the country, too, the Arabs began to flee in terror, even before they clashed with Jewish forces."
When you don't know shit about history, you don't try to explain others how things happened...
|
On November 02 2011 10:17 BluePanther wrote:
Eh, we pay too much money to these types of organizations as it is... Membership to our clubs should require equal monetary commitments.
I have no interest in paying 50 billion a year for that type of shit.
It's million, not billion. It works out to about 16 cents per capita in the US (canadians paid twice as much in comparison), which is used for silly things such as making sure that your children (and their children) are still able to visit major historical sites all over the world and promoting cooperation in education, science, and other frivolous things.
Out of all the international organisations you could flame, UNESCO shouldn't even be near the top of your list. Not to even mention that the US spends less (in relative terms, and at times even in absolute terms) then pretty much any western nation in the world on things like international organisations and foreign aid.
Membership to clubs should indeed require equal monetary commitments. Time for the US to honor theirs.
|
On November 02 2011 09:25 XRaDiiX wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2011 00:54 HackBenjamin wrote:On November 02 2011 00:47 konadora wrote:On November 02 2011 00:46 SirMilford wrote:On November 02 2011 00:44 konadora wrote:
uh, what kind of stupid law is that that forces a government to cut financial ties to a global organisation because of one country? on what basis? It would be from their relation with Israel almost certainly. sorry i'm not really into politics, but what was the relation between the US, israel and palestine? genuinely curious. The super abridged version? Israel and Palestine don't like eachother. Israel used to be small, Palestine used to be big. Now it's the opposite. Check out this picture Make sense? That's exactly how it happened Israel simply had help from the Allies and/or British and kicked the Palestinians out Literally The Israelis actually believe that they are the Chosen ones and the land belongs to them. But in Reality they exterminated/kicked out/ forced people to migrate out of their home-land where they had been living for 100's of years or more. Palestine is what the land Used to be called until Israelis came in claiming it their chosen land and kicked the Palestinians out. Essentially.
My goodness could you be any more ignorant? There was never a state called Palestine. This area has be in constant dispute for all of modern history with it going from Brits-> UN -> Israel in the last 100 years alone. The Palestinians have no more claim to the whole region than the Israelis do.
On top of that it would be good to remember that the Arab states were the aggressors in the first 40 years of Israels existence. Did the 1949 war, 6 day war, yom kipper war not happen to you or something?
|
On November 02 2011 10:36 Necrophantasia wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2011 09:25 XRaDiiX wrote:On November 02 2011 00:54 HackBenjamin wrote:On November 02 2011 00:47 konadora wrote:On November 02 2011 00:46 SirMilford wrote:On November 02 2011 00:44 konadora wrote:
uh, what kind of stupid law is that that forces a government to cut financial ties to a global organisation because of one country? on what basis? It would be from their relation with Israel almost certainly. sorry i'm not really into politics, but what was the relation between the US, israel and palestine? genuinely curious. The super abridged version? Israel and Palestine don't like eachother. Israel used to be small, Palestine used to be big. Now it's the opposite. Check out this picture Make sense? That's exactly how it happened Israel simply had help from the Allies and/or British and kicked the Palestinians out Literally The Israelis actually believe that they are the Chosen ones and the land belongs to them. But in Reality they exterminated/kicked out/ forced people to migrate out of their home-land where they had been living for 100's of years or more. Palestine is what the land Used to be called until Israelis came in claiming it their chosen land and kicked the Palestinians out. Essentially. My goodness could you be any more ignorant? There was never a state called Palestine. This area has be in constant dispute for all of modern history with it going from Brits-> UN -> Israel in the last 100 years alone. The Palestinians have no more claim to the whole region than the Israelis do. On top of that it would be good to remember that the Arab states were the aggressors in the first 40 years of Israels existence. Did the 1949 war, 6 day war, yom kipper war not happen to you or something?
Again, you are ignorant. Yeah sure they were colonised by Turc and the UK, but the people living in palestine has been there since the dawn of time... This has already been discussed in this topic a few page before, you should read before talking.
|
On November 02 2011 10:36 Necrophantasia wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2011 09:25 XRaDiiX wrote:On November 02 2011 00:54 HackBenjamin wrote:On November 02 2011 00:47 konadora wrote:On November 02 2011 00:46 SirMilford wrote:On November 02 2011 00:44 konadora wrote:
uh, what kind of stupid law is that that forces a government to cut financial ties to a global organisation because of one country? on what basis? It would be from their relation with Israel almost certainly. sorry i'm not really into politics, but what was the relation between the US, israel and palestine? genuinely curious. The super abridged version? Israel and Palestine don't like eachother. Israel used to be small, Palestine used to be big. Now it's the opposite. Check out this picture Make sense? That's exactly how it happened Israel simply had help from the Allies and/or British and kicked the Palestinians out Literally The Israelis actually believe that they are the Chosen ones and the land belongs to them. But in Reality they exterminated/kicked out/ forced people to migrate out of their home-land where they had been living for 100's of years or more. Palestine is what the land Used to be called until Israelis came in claiming it their chosen land and kicked the Palestinians out. Essentially. My goodness could you be any more ignorant? There was never a state called Palestine. This area has be in constant dispute for all of modern history with it going from Brits-> UN -> Israel in the last 100 years alone. The Palestinians have no more claim to the whole region than the Israelis do. On top of that it would be good to remember that the Arab states were the aggressors in the first 40 years of Israels existence. Did the 1949 war, 6 day war, yom kipper war not happen to you or something?
Funny you talk about ignorance.
The Israelis were the straight-up aggressor in the 6 day war, and the 1948 war was caused by Palestinian refugees telling the governments of Egypt, Syria, and Jordan about the massacres, deportations, ethnic cleansing, and terrorism against them. I'll give you Yom Kippur War, although that was just an R&R and then continuation of the 1967 war.
The Palestinians had revolutions for their independence from Britain. So because a shitton of Jewish religious extremists immigrate from Europe, and start killing and terrorizing non-Jews and the British until the British get fed up (along with the WW2 pity) and leave, and these religious extremists continue to kill and deport the native people and then claim the country, that is right? lolwut. Actually, being actually native to the land and having revolutions for independence make a MUCH bigger claim to the land. So your statement of "the Palestinians have no more claim to the land than Israelis do" is false. Additionally, let's assume your statement is true. So if tomorrow Saudi Arabia and Egypt came and conquered Israel, deported the Jewish Hebrew citizens back to where their parents/grandparents came from, and made it a state for the Palestinians, you would be fine with that? I don't think you would be.
Not only this, but the descendants of the land from the last time it was an independent state are the Palestinians, and only a small minority of the Israelis. Last I checked, the last time the land had independent polities in late medieval era, the people didn't come from Germany, Russia, and Poland . They came straight from there, and the Palestinians today are their descendants.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
