|
Stay on topic. I cannot put it more clearly then that. Derailments will be met with consequences. ~Nyovne |
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.
The fact that people came from the discussed regions is not myth. If you want to call it myth, then you commonly refer to all history that you yourself have not witnessed with your own hands eyes ears etc to possibly be nonfactual or 'mythical'.
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.
Um... did you miss the part where I said their ancestors? Herp Derp. And ofc there was no Palestine and no Israel, and yes the area of Israel is centered around important historical sites, and not where the state that didn't exist was. And yes, everyone was fighting with everyone back then, and everyone fought with everyone up until recent days, but the point in this topic is 1 people vs the other people. The other peoples are to be disregarded.
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.
That whole region next to the Mediterranean (which is where the Canaan people were primarily located) was mostly used by western states. Eventually politics changed, battles were waged, and the people we have now are the ones that ended up being there. Sure there were a bunch of people that belong to different states or no state at all, but as history is bound to prove, an area is eventually ruled by 1 people (with few exception). I don't even understand why you found it important to state this information, it's relatively useless. And by that I mean it doesn't provide anything for the discussion.
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.
Conflict started when East migrated to meet the West. Sure the Jews came from Europe, but the Sumerians did not. The ancestors of what people consider today to be Israelites did not have any conflict with the ancestors of what people consider today to be Palestinians until the ancestors of the Palestinians migrated towards the area of Israel.
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.
That was an OBVIOUSLY intended as an over exaggeration. And this over exaggeration is a very commonly used one. Don't be ridiculous. Get smart ~_~
Edit:
On November 02 2011 12:23 blinken wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2011 12:08 theseraph wrote:On November 02 2011 00:54 konadora wrote:On November 02 2011 00:50 buhhy 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. Israel has quite the lobby power in the US. As a result, the US administration is generally pro-Israel. The US stood behind Israel pretty much from its inception. There's a reason why the neighboring Arab states have been unable to destroy Israel. On November 02 2011 00:49 Nizaris wrote:^US is closely allied with Israel. Israel hates Palestine since they want their land. therefore US can't show "sympathy" towards Palestine. On November 02 2011 00:47 Kupon3ss wrote:
Well this isn't surprising, as appealing to the Jewish community earns American politicians an insane amount of votes and funding while being fair to Palestine earns nothing for elections. hoooray for democracy. what a shame. i'm glad the unesco had what it takes to accept a 20% loss of income for what is the right thing to do. thanks for the replies. i think i saw it in a documentary film that lots of jews run the major banks and corporations in the US? is that why this is happening?
bringing such issues in the face of human rights.... such a shame. thanks for the responses! Even if i wasn't from Israel, let the flame war commence, i'd still find your comments disgusting. As is the state of Israel is the only REAL democracy in the middle east. We got there by declaring our statehood on our land in 1948. That the palestinians allied with the other arab countries, attacked 5 on 1 and lost in wars is a moot point for us both as I think that anything taken in war, defense or offense, belongs the victor and i'll just be flamed for being biased anyway. The palestinians sold their lands to the british and to jews in the early 1900s because they didn't want the swampland that the land was. Yes it was the british mandate of palestine but formally there has never been a country by the name of palestine, it's just the name of the ethnic group from ancient times. They, the palestinians, want the land of Israel today, an oasis after 63 years of hard work into the land put by israelis. That's almost like selling a beatup car and wanting it back after you see it modded after market, it's bullshit. I absolutely think all people of the world deserve a land, the palestinians, the kashmiris and all other displaced people of the world, all of them do. However, to agree to something like this after just a few weeks ago at the UN israel approached them with an offer for peace and a two state solution- something they've declined countless times and did then as well, it's down right repulsive. Jews don't control the world. However much money you think the U.S. gives to israel, i assure you other allies get more money(and the arabs who have pretty much monopolized oil get even more). The U.S. backed out of the organization as a kind of sanction because it's underhanded to agree on something in the UN and then go back on your own word. I wanted to type this most of all because i see a lot of pro palestinian remarks in these forums and elsewhere and i feel powerless standing as the lone voice against the anti israeli remarks. Do and say what you will but at the very least please take the time to educate yourself on the matter. Whether or not you have a bias as i wholly admit that i do is one other thing, but i've also learned about this subject in university abroad so at the very least i got "objective" knowledge. Hope i got to someone. That was a real disturbing read if you are actually sincere. Do you not see that all the Arab nations allied against you because you had utterly no claim, and that the only reason you were allowed you even exist was because of the massive amounts of money given to you by the United States. You're delusional if you believe you've made the land a better place, one that now the Palestinian's want. It's actually appalling to me that someone could be so ignorant. The Palestinian's wish you were never there. That everything you built was gone, and they could have their land back. Hey to the victor go the spoils right, and if the Jews had a nation and beat the Palestinian's in a war, I'd say mazel tov. But the thing is, the Jews never had a nation. The West simply gave you someone else's land. And now you're all brainwashed to believe you actually have some right to it. If you want some real education maybe you should listen to some Jews who aren't brainwashed, like Norman Finkelstein or Noam Chomsky.
Erg. The modern day state of Israel does not exist because of United States support. It exists because it was given to them by the English, however, the same land was also given to Palestine; HOWEVER, though they were given equal portions of land, and were restricted to an equal population, the Israelis overpopulated, and overtook Palestine, and that was how they most recently obtained the modern day state of Israel. How they maintained it is a different story, but these days there is an extreme amount of international interference, so to expect an Israeli/Palestinian war with no outside influence is way beyond impossible. Also, the USA gave money to both Palestine and Israel. They only more recently became big Israeli supporters due to political wants and needs of the USA.
Also, going away from the political terms 'state' 'nation' 'country' etc. The 'Jews' as you say (when in reality 'Jew' is a term with SOO much history, and cannot be properly used in this situation) controlled the area of which this post is referring for quite some time. Trying to say that there was never a nation called 'Israel' is just stupid. Nobody cares about that fact, and even still you could be wrong, I haven't researched that so I wouldn't know, but your point is completely invalid regardless.
|
On November 02 2011 16:19 nucleo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2011 15:49 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:On November 02 2011 15:42 nucleo wrote:On November 02 2011 12:04 blinken 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 ![[image loading]](http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_pEfVJ93Cwa8/TDjQIyH5mGI/AAAAAAAAGmk/EA9TbmokMRE/s1600/israel-palestine-map.jpg) 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. Who cares about your history? All that proves is that the Jews have as much right to Israel as the Native American's do to all of America. That land has been called Palestine FAR longer than Israel. In fact, if you look it up Jewish migration into that land only started little over a hundred years ago. Before that there were barely any Jews even there; before ancient times, of course. What kind of nonsense claim is that? I'm ashamed Canada unconditionally supports Israel. dude, are you serious? first. I have some old coins at home saying "Palestine Land of Israel" But more to the point the Land has benn called Israel/Judea for thousands of years Debating "Who was here first" is not what will help peace and not sit well with any anti-israel argument I'd say, the question is not "Who was here first?" but "We're both here NOW. How do we make it work?" But the present-day Palestinians are the by and large descendants of the ancients (surely you're not claiming those people from Germany, Poland, and Russia who came in the last century are...), so you're defeating your first point :/. As for the second point? Both sides are too full of themselves (in particular the Israelis, not just nowadays, but whose recent ancestors are responsible for the whole clusterfuck in the first place due to the religious extremists mass immigrating from Europe and leading up to the formation of Israel). No simple solution, I'll tell you that. ummm no? The Philistines have nothing to do with the Palestinians. The Palestinians are called that after the name of the land they settled. The land is called that after The people that settled some of that area (more than gaza but over that strip and not west bank) way way before. The entire name, Palestine, Philistines and Pleshet (the original name of the ancient) is coming from the hebrew word for invader or intruder. This is a tangential point, but where did you get that last bit from? The Bible refers to "Philistines" as a nation long before the Jews even existed, so it seems unlikely that this name comes from the Hebrew word for "invader or intruder".
|
So you really should be more clear when you are refering to the ancient of people and meaning something else than they ancestry they themselves identify with. And what you are claiming is dabatable
The area and people were always called by names of intrusion, Palestine or other.
And its hard talking about borders and areas that have changed so many times during occupations.
I can just as well say that the area of Israel comprises of Jordan, Lebanon and Syria.
That's why I am saying that the question is "What now?" and not "What then?"
|
On November 02 2011 16:27 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2011 16:19 nucleo wrote:On November 02 2011 15:49 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:On November 02 2011 15:42 nucleo wrote:On November 02 2011 12:04 blinken 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:
[quote]
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. Who cares about your history? All that proves is that the Jews have as much right to Israel as the Native American's do to all of America. That land has been called Palestine FAR longer than Israel. In fact, if you look it up Jewish migration into that land only started little over a hundred years ago. Before that there were barely any Jews even there; before ancient times, of course. What kind of nonsense claim is that? I'm ashamed Canada unconditionally supports Israel. dude, are you serious? first. I have some old coins at home saying "Palestine Land of Israel" But more to the point the Land has benn called Israel/Judea for thousands of years Debating "Who was here first" is not what will help peace and not sit well with any anti-israel argument I'd say, the question is not "Who was here first?" but "We're both here NOW. How do we make it work?" But the present-day Palestinians are the by and large descendants of the ancients (surely you're not claiming those people from Germany, Poland, and Russia who came in the last century are...), so you're defeating your first point :/. As for the second point? Both sides are too full of themselves (in particular the Israelis, not just nowadays, but whose recent ancestors are responsible for the whole clusterfuck in the first place due to the religious extremists mass immigrating from Europe and leading up to the formation of Israel). No simple solution, I'll tell you that. ummm no? The Philistines have nothing to do with the Palestinians. The Palestinians are called that after the name of the land they settled. The land is called that after The people that settled some of that area (more than gaza but over that strip and not west bank) way way before. The entire name, Palestine, Philistines and Pleshet (the original name of the ancient) is coming from the hebrew word for invader or intruder. I never said anything about the Philistines lol, so I'm not sure where you're bringing that up. Straw man? I'm talking about the ancient Hebrews. The Arabs made their conquests, and most people converted to Islam, including the Hebrews, so that in the 1300 years leading up to the last century, nearly all of them became Muslim. Some polytheistic Yahweh-based religion turned into formalized, monotheistic Judaism turned somewhat Christian turned Muslim. All that happened. Not too hard to grasp. However, the region during some period became known exclusively as Palestine, and its inhabitants as Palestinians (and most the people were native to there, regardless of religion). In fact, even as far back as ancient times, the general region that is now comprises about the landarea of Israel was apparently sometimes called Palestine. In any case, that's irrelevant. The point is that the Palestinians are, if not anyone else, the descendants of those people. If you are claiming that those recent immigrants from Germany, Poland, USSR, and other places in Europe are actually from there, I really can't take you seriously :S. Just because you practice a certain religion doesn't mean you're from some place. Nor does a pagan god saying people who follow that religion mean that that land belongs to them. Christianity began in the Mideast, and yet most Christians are well outside the Mideast lol, mostly in Europe and the New World, in fact. Matters of identity are not nearly as simple as you're making them out to be. Otherwise, we're all the descendants of almost everybody who lived several thousand years ago.
The Jewish nation that existed 2000 years ago maintained a continuous identity that is maintained by the Jews of today. Whether, in 1947, you'd have wanted to concede it a historical claim to a land that it left millennia ago, is one thing, but saying that it doesn't even have that history is unfounded.
|
On November 02 2011 16:32 qrs wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2011 16:19 nucleo wrote:On November 02 2011 15:49 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:On November 02 2011 15:42 nucleo wrote:On November 02 2011 12:04 blinken 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:
[quote]
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. Who cares about your history? All that proves is that the Jews have as much right to Israel as the Native American's do to all of America. That land has been called Palestine FAR longer than Israel. In fact, if you look it up Jewish migration into that land only started little over a hundred years ago. Before that there were barely any Jews even there; before ancient times, of course. What kind of nonsense claim is that? I'm ashamed Canada unconditionally supports Israel. dude, are you serious? first. I have some old coins at home saying "Palestine Land of Israel" But more to the point the Land has benn called Israel/Judea for thousands of years Debating "Who was here first" is not what will help peace and not sit well with any anti-israel argument I'd say, the question is not "Who was here first?" but "We're both here NOW. How do we make it work?" But the present-day Palestinians are the by and large descendants of the ancients (surely you're not claiming those people from Germany, Poland, and Russia who came in the last century are...), so you're defeating your first point :/. As for the second point? Both sides are too full of themselves (in particular the Israelis, not just nowadays, but whose recent ancestors are responsible for the whole clusterfuck in the first place due to the religious extremists mass immigrating from Europe and leading up to the formation of Israel). No simple solution, I'll tell you that. ummm no? The Philistines have nothing to do with the Palestinians. The Palestinians are called that after the name of the land they settled. The land is called that after The people that settled some of that area (more than gaza but over that strip and not west bank) way way before. The entire name, Palestine, Philistines and Pleshet (the original name of the ancient) is coming from the hebrew word for invader or intruder. This is a tangential point, but where did you get that last bit from? The Bible refers to "Philistines" as a nation long before the Jews even existed, so it seems unlikely that this name comes from the Hebrew word for "invader or intruder".
Judaism has nothing to do with it. just Ancient/Hebrew where the these names comes from the base of Polesh
|
On November 02 2011 16:31 Shinta) wrote:Show nested quote +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.
The fact that people came from the discussed regions is not myth. If you want to call it myth, then you commonly refer to all history that you yourself have not witnessed with your own hands eyes ears etc to possibly be nonfactual or 'mythical'. Show nested quote +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. Um... did you miss the part where I said their ancestors? Herp Derp. And ofc there was no Palestine and no Israel, and yes the area of Israel is centered around important historical sites, and not where the state that didn't exist was. And yes, everyone was fighting with everyone back then, and everyone fought with everyone up until recent days, but the point in this topic is 1 people vs the other people. The other peoples are to be disregarded. Show nested quote +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. That whole region next to the Mediterranean (which is where the Canaan people were primarily located) was mostly used by western states. Eventually politics changed, battles were waged, and the people we have now are the ones that ended up being there. Sure there were a bunch of people that belong to different states or no state at all, but as history is bound to prove, an area is eventually ruled by 1 people (with few exception). I don't even understand why you found it important to state this information, it's relatively useless. And by that I mean it doesn't provide anything for the discussion. Show nested quote +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. Conflict started when East migrated to meet the West. Sure the Jews came from Europe, but the Sumerians did not. The ancestors of what people consider today to be Israelites did not have any conflict with the ancestors of what people consider today to be Palestinians until the ancestors of the Palestinians migrated towards the area of Israel. Show nested quote +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.
That was an OBVIOUSLY intended as an over exaggeration. And this over exaggeration is a very commonly used one. Don't be ridiculous. Get smart ~_~
First part: You're using ancient religious mythology for your argument. That isn't history. Just because I "have not witnessed with your own hands eyes ears etc" that the Minotaur existed and was in a labyrinth in Crete, that means it must have been real going by your logic, right? In other words, it's irrelevant. It doesn't work, is what I'm saying. Do you have any evidence that Canaan was uninhabited and then all of a sudden a bunch of tribes all at once decided to move there from southern Iraq?
Second part: One people vs. the other? As I said, there were no modern Palestinians and Israelis back then, so I don't see how they were fighting back then. In fact, all of those different nations back then were just the ancestors of modern Palestinians fighting each other, is the most reasonable explanation.
Third part: I was explaining how the Hebrews came to that point. You kind of made it seem like yahweh just magically gave it to them or something, and almost no one else was living there, like in the Exodus myth or Abrahamic covenant. In actuality, one group conquering and controlling others directly tended to lead to cultural assimiation, so that non-Hebrews (but albeit very closely related peoples) became Hebrews.
Fourth part: I know the Sumerians didn't come from Europe. When did I say they did? Of course people from central/eastern Europe did not come across people from Canaan in ancient times. When the people in Canaan apparently migrated and populated and settled in that that area (I assume that's what youre saying there) tens of thousands of years ago from wherever in the prehistoric era, well, tens of thousands of years ago is a hell of a long time before the 20th century AD, so I don't see why you're saying that there were clashes when the people who today claim to be Israelis were in Europe. Seems rather strange to say such a thing. Unless you are claiming that the people from Europe immigrated to Israel before the natives moved there and there were clashes? Now that's just absurd :S. Please clarify what you're saying here as it isn't very clear.
|
On November 02 2011 01:01 HackBenjamin 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? Just imagine, every time the borders shrink, you hear in the distance... KACHING KACHING KACHING Why didn't anyone do anything or say anything? Ask these rich dudes: Rothschild (Bauer or Bower) - The Pindar Bruce Cavendish (Kennedy) De Medici Hanover Hapsburg Krupp Plantagenet Rockefeller Romanov Sinclair (St. Clair) Warburg (del Banco) Windsor (Saxe-Coburg-Gothe)
When this is the second page of a thread about the US deciding to pull funding from a UN organization due to letting Palestine join up, you can't seriously tell me that this isnt' at least mildly offensive considering it's obvious undertones. I wont' go into it but let's not kid ourselves here.
The topic at hand for me is why is it a problem for the US to cut back it's international spending? It's not like we could afford it anyways and to me it's more an easy excuse to just maybe not throw money we do not have towards organizations that at best is debatable in it's usefulness.
Besides, if the UN isn't stupid they knew this would happen so obviously they are acceptable with it.
|
|
|
On November 02 2011 00:54 bonifaceviii wrote:Show nested quote +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? One drawn up by AIPAC. As for Palestine and the UN/UNESCO, it's definitely a moral victory but does very little in terms of resolving anything. Should they have done it? Hell yeah, it's free PR for the Palestinian government and now the US looks like the bad guy.
Its a moral victory? Really? A place that was to annihilate an entire race and region and this a victory? I'm so glad you clarified this for ALL others to see.
|
On November 02 2011 16:50 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2011 16:31 Shinta) wrote: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.
The fact that people came from the discussed regions is not myth. If you want to call it myth, then you commonly refer to all history that you yourself have not witnessed with your own hands eyes ears etc to possibly be nonfactual or 'mythical'. 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. Um... did you miss the part where I said their ancestors? Herp Derp. And ofc there was no Palestine and no Israel, and yes the area of Israel is centered around important historical sites, and not where the state that didn't exist was. And yes, everyone was fighting with everyone back then, and everyone fought with everyone up until recent days, but the point in this topic is 1 people vs the other people. The other peoples are to be disregarded. 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. That whole region next to the Mediterranean (which is where the Canaan people were primarily located) was mostly used by western states. Eventually politics changed, battles were waged, and the people we have now are the ones that ended up being there. Sure there were a bunch of people that belong to different states or no state at all, but as history is bound to prove, an area is eventually ruled by 1 people (with few exception). I don't even understand why you found it important to state this information, it's relatively useless. And by that I mean it doesn't provide anything for the discussion. 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. Conflict started when East migrated to meet the West. Sure the Jews came from Europe, but the Sumerians did not. The ancestors of what people consider today to be Israelites did not have any conflict with the ancestors of what people consider today to be Palestinians until the ancestors of the Palestinians migrated towards the area of Israel. 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.
That was an OBVIOUSLY intended as an over exaggeration. And this over exaggeration is a very commonly used one. Don't be ridiculous. Get smart ~_~ First part: You're using ancient religious mythology for your argument. That isn't history. Just because I "have not witnessed with your own hands eyes ears etc" that the Minotaur existed and was in a labyrinth in Crete, that means it must have been real going by your logic, right? In other words, it's irrelevant. It doesn't work, is what I'm saying. Second part: One people vs. the others? As I said, there were no modern Palestinians and Israelis back then, so I don't see how they were fighting back then. Herp derp. In fact, all of those different nations back then are just the ancestors of modern Palestinians if anything. Third part: I was explaining how the Hebrews came to that point. You made it seem like yahweh just magically gave it to them or something, and almost no one else was living there, like in the Exodus myth or Abrahamic covenant. In actuality, one group conquering others directly tended to lead to cultural assimiation, so that non-Hebrews (but albeit closely related peoples) became Hebrews. Fourth part: I know the Sumerians didn't come from Europe. When did I say they did? Of course people from central/eastern Europe did not come across people from Canaan in ancient times. When the people in Canaan apparently migrated and populated and settled in that that area (I assume that's what youre saying there tens of thousands of years ago from wherever in the prehistoric era, well, tens of thousands of years ago is a hell of a long time before the 20th century AD, so I don't see why you're saying that there were clashes when the people who today claim to be Israelis were in Europe. Seems rather strange to say such a thing. Unless you are claiming that the people from Europe immigrated to Israel before the natives moved there and there were clashes? Now that's just ridiculous. Please clarify what you're saying here as it isn't very clear.
First Part: The fact that people migrated to the Canaan region from both Sumer and Europe is not mythology. That's the only thing I was talking about, so I have no clue what the heck you're stating -.-
Second Part: Erg.... In this case, people is being used to describe specific groups. People is not being used to describe everyone from that time.... The 2 'peoples' of course being the ancestors of modern day Israeli's and modern day Palestinians. Yes, as I stated before, many people were fighting, and many people became absorbed into other cultures. Sure you can try to argue that out of all people who lived in the modern day Central-Western Asia, Central-Eastern Europe, and Northeastern Africa regions ended up becoming one people, and that that people eventually separated, but many people will argue differently. The fact of the matter is that these people (the natives of Canaan, who were made up of people from Africa and Europe) fought with the people from Sumer and that these 2 groups were what would eventually become what people refer to as modern day Israelis and Palestinians. Those were the people that inhabited and fought for those lands, regardless of the names of the states or city-states that ruled the area. Who you consider back then to be ancestors of who is irrelevant.
Third Part: How Hebrews actually came to that point is irrelevant anyways. You're merely trying to describe when people in Canaan started speaking Hebrew? The only point in time when the term Hebrew becomes of importance is during the time of Jacob and the rise of the Israelites. Whether they spoke the Hebrew language or not, everyone who lived in that area before the migration of the Sumerians, engaged in a never ending conflict with the people who would eventually migrate from Sumer. Any more history added to this would be a further waste of time and irrelevant to the discussion so I'll leave it at that.
Forth Part: Seriously? "They've been fighting since the beginning of mankind" Have you never heard that term? It's a commonly used over exaggeration. I don't even understand what you're confused about. Stop hurting your own head. No further comment necessary.
|
On November 02 2011 17:23 Shinta) wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2011 16:50 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:On November 02 2011 16:31 Shinta) wrote: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.
The fact that people came from the discussed regions is not myth. If you want to call it myth, then you commonly refer to all history that you yourself have not witnessed with your own hands eyes ears etc to possibly be nonfactual or 'mythical'. 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. Um... did you miss the part where I said their ancestors? Herp Derp. And ofc there was no Palestine and no Israel, and yes the area of Israel is centered around important historical sites, and not where the state that didn't exist was. And yes, everyone was fighting with everyone back then, and everyone fought with everyone up until recent days, but the point in this topic is 1 people vs the other people. The other peoples are to be disregarded. 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. That whole region next to the Mediterranean (which is where the Canaan people were primarily located) was mostly used by western states. Eventually politics changed, battles were waged, and the people we have now are the ones that ended up being there. Sure there were a bunch of people that belong to different states or no state at all, but as history is bound to prove, an area is eventually ruled by 1 people (with few exception). I don't even understand why you found it important to state this information, it's relatively useless. And by that I mean it doesn't provide anything for the discussion. 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. Conflict started when East migrated to meet the West. Sure the Jews came from Europe, but the Sumerians did not. The ancestors of what people consider today to be Israelites did not have any conflict with the ancestors of what people consider today to be Palestinians until the ancestors of the Palestinians migrated towards the area of Israel. 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.
That was an OBVIOUSLY intended as an over exaggeration. And this over exaggeration is a very commonly used one. Don't be ridiculous. Get smart ~_~ First part: You're using ancient religious mythology for your argument. That isn't history. Just because I "have not witnessed with your own hands eyes ears etc" that the Minotaur existed and was in a labyrinth in Crete, that means it must have been real going by your logic, right? In other words, it's irrelevant. It doesn't work, is what I'm saying. Second part: One people vs. the others? As I said, there were no modern Palestinians and Israelis back then, so I don't see how they were fighting back then. Herp derp. In fact, all of those different nations back then are just the ancestors of modern Palestinians if anything. Third part: I was explaining how the Hebrews came to that point. You made it seem like yahweh just magically gave it to them or something, and almost no one else was living there, like in the Exodus myth or Abrahamic covenant. In actuality, one group conquering others directly tended to lead to cultural assimiation, so that non-Hebrews (but albeit closely related peoples) became Hebrews. Fourth part: I know the Sumerians didn't come from Europe. When did I say they did? Of course people from central/eastern Europe did not come across people from Canaan in ancient times. When the people in Canaan apparently migrated and populated and settled in that that area (I assume that's what youre saying there tens of thousands of years ago from wherever in the prehistoric era, well, tens of thousands of years ago is a hell of a long time before the 20th century AD, so I don't see why you're saying that there were clashes when the people who today claim to be Israelis were in Europe. Seems rather strange to say such a thing. Unless you are claiming that the people from Europe immigrated to Israel before the natives moved there and there were clashes? Now that's just ridiculous. Please clarify what you're saying here as it isn't very clear. First Part: The fact that people migrated to the Canaan region from both Sumer and Europe is not mythology. That's the only thing I was talking about, so I have no clue what the heck you're stating -.- Second Part: Erg.... In this case, people is being used to describe specific groups. People is not being used to describe everyone from that time.... The 2 'peoples' of course being the ancestors of modern day Israeli's and modern day Palestinians. Yes, as I stated before, many people were fighting, and many people became absorbed into other cultures. Sure you can try to argue that out of all people who lived in the modern day Central-Western Asia, Central-Eastern Europe, and Northeastern Africa regions ended up becoming one people, and that that people eventually separated, but many people will argue differently. The fact of the matter is that these people (the natives of Canaan, who were made up of people from Africa and Europe) fought with the people from Sumer and that these 2 groups were what would eventually become what people refer to as modern day Israelis and Palestinians. Those were the people that inhabited and fought for those lands, regardless of the names of the states or city-states that ruled the area. Who you consider back then to be ancestors of who is irrelevant. Third Part: How Hebrews actually came to that point is irrelevant anyways. You're merely trying to describe when people in Canaan started speaking Hebrew? The only point in time when the term Hebrew becomes of importance is during the time of Jacob and the rise of the Israelites. Whether they spoke the Hebrew language or not, everyone who lived in that area before the migration of the Sumerians, engaged in a never ending conflict with the people who would eventually migrate from Sumer. Any more history added to this would be a further waste of time and irrelevant to the discussion so I'll leave it at that. Forth Part: Seriously? "They've been fighting since the beginning of mankind" Have you never heard that term? It's a commonly used over exaggeration. I don't even understand what you're confused about. Stop hurting your own head. No further comment necessary.
First Part: Oh, now you're saying that ancient Hebrews came from central/eastern Europe as well? I asked once and I'll ask again. Do you have any proof for this, including for the Sumer part (Genesis doesn't count)?
Second part: The ancestors of modern day Israelis were in central and eastern Europe and had no contact with the modern day Palestinians in ancient times. I don't know why you claim they did. Now more theories that now there were even people from Africa and Europe living in ancient Canaan as well, not just Sumer?!?!? Lol, where do you get this crazy talk from? You're starting to hurt my head with this banter. XD I mean, you're making up a crazy conspiracy theory in order to claim that yes indeed the modern Israelis actually came from Canaan, which is just absurd. You realize how silly you're sounding right now? I'd like to see where you read all this crazy stuff, or if it's stuff you pulled out of your ass in order to convince me that the recent immigrants from northern Europe in the past 100 years are actually natives from the land. Sorry man. I'm not that naive.
Third part: Didn't you say earlier that the migration of Sumerians was with Abraham, the original Hebrews? So you're saying there were two migrations of Sumerians, a second one coming when the Hebrews had supposedly long since come from Sumer? Why the contradictions? Also, seeing as how the Hebrews came from Sumer, and in your conspiracy theory history, they fought against people who came from Sumer later on, (even though everyone in Canaan came from Canaan, and they fought against people living in Canaan as well as large foreign invaders like the Assyrians, Babylonians, Egyptians, and Persians), then that kills your claim that . Ancient Israelites came from northern Europe? HAHA!! You're a real joker XD
Fourth part: I never said anything about that expression, and yes I've heard of it. You just replied to something that wasn't written lol. So clarify what the hell you mean by: "Conflict started when East migrated to meet the West. Sure the Jews came from Europe, but the Sumerians did not. The ancestors of what people consider today to be Israelites did not have any conflict with the ancestors of what people consider today to be Palestinians until the ancestors of the Palestinians migrated towards the area of Israel."
Because you're saying that the ancestors of today's Israelis were living in Canaan in ancient times and had come from Europe (despite anyone with a brain knows that they came only in the past 100 years). This is an absolutely ludicrous claim, so I'm asking you to clarify it because it's just so ridiculous. What is this East migrated to meet the West (the Abraham myth of his tribe's migration to Canaan, or is it the 2nd migration of Sumerians you made up as well?) So please clarify what you mean by that paragraph, and also give evidence for the things I said in my last post, because right now, you're just stating ridiculous things (ancient Hebrews are from northern Europe and these ancient people are the ancestors of all of today's Israelis... lol.....). Hell, I think I got trolled.
|
Britain's fault. They bailed the moment Jewish terrorist organizations started blowing up buses in the 40s. If they really cared what happened in the region they would have made sure they made a state where Arabs and Jews would live together.
Instead they gave up and of course terrorists took over, deported most Arabs and so Israel was born. Now the same terrorist groups are political parties running Israel and bash on the terrorist groups that call themselves political parties from the Palestinians. Irony at its best.
This will never stop until Israel makes a decisive move (Palestine is a non-issue, it will never become a state if Israel does not allow it yet they bomb Israel daily). Either openly admit they never intend to give in to Palestinian demands and there will never be an actual Palestine or just draw something on the map and tell all Palestinians to sod off. Anything involving previously established imaginary borders is a no go anymore due to settlements.
Stupid situation, the Israelians live in danger most of the time and the Arabs there are pretty much herded in their own cities, always in danger of retaliatory strikes from Israel. Just finish it, in any way you want and at least people can start planning for something. Hope in this case is just stupid.
|
Guys, you're completely off track.
Don't turn this into Israel vs Palestine please.
This is UNESCO, United Nation's Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. It has nothing to do with politics.
What does the Palestinian acceptance in UNESCO mean? That UNESCO shall protect/recover the historical buildings in palestine and other old cultural heritage in the area (be it jewish, arab or christian), UNESCO may create programs for education of children in palestine, will account for their culture and help them represent it outside their world.
UNESCO has done plenty of good things all around the world, i guess nobody even cares about things like culture or education anymore.
Check this http://www.riwaqregister.org/en/default.aspx
How can you oppose this, how can you perceive this as a threat?
This decision hasn't been made by UNESCO's president or council. It has been put to vote in the general council where 104 countries voted FOR and only 14 AGAINST, with about 50 abstaining.
So it was a democratically taken decision. Why would you not respect that?
So the USA has an outrageous law which forbids financing any organization who takes palestine as a member. In case they do not change their mind, this will be yet another terrible PR blow to USA's image. Canada (who has a good image right now) will also suffer a big blow. I wonder how regular canadians feel about this, i know already that regular americans would disagree (i'm taking tl.net's americans as barometer).
This is the first case ever in UN affiliated organizations when someone dislikes the decision (democratic decision) threatens to leave the organization.
Edit: Sorry not the first, USA threatened one more time:
Israel was admitted to UNESCO in 1949, one year after its creation. In 1974, UNESCO stripped Israel of its membership on the grounds of alleged damage being done by Israel's archaeological excavations on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem. UNESCO defended this decision with two statements in 1974 and 1975, but renewed Israel's membership in 1977, after the United States threatened to withhold $40 million of funding from the organization.[55]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UNESCO
List of countries votes regarding adding of Palestine as UNESCO member:
No:
Australia, Canada, Czech Republic, Germany, Israel, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Palau, Panama, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Sweden, US, Vanuatu.
Abstentions:
Albania, Andorra, Bahamas, Barbados, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Burundi, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Colombia, Cook Islands, Ivory Coast, Croatia, Denmark, Estonia, Fiji, Georgia, Haiti, Hungary, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Kiribati, Latvia, Liberia, Mexico, Monaco, Montenegro, Nauru, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, Poland, Portugal, South Korea, Moldova, Romania, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, San Marino, Singapore, Slovakia, Switzerland, Thailand, Macedonia, Togo, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Tuvalu, Uganda, Ukraine, UK, Zambia.
Yes:
Afghanistan, Algeria, Angola, Argentina, Armenia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belarus, Belgium, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Burkina Faso, Cambodia, Chad, Chile, China, Congo, Costa Rica, Cuba, Cyprus, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of Congo, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Finland, France, Gabon, Gambia, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Honduras, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Ireland, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Lesotho, Libya, Luxembourg, Malawi, Malaysia, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Qatar, Russian Federation, St Lucia, St Vincent and the Grenadines, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Serbia, Seychelles, Slovenia, Somalia, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Syria, Tunisia, Turkey, United Arab Emirates, Tanzania, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Venezuela, Vietnam, Yemen, Zimbabwe.
Absent (includes states that lost right to vote because membership fees were not paid):
Antigua and Barbuda, Central African Republic, Comoros, Dominica, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Madagascar, Maldives, Marshall Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, Mongolia, Niue, Sao Tome and Principe, Sierra Leone, South Sudan, Swaziland, Tajikistan, East Timor, Turkmenistan.
|
Is Palestine legally a nation? If not, then it shouldn't have been allowed in UNESCO as a nation state. Sure it's a democratic process, but it's like voting for a guy who's not qualified to be in the race in the first place.
|
On November 02 2011 18:39 nodnod wrote:
Is Palestine legally a nation? If not, then it shouldn't have been allowed in UNESCO as a nation state. Sure it's a democratic process, but it's like voting for a guy who's not qualified to be in the race in the first place.
Like anything in this place, it's...complicated.
For 128 countries in the world (including China, Russia, all estern Europe countries, Africa, South America) it's a legal country.
For all the western and northern Europe countries it's not legal...but not illegal...it's...different (As we use to say in french, "Le cul entre deux chaises", the ass between two chairs...).
For all other (US/Isreal of course, Canada and Austalia aswell), it's not legal.
So, it depends on each country's point of view. Palestine shouldn't be a part of UNESCO for USA, should...or not...or maybe for France, and must absolutly be a part of UNESCO or UN for China.
|
On November 02 2011 15:09 mewo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2011 14:05 Sub40APM wrote:On November 02 2011 11:28 mewo wrote:On November 02 2011 11:15 Sub40APM wrote:On November 02 2011 11:11 mewo wrote:On November 02 2011 10:53 Zooper31 wrote:On November 02 2011 00:54 konadora wrote:On November 02 2011 00:50 buhhy wrote:On November 02 2011 00:47 konadora wrote:On November 02 2011 00:46 SirMilford wrote:
[quote]
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. Israel has quite the lobby power in the US. As a result, the US administration is generally pro-Israel. The US stood behind Israel pretty much from its inception. There's a reason why the neighboring Arab states have been unable to destroy Israel. On November 02 2011 00:49 Nizaris wrote:^US is closely allied with Israel. Israel hates Palestine since they want their land. therefore US can't show "sympathy" towards Palestine. On November 02 2011 00:47 Kupon3ss wrote:
Well this isn't surprising, as appealing to the Jewish community earns American politicians an insane amount of votes and funding while being fair to Palestine earns nothing for elections. hoooray for democracy. what a shame. i'm glad the unesco had what it takes to accept a 20% loss of income for what is the right thing to do. thanks for the replies. i think i saw it in a documentary film that lots of jews run the major banks and corporations in the US? is that why this is happening? bringing such issues in the face of human rights.... such a shame. thanks for the responses! What kind of documentaries are you watching? Or are you just trolling? Because I hope to god it's the latter, then I see your post count... Someone with such a high post count ought to have better trolls. This issue is really silly. It isn't in the interest of the United States to recognize Palestine as a state because we are deeply allied with Israel. In other words by blocking the interests of Palestine we gain more power in the region through Israel. It doesn't have anything to do with Jewish world dominion, democracy or regional history. Also of note. Most of that land Israel "took" was involved in the cold war. With the Soviet Union backing Egypt Syria etc and the United States backing Israel. Israel took HUGE areas of land In each of those wars and each time gave the majority of it back. (also those wars make for some pretty amazing history) america gains more power in the region through Israel? How does that work? American power comes from the fact that almost all Middle Eastern states are client state of America except of Syria and Iran. And all the military bases America has around the area. But Israel is actually a liability to America because it automatically makes Muslims/Arabs more anti-American than they would be otherwise. And it benefits Iran/Syria who can cover up their own repressions by screaming about the oppression of the Palestinians. "American power comes from the fact that almost all Middle Eastern states are client state of America except of Syria and Iran."Well that part is completely wrong. As far as how they help the US: In the same way that we support Israeli interests in organizations like the UN, they support our interests. Our countries also have close relations between intelligence gathering. Apart from the benefits you see in every alliance. Israel also stands against the radical Arab countries like Iran and Syria. Completely wrong? Saudi Arabia: American bases, buys American military hardware, depends on America to cover them vs. Iran. Bahrain: hosts US 7th Fleet. Kuwait: America went to war to make sure that when one dictator overthrew another dictator the overthrown dictator got his dictatorship back. Egypt: 2nd largest aid recipient after Israel. Americans were also the ones who kept the military from just murdering everyone, Syria style. Jordan: US client state since they signed the Israel peace treaty. Morocco/Tunesia: both pro-American since they became independent. Yemen: Millions in military aid, free to deploy predators wherever. As to interests: Think about what you are saying. America sells out Israel, one of the least popular countries in the world, and suddenly it gets the support of the Arab League, a numerically much larger grouping. Again, if you could just name 1 thing that America gets out of the Israel 'alliance' that does not pertain to the domestic politics of America I'm happy to listen. America has dealing with almost all countries. We did after all install the current regime in Iran ousting their democratically elected leader. These arrangements have never meant that these Arab countries were client states. Before their revolutions the majority of these countries were directly opposed to us influence. It remains what will come of the post revolution governments. And there have long been allegations that Saudi Arabia does one thing and days another, ie, sponsoring terrorism post 9/11. So yes that was completely wrong.
Wow.
|
On November 02 2011 18:39 nodnod wrote:
Is Palestine legally a nation? If not, then it shouldn't have been allowed in UNESCO as a nation state. Sure it's a democratic process, but it's like voting for a guy who's not qualified to be in the race in the first place.
First off, you don't know the difference between a nation and a state. You cannot say Palestine is not a nation.
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_difference_between_a_state_and_a_nation
Second, it's about the Palestinian territories in which there are stuff of interest for UNESCO (cultural heritage) which is viewed as Palestine which does not exist as a sovereign state.
These countries voting for, did not vote for existence of Palestine state but for membership in UNESCO for the palestinian territories governed under the name of Palestine.
|
If we go with the article you linked, the palestinians have the same culture, values, folkways, religion and language with all the other arabs in the middle east, and as such they are not a nation but only part of the Arab nation.
Second, it's about the Palestinian territories in which there are stuff of interest for UNESCO (cultural heritage) which is viewed as Palestine which does not exist as a sovereign state.
These countries voting for, did not vote for existence of Palestine state but for membership in UNESCO for the palestinian territories governed under the name of Palestine.
All the world including the Arabs see this event as a political event. You must be terrible naive or you have bad intentions to claim otherwise. Only states have membership in UNESCO and Palestine is not legally a state. Democracy has nothing to do with it, a state must be declared and recognized through the appropriate channels in order to be legally a state.
UNESCO has always taken care of the culturally stuff throughout the territories, no membership was needed for that.
|
Yeh, I used the term 'nation' and 'state' too loosely in my original post. I meant to question whether Palestine is entitled to the legality of being a state. Is Palestine a state?
On November 02 2011 20:16 bonse wrote:
All the world including the Arabs see this event as a political event. You must be terrible naive or you have bad intentions to claim otherwise. Only states have membership in UNESCO and Palestine is not legally a state. Democracy has nothing to do with it, a state must be declared and recognized through the appropriate channels in order to be legally a state.
UNESCO has always taken care of the culturally stuff throughout the territories, no membership was needed for that.
My point exactly, well said. There is a reason that the members of the UNESCO are called 'member STATES'. Basically, I think UNESCO has set a terrible precedence by letting itself being as as political stunt rather than what it means to serve.
|
On November 02 2011 19:17 Agathon wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2011 18:39 nodnod wrote:
Is Palestine legally a nation? If not, then it shouldn't have been allowed in UNESCO as a nation state. Sure it's a democratic process, but it's like voting for a guy who's not qualified to be in the race in the first place.
Like anything in this place, it's...complicated. For 128 countries in the world (including China, Russia, all estern Europe countries, Africa, South America) it's a legal country. For all the western and northern Europe countries it's not legal...but not illegal...it's...different (As we use to say in french, "Le cul entre deux chaises", the ass between two chairs...). For all other (US/Isreal of course, Canada and Austalia aswell), it's not legal. So, it depends on each country's point of view. Palestine shouldn't be a part of UNESCO for USA, should...or not...or maybe for France, and must absolutly be a part of UNESCO or UN for China.
Actually, France voted "yes", which is pretty surprising considering past record. A lot of people were expecting at least an abstain vote. I don't really know what this will entail for the Arab-Israeli conflict, though -- the Israeli Prime Minister has already announced new colonization measures in reprisal. Frightening how this conundrum still isn't resolved after 60 years. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
