| Forum Index > General Forum |
Stay on topic. I cannot put it more clearly then that. Derailments will be met with consequences. ~Nyovne | ||
|
Arevall
Sweden1133 Posts
Israel just gave green light for 3,000 new homes on the West Bank. According to al Jazeera: "Israel's government had threatened to approve further construction in the settlements as a possible response to Palestine's bid for recognition." Real classy move... | ||
|
sc2superfan101
3583 Posts
On December 01 2012 00:19 Talin wrote: Regardless of who controls it, I have very rarely heard American media criticize Israel's actions over the years, even among the more liberal outlets. Conspiracy theories aside, it is not difficult to accuse them of extreme bias in this case. When somebody claims that a country being accepted by the UN will somehow lead to escalation and mass murder, it's also not difficult to question the credibility of one's sources and why he believes in what they say. Being accepted into UN is not an act of aggression against anyone, except those who believe that the state in question should not exist at all (which would be a very difficult position to justify from a rational standpoint). well that is an acceptable position to take, but I still think it's missing some key things. Israel is a recognized state, it has a functioning democracy, more religious and personal freedom than is the norm over there, and actually has gone out of their way to help the Palestinians. have there been mistakes? of course, there will always be mistakes. has Israel had a consistent policy of keeping the Palestinians down or of denying them any chances of statehood? I think it would be hard to argue that they have. the reason I say it will lead to escalation is because it shows that the world is not requiring that Palestine work with Israel to get a solution hammered out. the Palestinians right now are pretty belligerent (whether they have reason or not is irrelevant), and it's not a stretch to say that they will continue to try to go it alone. the fact is that the rest of the world doesn't have a very good track record with either people, the Jews or the Palestinian arabs, and for them to butt their noses in and start messing with a delicate situation as if they have some mandate is... well, it's a bit much for me anyway. and it's not a stretch to say that it will heighten tensions between Israel and Palestine (and between the US and the rest of the Middle East/world), and that it will further push the Palestinians toward continued belligerence, a scenario that can only lead to war, and eventually, mass death. it is an aggressive act, what the UN has done, in that it rejects the necessity of Palestine dealing directly with Israel to find a solution to the problem. it rewards belligerence (the launching of rockets/terrorism), and it weakens Israel's position, which is already tenuous, on public opinion. if Israel (and the US) reject the proposal, they look as though they are trying to block Palestinian statehood and those with confirmation bias will take this up in a heartbeat as a "sign" that Israel doesn't want peace, or wants to keep the Palestinians in perpetual limbo. if they accept the proposal then they de-legitimize themselves, their position, and they give credence to the very people who have launched rockets at them. the very people who have sent suicide bombers at Israeli schoolchildren. for anyone to suggest that this is a good thing, what has occurred.... well to me it shows a serious lack of foresight and naivete. but I am willing to accept that I have a bit of bias and that I could be missing something here. edit: this is not to say that all Palestinians are belligerent, or that they should all bear the burden of a few people's sins. the problem with the situation is that both sides have legitimate issues with the other side, and it has festered for long enough that it's more than a simple, 1+2 equation here. statehood is possible, and inevitable, but only when both sides work together WITHOUT the interference of the rest of the world. that's my opinion anyway. | ||
|
Crownlol
United States3726 Posts
On November 30 2012 23:56 sc2superfan101 wrote: you know, it's pretty rude to accuse everyone who disagrees with you of being brainwashed by "jewish media". not only is that rude, but it's also has hints of antisemitism and even further, you started it all with an ad hominem. You have to pick a personality, man. At first I was like "oh jeez, raging conservative", but then completely agreed with your second point. I'd say that saying "the jewish media has its control over the American population" is more than just hints of antisemitism, its outright antisemitic. | ||
|
Perscienter
957 Posts
On December 01 2012 00:02 Sermokala wrote: The abstaining thing happens for a variety of reasons. Its basically saying "we don't want to be responsible for this either way" say a resolution involving military action by a un state. Germany and other states will abstain so that they arn't forced then by their vote to support militarily. There are no direct military repercussions this time. Germany is still making tactical decisions instead of a strict moral / rule of law perspective. That might still be effective and will cause less damage to the relations to Israel, but it will not be seen as a good role-model world-wide. On December 01 2012 00:02 Sermokala wrote: This guy is really weird and I'm only 10 minutes in. How did Isreal take over 80% of the country and destroy all these towns? Beacuse they won and didn't just let the arab forces just sit in their country? The Palestinians have never had a military force there was nothing on the other side! Because all the other arab states used their militaries to attack isreal? And then decided to ocupy the gaza strip and west bank didn't give them any civil rights and treated them as second class citizens. But thats totaly okay because it wasn't Isreal that did this to us it was our friendly brothers that never gave us any civil rights. He doesn't really transition solidly from when he talked about the first war and the second war. He said the "myth" was that the arabs attacked and Isreal won. But he never says why thats a myth or what actually happened. He talks about how the generals wanted more land and never talked about the strategic importance of the golan heights or the sinai peninsula. Then he makes this crazy point about "they did this all in 6 days?" Its modern times war doesn't last very long anymore when you can drive over all the land you are going to take in a few hours. I'm at 20 minutes does it get any better after this? His argument starts at 14:55 and lasts until 17:05. He says the myth would be that Israel once again prevails by applying a higher intellect etc. against invading oppressors. According to him it is a myth, because the biggest competitor, the Egyptian army, had been inferior since the beginning of the war. They would have been provoked to enter a war they couldn't win and preparation for the Egyptian army would have taken at least one more year. That's where the heads of the Israeli army saw an opportunity. Furthermore, the map would have been drawn as a framework, which was destined to collapse and lead to the outcome of, let's call it a failed pre-emptive strike. He basically states, that they were probably pleased to expand by defending themselves. | ||
|
DeepElemBlues
United States5079 Posts
He says the myth would be that Israel once again prevails by applying a higher intellect etc. against invading oppressors. According to him it is a myth, because the biggest competitor, the Egyptian army, had been inferior since the beginning of the war. They would have been provoked to enter a war they couldn't win and preparation for the Egyptian army would have taken at least one more year. That's where the heads of the Israeli army saw an opportunity. Furthermore, the map would have been drawn as a framework, which was destined to collapse and lead to the outcome of, let's call it a failed pre-emptive strike. He basically states, that they were probably pleased to expand by defending themselves. Maybe Nasser shouldn't have closed the Straits of Tiran and massed troops in the Sinai. Maybe Syria shouldn't have massed troops in the Golan. I've never heard this myth that Israel prevails because Jews are smarter than Arabs. More focused and determined and clearer-thinking, yes, but not smarter. Dude sounds like your typical anti-Israel demagogue, twist anything to make it be negative about Israel. | ||
|
WhiteDog
France8650 Posts
On December 01 2012 01:09 DeepElemBlues wrote: So now that the Palestinians have broken the Oslo Accords about 300 different times including with this stunt - that has nothing to do with getting their own state but rather opening a new avenue of attack against Israel - how many people are going to complain when Israel declares them null and void and stops giving hundreds of millions of dollars to the PA annually? Maybe Nasser shouldn't have closed the Straits of Tiran and massed troops in the Sinai. Maybe Syria shouldn't have massed troops in the Golan. I've never heard this myth that Israel prevails because Jews are smarter than Arabs. More focused and determined and clearer-thinking, yes, but not smarter. Dude sounds like your typical anti-Israel demagogue, twist anything to make it be negative about Israel. How about you educate yourself for a change and actually watch the video. The idea of a "myth" is a critic to David, supposedly an biblic figure who was the second King of the United Kingdom of Israel, who is commonly used by politicians such as Netanyahu to justify Israel, and who have never been proved to exist in the first place. He is using this idea to prove that you cannot really take side in this conflict without being biased because most of the arguments coming from both sides are actually fallacies. Also, the guy is an israeli jew and his father is one of the general of the israeli army who fought during the 1967 war (and he fought himself in the army) - "typical anti-Israel demagogue". The video is one hour long and well documented, showing how most arguments, such as "Israel is always under attack and nobody recognize their right to exist in this region" are false, which is why I told some people like Sermakola to watch it. And lol at the "more focused, determined and clearer-thinking". On December 01 2012 00:02 Sermokala wrote: The abstaining thing happens for a variety of reasons. Its basically saying "we don't want to be responsible for this either way" say a resolution involving military action by a un state. Germany and other states will abstain so that they arn't forced then by their vote to support militarily. This guy is really weird and I'm only 10 minutes in. How did Isreal take over 80% of the country and destroy all these towns? Beacuse they won and didn't just let the arab forces just sit in their country? The Palestinians have never had a military force there was nothing on the other side! Because all the other arab states used their militaries to attack isreal? And then decided to ocupy the gaza strip and west bank didn't give them any civil rights and treated them as second class citizens. But thats totaly okay because it wasn't Isreal that did this to us it was our friendly brothers that never gave us any civil rights. He doesn't really transition solidly from when he talked about the first war and the second war. He said the "myth" was that the arabs attacked and Isreal won. But he never says why thats a myth or what actually happened. He talks about how the generals wanted more land and never talked about the strategic importance of the golan heights or the sinai peninsula. Then he makes this crazy point about "they did this all in 6 days?" Its modern times war doesn't last very long anymore when you can drive over all the land you are going to take in a few hours. I'm at 20 minutes does it get any better after this? You didn't understand anything he said lol... He is not saying they "won", he is saying they were never in a full out "war" to begin with. The syrian nor the egyptians where in there for "their blood", which is actually backed up by some Israelis historians today, who considers that the arabics armies just wanted to protect the civilians and not take back the land. What he is saying is that as soon as the 1947 borders were set in, the Israelis started a campaign of ethnic cleansing, throwing palestinians out and taking the country for themselves beyond the 1947 borders. For the 1967, he is saying that they were not responding to threat from Egypt, but that they used Egypt behavior to start a war they wanted in order to destroy the weak Egyptian army and expand theirselves in the west bank. | ||
|
Tobberoth
Sweden6375 Posts
On December 01 2012 00:57 sc2superfan101 wrote: well that is an acceptable position to take, but I still think it's missing some key things. Israel is a recognized state, it has a functioning democracy, more religious and personal freedom than is the norm over there, and actually has gone out of their way to help the Palestinians. have there been mistakes? of course, there will always be mistakes. has Israel had a consistent policy of keeping the Palestinians down or of denying them any chances of statehood? I think it would be hard to argue that they have. the reason I say it will lead to escalation is because it shows that the world is not requiring that Palestine work with Israel to get a solution hammered out. the Palestinians right now are pretty belligerent (whether they have reason or not is irrelevant), and it's not a stretch to say that they will continue to try to go it alone. the fact is that the rest of the world doesn't have a very good track record with either people, the Jews or the Palestinian arabs, and for them to butt their noses in and start messing with a delicate situation as if they have some mandate is... well, it's a bit much for me anyway. and it's not a stretch to say that it will heighten tensions between Israel and Palestine (and between the US and the rest of the Middle East/world), and that it will further push the Palestinians toward continued belligerence, a scenario that can only lead to war, and eventually, mass death. it is an aggressive act, what the UN has done, in that it rejects the necessity of Palestine dealing directly with Israel to find a solution to the problem. it rewards belligerence (the launching of rockets/terrorism), and it weakens Israel's position, which is already tenuous, on public opinion. if Israel (and the US) reject the proposal, they look as though they are trying to block Palestinian statehood and those with confirmation bias will take this up in a heartbeat as a "sign" that Israel doesn't want peace, or wants to keep the Palestinians in perpetual limbo. if they accept the proposal then they de-legitimize themselves, their position, and they give credence to the very people who have launched rockets at them. the very people who have sent suicide bombers at Israeli schoolchildren. for anyone to suggest that this is a good thing, what has occurred.... well to me it shows a serious lack of foresight and naivete. but I am willing to accept that I have a bit of bias and that I could be missing something here. edit: this is not to say that all Palestinians are belligerent, or that they should all bear the burden of a few people's sins. the problem with the situation is that both sides have legitimate issues with the other side, and it has festered for long enough that it's more than a simple, 1+2 equation here. statehood is possible, and inevitable, but only when both sides work together WITHOUT the interference of the rest of the world. that's my opinion anyway. I'm sorry, but the whole idea that Palestine needs to work with Israel to come up with a solution is... dumb. That's honestly like a teacher telling a bullied kid that he shouldn't ask for help from teachers, he should kindly sit down with the bullies and give them what they want. Look at a map. Check what Palestine had, and what they have now. Check their resources and compare them to Israels. Now ask yourself, what options do Palestine ACTUALLY have, other than bending down and taking it up the ***? The UN recognizing Palestine doesn't mean UN will start sending troops to help Palestine against Israel, it just gives Palestine some needed recognition and backing and is a step in the right direction to stop Israel from ignoring Palestinian rights when they take settlements wherever they please. | ||
|
sc2superfan101
3583 Posts
On December 01 2012 01:39 Tobberoth wrote: I'm sorry, but the whole idea that Palestine needs to work with Israel to come up with a solution is... dumb. That's honestly like a teacher telling a bullied kid that he shouldn't ask for help from teachers, he should kindly sit down with the bullies and give them what they want. Look at a map. Check what Palestine had, and what they have now. Check their resources and compare them to Israels. Now ask yourself, what options do Palestine ACTUALLY have, other than bending down and taking it up the ***? The UN recognizing Palestine doesn't mean UN will start sending troops to help Palestine against Israel, it just gives Palestine some needed recognition and backing and is a step in the right direction to stop Israel from ignoring Palestinian rights when they take settlements wherever they please. whether it's right or not, the Palestinians never had anything. the land was owned by the Ottoman Turks, and then was owned by Britain, and then was owned by Israel. legally, the Palestinians never had a state, and have no legal claim to one other than what Israel is willing to accept. simply casting the Israeli's as the "bully" shows how fucked up this situation is, because nothing is that simple. Israel has a Jewish population of about 7 million, right? Egypt: 82.5 million. Syria: 20 million. Lebanon: 4.5 million, Jordan: 6.5 million. it's a bit ridiculous to accuse Israel of being a bully here when they are a tiny country surrounded by a hostile majority, and have been under near-constant attack since their inception. at any other time, with any other nation and people, the land that Israel won in multiple wars which it did not start would be theirs without question. they have given back most of everything they ever took, a move which I have yet to see any other country do so willingly, especially when you consider the nature of the people they gave it back to: hostile. not only that, but the true persecutors of the Palestinians are other Muslims and Arabs, who have killed more Palestinians and caused more suffering than Israel ever could. isolating Israel as the problem is very shortsighted and not helpful in any way toward achieving a legitimate, peaceful solution. the UN won't send troops, thank God, because they know that would kickstart WW3. what they're doing instead is the same tactic that you saw in the past: isolate and demonize the Jews, and then use inflammatory rhetoric and mistruths and omissions to whip up anti-semetic fervor against them. look at the UN Human Rights Council. how many times have they sanctioned Israel? how many times have they sanctioned any other country? right there proves that there is a severe anti-Israeli, anti-semetic bias in the UN. edit: if this is a step in the right direction to stop Israel from taking settlements than why did Israel just approve new settlements in response to this? even if you think Israel is all in the wrong (which is a very simplistic opinion to hold), you cannot possibly think this will actually promote peace or make Israel more likely to want to negotiate. this move was childish and counterproductive, and worse, the Palestinians know that it is and so does most of the world. | ||
|
R3DT1D3
285 Posts
On December 01 2012 01:39 Tobberoth wrote: I'm sorry, but the whole idea that Palestine needs to work with Israel to come up with a solution is... dumb. That's honestly like a teacher telling a bullied kid that he shouldn't ask for help from teachers, he should kindly sit down with the bullies and give them what they want. Look at a map. Check what Palestine had, and what they have now. Check their resources and compare them to Israels. Now ask yourself, what options do Palestine ACTUALLY have, other than bending down and taking it up the ***? The UN recognizing Palestine doesn't mean UN will start sending troops to help Palestine against Israel, it just gives Palestine some needed recognition and backing and is a step in the right direction to stop Israel from ignoring Palestinian rights when they take settlements wherever they please. I would be more empathetic if this wasn't tantamount to backing more violence and terrorism. The average Palestinian gains nothing from this while the main players in the conflict just get more fuel for the fire. | ||
|
D10
Brazil3409 Posts
| ||
KwarK
United States42823 Posts
| ||
|
Talin
Montenegro10532 Posts
On December 01 2012 00:57 sc2superfan101 wrote: it is an aggressive act, what the UN has done, in that it rejects the necessity of Palestine dealing directly with Israel to find a solution to the problem. I disagree with this premise. Being accepted by the UN doesn't remove that necessity in the slightest. It does weaken Israel's position, yes, but it does so by putting the two sides in the conflict on similar ground in terms of legitimacy of statehood. This can only do the opposite to what you suggest in the sense that Palestine now has some ground to stand on and fall back to in the negotiations. For the negotiations to have any meaning, Palestinians need this. If they're forced to negotiate from the standpoint of almost a rogue state, and have to deal only with Israel directly, plus US that's inevitably going to involve themselves no matter what - well that's hardly a fair position to negotiate from, is it? It's more like, "let's talk, but really you can only take what we choose to give you under the conditions we want" kind of negotiations. Palestinian position without interference of the rest of the world and global recognition of their rights is hopeless. And hopelessness in the Middle East can only breed more extremism and violence, which those with confirmation bias will take as a sign that Palestinians do not deserve statehood and should just be "pacified" instead. | ||
|
WhiteDog
France8650 Posts
On December 01 2012 02:05 KwarK wrote: More Jews were displaced from Arab countries following the foundation of Israel than Arabs displaced from Israeli land in its foundation. The difference is that Israel responded to the Jewish refugees by offering them land and citizenship in Israel whereas the Palestinians received no such support, blame for the ongoing humanitarian crisis some sixty years later has to fall upon the Arab states and the Palestinians themselves for failing to deal with it. Of course it is politically very useful for the Arab states to have an ongoing humanitarian crisis on Israel's doorstep and then blame them for it while doing everything they can to fuel the fire by arming the Palestinians. It doesn't do much to help them though, what the region needs is a multilateral solution in which the Arab states and Israel attempt to resolve the Palestinian humanitarian crisis question while collectively condemning terrorism and accepting the reality of Israel's existence (ie you can't move back into the house your great grandfather lived in). From the onset of the 1948 Arab–Israeli War until the early 1970s, 800,000–1,000,000 Jews left, fled, or were expelled from their homes in Arab countries; 260,000 of them reached Israel between 1948 and 1951 and amounted for 56% of the total immigration to the newly founded State of Israel. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_exodus_from_Arab_and_Muslim_countries Note that it is in all the arab countries, from 1948 to 1970, and and only 260 000 were accepted by Israel. Now only in palestine, "approximately 711,000 to 725,000 Palestinian Arabs left, fled or were expelled from their homes, during the 1947–1948 Civil War in Mandatory Palestine and the 1948 Arab-Israeli war". http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exode_palestinien_de_1948 I don't really see why the Arabic states should held responsible for suddenly having 700 000 to 800 000 people going at their borders. You are comparing two things completly different, there is one flow of 710 000 people fleeing Palestine to a defined numbers of camp on one hand and a flow of 800 000 to 1 000 000 people fleeing during a period 20 years and going to various places (not only in Israel) on the other hand. The jewish exodus from Arabic countries is about little groups of 50 000 to 100 000 of people fleeing left and right from some countries in a long period of time (20 years). The logistic problem that those group create, especially for a country such as Israel who has both the territory to welcome them and the money, is completly different from what it happened in neighbour country after the 1948 Palestinian exodus. | ||
|
ddrddrddrddr
1344 Posts
On December 01 2012 01:55 sc2superfan101 wrote: whether it's right or not, the Palestinians never had anything. the land was owned by the Ottoman Turks, and then was owned by Britain, and then was owned by Israel. legally, the Palestinians never had a state, and have no legal claim to one other than what Israel is willing to accept. simply casting the Israeli's as the "bully" shows how fucked up this situation is, because nothing is that simple. Israel has a Jewish population of about 7 million, right? Egypt: 82.5 million. Syria: 20 million. Lebanon: 4.5 million, Jordan: 6.5 million. it's a bit ridiculous to accuse Israel of being a bully here when they are a tiny country surrounded by a hostile majority, and have been under near-constant attack since their inception. at any other time, with any other nation and people, the land that Israel won in multiple wars which it did not start would be theirs without question. they have given back most of everything they ever took, a move which I have yet to see any other country do so willingly, especially when you consider the nature of the people they gave it back to: hostile. not only that, but the true persecutors of the Palestinians are other Muslims and Arabs, who have killed more Palestinians and caused more suffering than Israel ever could. isolating Israel as the problem is very shortsighted and not helpful in any way toward achieving a legitimate, peaceful solution. the UN won't send troops, thank God, because they know that would kickstart WW3. what they're doing instead is the same tactic that you saw in the past: isolate and demonize the Jews, and then use inflammatory rhetoric and mistruths and omissions to whip up anti-semetic fervor against them. look at the UN Human Rights Council. how many times have they sanctioned Israel? how many times have they sanctioned any other country? right there proves that there is a severe anti-Israeli, anti-semetic bias in the UN. edit: if this is a step in the right direction to stop Israel from taking settlements than why did Israel just approve new settlements in response to this? even if you think Israel is all in the wrong (which is a very simplistic opinion to hold), you cannot possibly think this will actually promote peace or make Israel more likely to want to negotiate. this move was childish and counterproductive, and worse, the Palestinians know that it is and so does most of the world. I would totally sympathize with Israel that they're surrounded by hostiles if our mode of warfare was still with swords. unfortunately population number doesn't mean much anymore and technological superiority is hell of a lot more important. If the world is biased against Israel, either the world's missing some points or Israel is doing something wrong. What do you think all the major nations of the world, except for 3 (talking about canada, US, and Czech), are missing? Also, exactly what reason is there to oppose Palestine from appealing to the ICC? If there weren't any wrongs committed, it doesn't change anything. | ||
|
NicolBolas
United States1388 Posts
On December 01 2012 02:05 KwarK wrote: More Jews were displaced from Arab countries following the foundation of Israel than Arabs displaced from Israeli land in its foundation. The difference is that Israel responded to the Jewish refugees by offering them land and citizenship in Israel whereas the Palestinians received no such support, blame for the ongoing humanitarian crisis some sixty years later has to fall upon the Arab states and the Palestinians themselves for failing to deal with it. I can't say I agree with that. If someone comes along and kicks you out of your house, the fact that someone else did or did not offer you a new house to stay in is irrelevant. What matters is that they were kicked out. Blame should include bystanders who did nothing to help, yes. But the primary blame goes to those who directly caused the problem, not those who could have fixed it but did nothing. | ||
|
fluidin
Singapore1084 Posts
On December 01 2012 01:39 Tobberoth wrote: I'm sorry, but the whole idea that Palestine needs to work with Israel to come up with a solution is... dumb. That's honestly like a teacher telling a bullied kid that he shouldn't ask for help from teachers, he should kindly sit down with the bullies and give them what they want. Look at a map. Check what Palestine had, and what they have now. Check their resources and compare them to Israels. Now ask yourself, what options do Palestine ACTUALLY have, other than bending down and taking it up the ***? Actually, what's wrong with taking it up the *** for now? Cut your losses now, make peace with Israel, then foster economic and social growth in your nation while gathering external support, especially now that international support is stronger than ever. Maybe even harbor plans for revenge in the future. Yes, it's hard to make such decisions in an oppressed state, but with foresight, they would. IMO Palestine is still a weak entity that gains little from this move, and might prompt Israel to hasten its 'proceedings'. | ||
|
KwarK
United States42823 Posts
On December 01 2012 02:19 NicolBolas wrote: I can't say I agree with that. If someone comes along and kicks you out of your house, the fact that someone else did or did not offer you a new house to stay in is irrelevant. What matters is that they were kicked out. Blame should include bystanders who did nothing to help, yes. But the primary blame goes to those who directly caused the problem, not those who could have fixed it but did nothing. This is someone coming along and kicking your great grandfather out of his house. The fact that the great grandson still has nowhere to stay is the fault of his family and his friends. This is not a first generation humanitarian crisis. | ||
|
Elroi
Sweden5595 Posts
On November 30 2012 23:20 Sermokala wrote: See this is where I gotta say something. You have to take a step back and look at how horribly biased this has to be. The most hated country on earth? say what you want about Isreal at the end of the day its still a democracy and its only killed how many of the civilians of another country? meanwhile genocides happen every day in africa and europians like you think that somehow isreal is more evil then them. Its not like Isreal is actually blocking the PLO from becoming a state. They just think that if you want to be recognized as a state In the UN you should probably oh I don't know recognize the very real state thats next to you that you've tried to "throw into the sea" more then once. the PLO has been the party that time after time denies that they want peace and simply wants to murder all the jews in isreal. Isreal has time and time again offered land and wildly better terms then anyone else has given them and yet gets spat at. It boggles my mind how Europe would rather support terrorists then an functioning democracy in a first world country. America learned in bosnia that The Europe won't do anything to stop genocides in their own backyards and you expect america to trust that it won't happen again? How can Isreal be the most hated state in the world to you I have no idea. What do you think will actualy cause peace to happen? The idea that statehood for a country does not recognize the statehood for the other in peace talks would actualy help the process is ludicrousness. Israel is hated in the world, it's a fact, not our opinion. It has been shown in polls. Hamas is only terrorists because they don't have a state. (You have to see through the propaganda here.) You shouldn't think about the world and history in general through simple sentences like "Throw all the jews into the sea." or "Tibet is a natural part of China." They think for you and it is only propaganda that doesn't actually say anything about the world. Israel is not supporting a Palestinian state: supporting a Palestinian state when they have taken every bit of valuable land from it doesn't count. The reason why many of us are so concerned about Israel is exactly because it is a democracy that behaves like a warmongering third world country without any consideration for human rights or international law. that's the same reason why people are so skeptical about the us as well. To put it dramatically, it is barbarism in the heart of civilization . | ||
|
KwarK
United States42823 Posts
On December 01 2012 02:16 WhiteDog wrote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_exodus_from_Arab_and_Muslim_countries Note that it is in all the arab countries, from 1948 to 1970, and and only 260 000 were accepted by Israel. Now only in palestine, "approximately 711,000 to 725,000 Palestinian Arabs left, fled or were expelled from their homes, during the 1947–1948 Civil War in Mandatory Palestine and the 1948 Arab-Israeli war". http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exode_palestinien_de_1948 I don't really see why the Arabic states should held responsible for suddenly having 700 000 to 800 000 people going at their borders. You are comparing two things completly different, there is one flow of 710 000 people fleeing Palestine to a defined numbers of camp on one hand and a flow of 800 000 to 1 000 000 people fleeing during a period 20 years and going to various places (not only in Israel) on the other hand. You are more talking about little groups of 50 000 to 100 000 of people fleeing left and right from some countries. The logistic problem that those group create, especially for a country such as Israel who has both the territory to welcome them and the money, is completly different from what it happened in neighbour country after the 1948 Palestinian exodus. I'm sure this is unintentional but what you have done is said that between 1948 and 1970 a million Jews left the Arab nations and that only 260,000 went to Israel by 1951 and then concluded that the other three quarters of a million must have gone some other place. The "Israel by 1951" bit references both a place and a time, they could have gone some other place by 1951, or to Israel after 1951, or to some other place after 1951. Your conclusion does not logically follow from your evidence, it could be any one of the three conclusions offered in the previous sentence, or a combination of them. Also the suggestion that the logistical problems faced by immigration of refugees into Israel, a small nation in a desert absorbing a population as big as itself, were much smaller than those faced by the Arab world if they would absorb Palestinian refugees is a little odd. Simply in terms of demographics and geography the Arab world has far more land and far more people, the impact would have been drastically lower as would have been the logistical issues. | ||
|
WhiteDog
France8650 Posts
On December 01 2012 02:29 KwarK wrote: I'm sure this is unintentional but what you have done is said that between 1948 and 1970 a million Jews left the Arab nations and that only 260,000 went to Israel by 1951 and then concluded that the other three quarters of a million must have gone some other place. The "Israel by 1951" bit references both a place and a time, they could have gone some other place by 1951, or to Israel after 1951, or to some other place after 1951. Your conclusion does not logically follow from your evidence, it could be any one of the three conclusions offered in the previous sentence, or a combination of them. I'm saying it was not an exodus in the same way as the Palestinian exodus. For exemple, many jew fled algeria after the independance (1962) but they fled to France, just like most french algerian called "pied noir" (we are talking about roughly 100 000 jews). You cannot compare 1 millions people fleeing various country over 20 years to 800 000 people fleeing one country in one year, it's ridiculous. It doesn't mean that I don't agree that Israel dealt with the refugee in a better way than the arabic country, but it's two completly different situations. Not to mention Israel's existence is based around the idea that it is the safe land for jew and jews refugee are welcome and even desired, while the palestinians refugee are not wanted by anyone. | ||
| ||
WardiTV Summer Champion…
Playoffs Day 1
ByuN vs herO
MaxPax vs Zoun
Clem vs NightMare
WardiTV550
Sparkling Tuna Cup
Weekly #103
ByuN vs CreatorLIVE!
Solar vs ShoWTimE
[ Submit Event ] |
|
|
|
SC Evo League
Chat StarLeague
Razz vs Julia
StRyKeR vs ZZZero
Semih vs TBD
Replay Cast
Afreeca Starleague
Queen vs HyuN
EffOrt vs Calm
Wardi Open
RotterdaM Event
Replay Cast
Afreeca Starleague
Rush vs TBD
Jaedong vs Mong
WardiTV Summer Champion…
PiGosaur Monday
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
