|
Stay on topic. I cannot put it more clearly then that. Derailments will be met with consequences. ~Nyovne |
On December 01 2012 04:42 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2012 04:40 HomeWorld wrote:On December 01 2012 04:34 KwarK wrote:On December 01 2012 04:31 HomeWorld wrote:On December 01 2012 04:19 KwarK wrote:On December 01 2012 04:16 HomeWorld wrote:On December 01 2012 04:13 KwarK wrote:On December 01 2012 04:11 HomeWorld wrote:
Allow me throw a little nuke in this thread: does Israel past half century expansionism (on a smaller scale) mirrors Hitler's ruled Germany "conquest" for "vital space" ? If that's true, palestinians can be seen as french/italian/spanish/whatever resistance were. No, it doesn't. And just in case you think you're clever for making the "Israel is the new Hitler" argument, you're not. It's a really, really stupid argument. I'm not saying that, I'm just trying to find a god damn good reason for all this mess that happens there. Also, please back up your "really stupid argument" by some fine arguments against it. The reason what happens there happens is because both sides have legitimate grievances and there are too many human factors for a lasting peace to endure. Nobody there is Hitler, in fact most problems in the world don't involve anyone being Hitler. Let me ask you another question: Please show me an existing border conflict between two nations (planet wide) other than Israeli/Palestinian one. There are none (with very few exceptions, mostly light skirmishes that aren't even news worthy) Anyway, the way I see it, UN started this mess ( back in '47 - UN General Assembly Resolution - partition of british mandate for palestine) , UN should solve it. You need to read more, there are dozens of ongoing conflicts. North Korea still fires shells at South Korea from time to time, Pakistan and India still shoot at each other, Turkey and Syria exchange fire and those are just three recent ones between established states. Once you get into Africa you just have all out war all over the place. The fact that you don't read the news does not mean these things don't happen. I did said "excepting light skirmishes", your examples aren't fierce fights for territories but just exactly what I excluded from that post : ppl throwing "tomatoes" at each others. On a 1 to 10 scale your examples are at the bottom compared to Palestinian/Israelian situation. Palestine isn't a nation. you said border fights between two nations. Palestine/Israel doesn't fit your definition.
You may argue that Palestine is not a state, because it is not recognized as such, but Palestinians definitely are a nation, because they share the same culture, religion, ecc..
|
On December 01 2012 04:39 blinken wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2012 04:37 farvacola wrote:On December 01 2012 04:32 blinken wrote:On December 01 2012 04:25 KwarK wrote:On December 01 2012 04:22 blinken wrote:On December 01 2012 04:04 sc2superfan101 wrote:On December 01 2012 03:52 blinken wrote:
It is hard to really understand why Hamas is elected, since we can't fathom what a populace is really like when it has lived in the prison like conditions it has for so long. who put them in that prison?
The US and Israel are not interested in Palestinian interests, as this problem would have been solved long before the rise of Hamas.
(edit: many, not all) Palestinian leaders don't want a solution which includes Israel existing.
I can't find a good argument from the Israeli side. I mean, what is the argument? Is it "god promised us this land! he promised! why are we being attacked for ripping down homes and destroying families when god promised us this land!? it's in the bible people!"
how about: you don't get to slaughter children because their great-grandparents may or may not have taken your great-grandparents land? does that argument hold any water with you? That argument doesn't hold a drop of water with me, possibly because I don't understand it. "Slaughtering children" would be better attributed to the Israelis in this context, since obviously they've killed more children. Next, what are you implying with "may or may not have taken... land." This is implying that you feel the Jews have a right to this land. There have been barely any Jews living in that geographic location since the third Jewish revolt against the Roman Empire (Bar Kokhba Revolt,) almost two thousand years ago. It would be like saying Italy has a right to France because it once was a part of the Roman Empire. The Jewish population was practically nothing in the region known as Palestine for almost the entire period from the third revolt to the start of the 20th century. I don't understand, do people think there were a sizable amount of Jews living there the entire time. Speaking for myself I give the "it's our ancestral homeland from 2000 years ago" argument no weight whereas I give the "we live here now" argument an awful lot of weight. It is simply not realistic to put all the Israelis back where they came from, a lot of them were born there. I support a two state solution, so I am not implying that we move the Israelis anywhere. What holds more weight, "it's our ancestral homeland from 2000 years ago and we still live here," or, "we live here now because we waged several wars to be here and are conducting practices condemned by the UN and international law." Yeah, that's a tough one. Boiling down each side into pathetically oversimple statements does not make for a convincing argument. In fact, it simply makes you looks disingenuous. Perhaps reading the preceding comments, rather then jumping in at the end and making grand assumptions does not make for a convincing post. In fact, it makes you look like myopic.
Making posts without knowing what you are talking about makes you look idiotic. I agree with Farva here.
|
On December 01 2012 04:37 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2012 04:22 blinken wrote:On December 01 2012 04:04 sc2superfan101 wrote:On December 01 2012 03:52 blinken wrote:
It is hard to really understand why Hamas is elected, since we can't fathom what a populace is really like when it has lived in the prison like conditions it has for so long. who put them in that prison?
The US and Israel are not interested in Palestinian interests, as this problem would have been solved long before the rise of Hamas.
(edit: many, not all) Palestinian leaders don't want a solution which includes Israel existing.
I can't find a good argument from the Israeli side. I mean, what is the argument? Is it "god promised us this land! he promised! why are we being attacked for ripping down homes and destroying families when god promised us this land!? it's in the bible people!"
how about: you don't get to slaughter children because their great-grandparents may or may not have taken your great-grandparents land? does that argument hold any water with you? That argument doesn't hold a drop of water with me, possibly because I don't understand it. "Slaughtering children" would be better attributed to the Israelis in this context, since obviously they've killed more children. Next, what are you implying with "may or may not have taken... land." This is implying that you feel the Jews have a right to this land. There have been barely any Jews living in that geographic location since the third Jewish revolt against the Roman Empire (Bar Kokhba Revolt,) almost two thousand years ago. It would be like saying Italy has a right to France because it once was a part of the Roman Empire. The Jewish population was practically nothing in the region known as Palestine for almost the entire period from the third revolt to the start of the 20th century. I don't understand, do people think there were a sizable amount of Jews living there the entire time. if you really think it's okay for Hamas to blow up Israeli schoolchildren... for any reason... then yeah, we can't argue about it. I really, really hope that's not what you're saying, and I don't think it is, but that is the argument. Hamas has openly tried, and succeeded, in murdering Israeli children, and they have repeatedly made open their intention to continue doing so as long as Israel remains. (edit: ahhh, I understand now. disregard my first sentence) the Jewish population was about 43,000 out of 500,000 total in 1890. that's not an insignificant amount. and yes, a lot of Jews did immigrate to Palestine and Israel during the 30s and 40s. I wonder why... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Palestine#Demographics_in_the_Ottoman_period
The Jewish people started moving back to Israel before the rise of Nazi Germany. It was a concerted plan from diaspora communites across the globe to reoccupy the promised land. Go back a little farther, 1800. 7000 Jews to almost 250k Muslims. 1690, only 2k Jews. Your link only proves my point.
I don't want to get into the topic of Hamas blowing up schoolchildren. Your looking for kneejerk reactions with a comment like this, asserting that Hamas is sitting there with laser guided missiles pointed towards children. Children have died on both sides, more on the Palestinian, so take your extreme emotion-evoking comments elsewhere.
|
On December 01 2012 04:32 blinken wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2012 04:25 KwarK wrote:On December 01 2012 04:22 blinken wrote:On December 01 2012 04:04 sc2superfan101 wrote:On December 01 2012 03:52 blinken wrote:
It is hard to really understand why Hamas is elected, since we can't fathom what a populace is really like when it has lived in the prison like conditions it has for so long. who put them in that prison?
The US and Israel are not interested in Palestinian interests, as this problem would have been solved long before the rise of Hamas.
(edit: many, not all) Palestinian leaders don't want a solution which includes Israel existing.
I can't find a good argument from the Israeli side. I mean, what is the argument? Is it "god promised us this land! he promised! why are we being attacked for ripping down homes and destroying families when god promised us this land!? it's in the bible people!"
how about: you don't get to slaughter children because their great-grandparents may or may not have taken your great-grandparents land? does that argument hold any water with you? That argument doesn't hold a drop of water with me, possibly because I don't understand it. "Slaughtering children" would be better attributed to the Israelis in this context, since obviously they've killed more children. Next, what are you implying with "may or may not have taken... land." This is implying that you feel the Jews have a right to this land. There have been barely any Jews living in that geographic location since the third Jewish revolt against the Roman Empire (Bar Kokhba Revolt,) almost two thousand years ago. It would be like saying Italy has a right to France because it once was a part of the Roman Empire. The Jewish population was practically nothing in the region known as Palestine for almost the entire period from the third revolt to the start of the 20th century. I don't understand, do people think there were a sizable amount of Jews living there the entire time. Speaking for myself I give the "it's our ancestral homeland from 2000 years ago" argument no weight whereas I give the "we live here now" argument an awful lot of weight. It is simply not realistic to put all the Israelis back where they came from, a lot of them were born there. I support a two state solution, so I am not implying that we move the Israelis anywhere. What holds more weight, "it's our ancestral homeland from 2000 years ago and we still live here," or, "we live here now because we waged several wars to be here and are conducting practices condemned by the UN and international law." Yeah, that's a tough one. Said the Canadian? Israel is no different than US or Canada, except they did it 200 years later.
|
On December 01 2012 03:01 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2012 02:55 Passion wrote:On December 01 2012 02:50 KwarK wrote:On December 01 2012 02:42 Passion wrote:On December 01 2012 02:29 KwarK wrote:On December 01 2012 02:16 WhiteDog wrote: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_countriesNote 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. It's way too simplistic to take the Arab world as a whole in this discussion. It's just nonsense to presume Palestinians fleeing to Indonesia, for example. Or if you do, yes, the logistical problems are going to be huge. Indonesia is not an Arab state. When I said the Arab world I meant the Arab world, ie the countries populated by Arabs. Indonesia is not one of those. I'm super silly, my bad. But I presume my point is clear anyway; taking the whole Arab world still doesn't make sense, the insane scale just doesn't make it realistic. The relevance is lost beyond Lebanon, Jordan and I guess Egypt. And Syria, Iraq and Saudi Arabia and the rest of North Africa with a combined population hundreds of times higher than the displaced population. Had the Arab world felt inclined to offer the Palestinians shelter it could have easily done so, they did not, choosing to use the propaganda to further their military ambitions against Israel rather than helping resolve the crisis.
I'm sorry but that's ridiculous. Do you think the arabs would just stand by and watch when their brothers in Palestine lose their land?
Sweden and Finland is a good example.
Although Sweden's neutral stance in WW2 prevented official military expeditions, when Soviet Russia invaded Finland, a lot of swedes felt compelled to help them as volunteers, and they did. Finland had been a part of Sweden for a long time, and fought alongside us in many wars, and there's a significant swedish speaking population in the country. I feel a bit ashamed that our government didn't help them more, but still, that's the only war in WW2 that swedish soldiers took part in, so it shows that many swedes cared about our finnish neighbours. I can imagine that Lebanon and other countries in the area feels about Palestine the same way, maybe even more strongly. Also, there's the threat factor. If they just let Israel do whatever they want, sooner or later, Israel will invade them as well, atleast that's what they're thinking. Also, the palestinians obviously wants to live in their own land. You're expecting them to just surrender and flee to somewhere else? Isn't that what happened in Nazi Germany and their occupied countries?
Zionist jews have turned the tables and become the very thing that once threatened their own existence, and I think that's a huge tragedy. It's incredibly disrespectful towards all the jews that died in the concentration camps. Just because it was their families that were the victims, it doesn't give them any right to represent them, especially not when they're tainting their memory like this.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
land conflicts are always about interests. no need to bring nazis into this, especially with the zionist conspiracy wingnuts floating around waiting to drop in.
|
On December 01 2012 04:47 SupLilSon wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2012 04:39 blinken wrote:On December 01 2012 04:37 farvacola wrote:On December 01 2012 04:32 blinken wrote:On December 01 2012 04:25 KwarK wrote:On December 01 2012 04:22 blinken wrote:On December 01 2012 04:04 sc2superfan101 wrote:On December 01 2012 03:52 blinken wrote:
It is hard to really understand why Hamas is elected, since we can't fathom what a populace is really like when it has lived in the prison like conditions it has for so long. who put them in that prison?
The US and Israel are not interested in Palestinian interests, as this problem would have been solved long before the rise of Hamas.
(edit: many, not all) Palestinian leaders don't want a solution which includes Israel existing.
I can't find a good argument from the Israeli side. I mean, what is the argument? Is it "god promised us this land! he promised! why are we being attacked for ripping down homes and destroying families when god promised us this land!? it's in the bible people!"
how about: you don't get to slaughter children because their great-grandparents may or may not have taken your great-grandparents land? does that argument hold any water with you? That argument doesn't hold a drop of water with me, possibly because I don't understand it. "Slaughtering children" would be better attributed to the Israelis in this context, since obviously they've killed more children. Next, what are you implying with "may or may not have taken... land." This is implying that you feel the Jews have a right to this land. There have been barely any Jews living in that geographic location since the third Jewish revolt against the Roman Empire (Bar Kokhba Revolt,) almost two thousand years ago. It would be like saying Italy has a right to France because it once was a part of the Roman Empire. The Jewish population was practically nothing in the region known as Palestine for almost the entire period from the third revolt to the start of the 20th century. I don't understand, do people think there were a sizable amount of Jews living there the entire time. Speaking for myself I give the "it's our ancestral homeland from 2000 years ago" argument no weight whereas I give the "we live here now" argument an awful lot of weight. It is simply not realistic to put all the Israelis back where they came from, a lot of them were born there. I support a two state solution, so I am not implying that we move the Israelis anywhere. What holds more weight, "it's our ancestral homeland from 2000 years ago and we still live here," or, "we live here now because we waged several wars to be here and are conducting practices condemned by the UN and international law." Yeah, that's a tough one. Boiling down each side into pathetically oversimple statements does not make for a convincing argument. In fact, it simply makes you looks disingenuous. Perhaps reading the preceding comments, rather then jumping in at the end and making grand assumptions does not make for a convincing post. In fact, it makes you look like myopic. Making posts without knowing what you are talking about makes you look idiotic. I agree with Farva here.
Haha, an ad hom without an ounce of substance. You sir are a gentleman and a scholar.
|
United States42826 Posts
On December 01 2012 04:44 Elroi wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2012 04:03 Elroi wrote:On December 01 2012 03:30 KwarK wrote:On December 01 2012 03:28 Elroi wrote:On December 01 2012 03:23 KwarK wrote:On December 01 2012 03:21 oneofthem wrote:
that this crisis is happening on israel's doorsteps does in itself put responsibility on israel to do something, particularly when active measures are contributing to the ongoing situation.
This would be why Israel gives a colossal amount of humanitarian aid to Palestine? Which doesn't correspond even to a small bit to what they make out of the land that legally belongs to the Palestinians? They don't let the Palestinians trade or export their goods, they don't give them access to what used to be their cultivable land, they don't let them fish more than 10 km from the cost. They keep them alive, barely, but talking about humanitarian aid is just too much, in my opinion. I think you mean legally belonged to the British when they inherited the rights of the Turks. Either way, dwelling on the injustices of 60 years ago does absolutely nothing to help the Palestinians alive today. When you talk about it sounds almost like the Israelis just happens to be there. It sounds like it was by accidents that they are continually violating the borders from 67 (the legal borders as I see it). But it is, as I understand it, a politically and religiously very conscious way of ethnically cleansing the land from Palestinians. (Yes, the word ethnic cleaning actually fits here I think... But like whether water boarding is torture or not, you can twist the words around, exchange them for innocent ones.) I hope I am making sens, this is a very difficult topic for me to discuss since I am very much emotionally invested into this. Chomsky described this colonial politics in a debate in an interesting way: It's given accurately by the leading academic specialist on the occupation, Harvard's Sara Roy, as she writes that under the terms of disengagement, Gazans are virtually sealed within the Strip, while West Bankers, their lands dismembered by relentless Israeli settlement, will continue to be penned into fragmented geographic spaces, isolated behind and between walls and barriers.
Her judgment is affirmed by Israel's leading specialist on the West Bank, Meron Benvenisti, who writes that 'the separation walls snaking through the West Bank will create three Bantustans (his words): north, central and south, all virtually separated from East Jerusalem, the center of Palestinian commercial, cultural and political life. And he adds that this, what he calls the soft transfer from Jerusalem, that is an unavoidable result of the separation wall, might achieve its goal. Quoting still, 'the goal of disintegration of the Palestinian community, after many earlier attempts, have failed.' 'The human disaster being planned,' he continues, 'will turn hundreds of thousands of people into a sullen community, hostile, and nurturing a desire for revenge.' So, another example of the sacrifice of security through expansion that's been going on for a long time.
A European Union report concludes that U.S.-backed Israeli programs will virtually end the prospects for a viable Palestinian state by the cantonization and by breaking the organic links between East Jerusalem and the West Bank. Human Rights Watch, in a recent statement, concurs. I know many people are talking to you at the same time, Kwark, but you never responded to this post...
I believe the political will within Israel to preserve a viable Palestinian state when the Palestinians themselves either do not wish to create a two state solution or are unable to police their more extreme elements is fading. There are, of course, extremists within Israel who would rather see Palestine disappear and moderates who, when faced with Palestinian resistance, simply put the needs of Israel first. It's an ongoing process that is a result of the polarisation caused by the conflict and it will continue until one side inevitably wins and the other loses. Palestine needs to rein in its more extreme elements, if it can do so then the higher aspirations of Israel and international pressure will force a solution.
|
On December 01 2012 04:45 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2012 04:43 EtherealBlade wrote:On December 01 2012 04:28 sc2superfan101 wrote:On December 01 2012 04:16 HomeWorld wrote:On December 01 2012 04:13 KwarK wrote:On December 01 2012 04:11 HomeWorld wrote:
Allow me throw a little nuke in this thread: does Israel past half century expansionism (on a smaller scale) mirrors Hitler's ruled Germany "conquest" for "vital space" ? If that's true, palestinians can be seen as french/italian/spanish/whatever resistance were. No, it doesn't. And just in case you think you're clever for making the "Israel is the new Hitler" argument, you're not. It's a really, really stupid argument. I'm not saying that, I'm just trying to find a god damn good reason for all this mess that happens there. Also, please back up your "really stupid argument" by some fine arguments against it. well, for one, there are Jews still alive today (though very few) who lived through some of the most hellish treatment of all time, which came directly at the orders of Hitler. and we're not talking about a few isolated incidents, or even 7,000 Jews. we're talking about 2/3s of the population of Europe's Jewry. wiped out for no other reason than that they were Jewish. almost half of the entire world's Jewish population suffered in the Holocaust. invoking the name of Hitler in any kind of comparison with the Jews as a whole is disgusting primarily because of that. because there are people who I have met who saw their entire families, sometimes their entire towns, murdered. furthermore, it is disgusting because Hitler was not fighting largely defensive wars against multiple countries, with li ttle to no international support. we can discuss what level of technology or military prowess the early Zionists and Israeli's did or didn't have, but it is undeniable that they have not taken over half of Europe or come close to taking as much land as Hitler did. even further, Hitler and Nazi Germany never ceded land back to the people they conquered, and they never allowed them any democratic elections. they didn't provide them with funding, support, electricity, and other forms of aid. they gassed them by the thousands if they were "undesirables" and they subjugated them if they weren't. in no way, in no shape, in no conception, and by no definition could Israel ever be compared with Nazi Germany, and to do so is one of the most horrible things a person can do, in my opinion. it is deliberately invoking one of the most horrific acts of human cruelty ever visited upon the world at the victims of that cruelty. and on a purely objective note, it could not possibly be an accurate comparison as the situations are as different as night and day. Well the Lebensraum idea that Hitler described in Mein Kampf and the zionist progress since the 1920's seems awfully similar. Also what are you talking about, that they've had no international support? You realise Israel syphons trillions of dollars worth of foreign taxpayer money from various countries to wage war against the native population of the Middle East? what similarities? they syphon trillions of dollars? do you have any idea how much money a trillion dollars is?
Continuously constructing settlements that go against international law while displacing the native population. The same was planned to happen in place of conquered Polish and Soviet territories.
Do you have any where Israel got their army from? They could not exist without enormous foreign aid that they've been receiving for decades now.
|
On December 01 2012 04:48 Sub40APM wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2012 04:32 blinken wrote:On December 01 2012 04:25 KwarK wrote:On December 01 2012 04:22 blinken wrote:On December 01 2012 04:04 sc2superfan101 wrote:On December 01 2012 03:52 blinken wrote:
It is hard to really understand why Hamas is elected, since we can't fathom what a populace is really like when it has lived in the prison like conditions it has for so long. who put them in that prison?
The US and Israel are not interested in Palestinian interests, as this problem would have been solved long before the rise of Hamas.
(edit: many, not all) Palestinian leaders don't want a solution which includes Israel existing.
I can't find a good argument from the Israeli side. I mean, what is the argument? Is it "god promised us this land! he promised! why are we being attacked for ripping down homes and destroying families when god promised us this land!? it's in the bible people!"
how about: you don't get to slaughter children because their great-grandparents may or may not have taken your great-grandparents land? does that argument hold any water with you? That argument doesn't hold a drop of water with me, possibly because I don't understand it. "Slaughtering children" would be better attributed to the Israelis in this context, since obviously they've killed more children. Next, what are you implying with "may or may not have taken... land." This is implying that you feel the Jews have a right to this land. There have been barely any Jews living in that geographic location since the third Jewish revolt against the Roman Empire (Bar Kokhba Revolt,) almost two thousand years ago. It would be like saying Italy has a right to France because it once was a part of the Roman Empire. The Jewish population was practically nothing in the region known as Palestine for almost the entire period from the third revolt to the start of the 20th century. I don't understand, do people think there were a sizable amount of Jews living there the entire time. Speaking for myself I give the "it's our ancestral homeland from 2000 years ago" argument no weight whereas I give the "we live here now" argument an awful lot of weight. It is simply not realistic to put all the Israelis back where they came from, a lot of them were born there. I support a two state solution, so I am not implying that we move the Israelis anywhere. What holds more weight, "it's our ancestral homeland from 2000 years ago and we still live here," or, "we live here now because we waged several wars to be here and are conducting practices condemned by the UN and international law." Yeah, that's a tough one. Said the Canadian? Israel is no different than US or Canada, except they did it 200 years later.
This is the type position that sickens me to the core. Do you think I would support that, do you think any moral person in the west would? We are not held accountable for the barbaric practices of our ancestors. This is why I think some people don't mind what's happening in Israel, we did it to the natives right? It's time to evolve.
|
On December 01 2012 04:47 SupLilSon wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2012 04:39 blinken wrote:On December 01 2012 04:37 farvacola wrote:On December 01 2012 04:32 blinken wrote:On December 01 2012 04:25 KwarK wrote:On December 01 2012 04:22 blinken wrote:On December 01 2012 04:04 sc2superfan101 wrote:On December 01 2012 03:52 blinken wrote:
It is hard to really understand why Hamas is elected, since we can't fathom what a populace is really like when it has lived in the prison like conditions it has for so long. who put them in that prison?
The US and Israel are not interested in Palestinian interests, as this problem would have been solved long before the rise of Hamas.
(edit: many, not all) Palestinian leaders don't want a solution which includes Israel existing.
I can't find a good argument from the Israeli side. I mean, what is the argument? Is it "god promised us this land! he promised! why are we being attacked for ripping down homes and destroying families when god promised us this land!? it's in the bible people!"
how about: you don't get to slaughter children because their great-grandparents may or may not have taken your great-grandparents land? does that argument hold any water with you? That argument doesn't hold a drop of water with me, possibly because I don't understand it. "Slaughtering children" would be better attributed to the Israelis in this context, since obviously they've killed more children. Next, what are you implying with "may or may not have taken... land." This is implying that you feel the Jews have a right to this land. There have been barely any Jews living in that geographic location since the third Jewish revolt against the Roman Empire (Bar Kokhba Revolt,) almost two thousand years ago. It would be like saying Italy has a right to France because it once was a part of the Roman Empire. The Jewish population was practically nothing in the region known as Palestine for almost the entire period from the third revolt to the start of the 20th century. I don't understand, do people think there were a sizable amount of Jews living there the entire time. Speaking for myself I give the "it's our ancestral homeland from 2000 years ago" argument no weight whereas I give the "we live here now" argument an awful lot of weight. It is simply not realistic to put all the Israelis back where they came from, a lot of them were born there. I support a two state solution, so I am not implying that we move the Israelis anywhere. What holds more weight, "it's our ancestral homeland from 2000 years ago and we still live here," or, "we live here now because we waged several wars to be here and are conducting practices condemned by the UN and international law." Yeah, that's a tough one. Boiling down each side into pathetically oversimple statements does not make for a convincing argument. In fact, it simply makes you looks disingenuous. Perhaps reading the preceding comments, rather then jumping in at the end and making grand assumptions does not make for a convincing post. In fact, it makes you look like myopic. Making posts without knowing what you are talking about makes you look idiotic. I agree with Farva here.
Blinken's point is that Kwark did the exact same thing with his `Speaking for myself I give the "it's our ancestral homeland from 2000 years ago" argument no weight whereas I give the "we live here now" argument an awful lot of weight.` statement.
|
United States42826 Posts
On December 01 2012 04:49 ninini wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2012 03:01 KwarK wrote:On December 01 2012 02:55 Passion wrote:On December 01 2012 02:50 KwarK wrote:On December 01 2012 02:42 Passion wrote:On December 01 2012 02:29 KwarK wrote:On December 01 2012 02:16 WhiteDog wrote: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_countriesNote 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. It's way too simplistic to take the Arab world as a whole in this discussion. It's just nonsense to presume Palestinians fleeing to Indonesia, for example. Or if you do, yes, the logistical problems are going to be huge. Indonesia is not an Arab state. When I said the Arab world I meant the Arab world, ie the countries populated by Arabs. Indonesia is not one of those. I'm super silly, my bad. But I presume my point is clear anyway; taking the whole Arab world still doesn't make sense, the insane scale just doesn't make it realistic. The relevance is lost beyond Lebanon, Jordan and I guess Egypt. And Syria, Iraq and Saudi Arabia and the rest of North Africa with a combined population hundreds of times higher than the displaced population. Had the Arab world felt inclined to offer the Palestinians shelter it could have easily done so, they did not, choosing to use the propaganda to further their military ambitions against Israel rather than helping resolve the crisis. I'm sorry but that's ridiculous. Do you think the arabs would just stand by and watch when their brothers in Palestine lose their land?
They didn't stand by, they invaded and attempted to destroy the fledgling Israel. Three times. After the invasions failed they did nothing to help the Palestinian humanitarian crisis and they still have not done so. Israel, by contrast, immediately acted to help the Jewish populations expelled from the Arab world. The Arab world has repeatedly chosen the propaganda of the oppressed Palestinian over the expenses involved in actually helping them.
|
On December 01 2012 04:44 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2012 04:40 HomeWorld wrote:On December 01 2012 04:34 KwarK wrote:On December 01 2012 04:31 HomeWorld wrote:On December 01 2012 04:19 KwarK wrote:On December 01 2012 04:16 HomeWorld wrote:On December 01 2012 04:13 KwarK wrote:On December 01 2012 04:11 HomeWorld wrote:
Allow me throw a little nuke in this thread: does Israel past half century expansionism (on a smaller scale) mirrors Hitler's ruled Germany "conquest" for "vital space" ? If that's true, palestinians can be seen as french/italian/spanish/whatever resistance were. No, it doesn't. And just in case you think you're clever for making the "Israel is the new Hitler" argument, you're not. It's a really, really stupid argument. I'm not saying that, I'm just trying to find a god damn good reason for all this mess that happens there. Also, please back up your "really stupid argument" by some fine arguments against it. The reason what happens there happens is because both sides have legitimate grievances and there are too many human factors for a lasting peace to endure. Nobody there is Hitler, in fact most problems in the world don't involve anyone being Hitler. Let me ask you another question: Please show me an existing border conflict between two nations (planet wide) other than Israeli/Palestinian one. There are none (with very few exceptions, mostly light skirmishes that aren't even news worthy) Anyway, the way I see it, UN started this mess ( back in '47 - UN General Assembly Resolution - partition of british mandate for palestine) , UN should solve it. You need to read more, there are dozens of ongoing conflicts. North Korea still fires shells at South Korea from time to time, Pakistan and India still shoot at each other, Turkey and Syria exchange fire and those are just three recent ones between established states. Once you get into Africa you just have all out war all over the place. The fact that you don't read the news does not mean these things don't happen. I did said "excepting light skirmishes", your examples aren't fierce fights for territories but just exactly what I excluded from that post : ppl throwing "tomatoes" at each others. On a 1 to 10 scale your examples are at the bottom compared to Palestinian/Israelian situation. There aren't fierce fights for territories in Palestine, there are terrorists firing rockets on one side and the army responding on the other or pre-emptively striking known terrorists whereas NK and SK are actually at war with each other. You seem to have absolutely no understanding of what the Israel Palestine situation involves, nor what any other conflict involves.
I guess, by your judgement, the french resistance (as an example) were terrorists too (tho this assessment was perpetuated by the ones at power, no big surprise at present time)
Historically speaking what happens right now in that area isn't very different from what happened during ww2
|
On December 01 2012 04:50 blinken wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2012 04:47 SupLilSon wrote:On December 01 2012 04:39 blinken wrote:On December 01 2012 04:37 farvacola wrote:On December 01 2012 04:32 blinken wrote:On December 01 2012 04:25 KwarK wrote:On December 01 2012 04:22 blinken wrote:On December 01 2012 04:04 sc2superfan101 wrote:On December 01 2012 03:52 blinken wrote:
It is hard to really understand why Hamas is elected, since we can't fathom what a populace is really like when it has lived in the prison like conditions it has for so long. who put them in that prison?
The US and Israel are not interested in Palestinian interests, as this problem would have been solved long before the rise of Hamas.
(edit: many, not all) Palestinian leaders don't want a solution which includes Israel existing.
I can't find a good argument from the Israeli side. I mean, what is the argument? Is it "god promised us this land! he promised! why are we being attacked for ripping down homes and destroying families when god promised us this land!? it's in the bible people!"
how about: you don't get to slaughter children because their great-grandparents may or may not have taken your great-grandparents land? does that argument hold any water with you? That argument doesn't hold a drop of water with me, possibly because I don't understand it. "Slaughtering children" would be better attributed to the Israelis in this context, since obviously they've killed more children. Next, what are you implying with "may or may not have taken... land." This is implying that you feel the Jews have a right to this land. There have been barely any Jews living in that geographic location since the third Jewish revolt against the Roman Empire (Bar Kokhba Revolt,) almost two thousand years ago. It would be like saying Italy has a right to France because it once was a part of the Roman Empire. The Jewish population was practically nothing in the region known as Palestine for almost the entire period from the third revolt to the start of the 20th century. I don't understand, do people think there were a sizable amount of Jews living there the entire time. Speaking for myself I give the "it's our ancestral homeland from 2000 years ago" argument no weight whereas I give the "we live here now" argument an awful lot of weight. It is simply not realistic to put all the Israelis back where they came from, a lot of them were born there. I support a two state solution, so I am not implying that we move the Israelis anywhere. What holds more weight, "it's our ancestral homeland from 2000 years ago and we still live here," or, "we live here now because we waged several wars to be here and are conducting practices condemned by the UN and international law." Yeah, that's a tough one. Boiling down each side into pathetically oversimple statements does not make for a convincing argument. In fact, it simply makes you looks disingenuous. Perhaps reading the preceding comments, rather then jumping in at the end and making grand assumptions does not make for a convincing post. In fact, it makes you look like myopic. Making posts without knowing what you are talking about makes you look idiotic. I agree with Farva here. Haha, an ad hom without an ounce of substance. You sir are a gentleman and a scholar.
Your posts show you haven't taken any care to read the history of the conflict or you are just being willfully ignorant and biased. If you think Israel waged several wars with the intention of conquest then you need to read a history book.
I'm sorry but that's ridiculous. Do you think the arabs would just stand by and watch when their brothers in Palestine lose their land?
Well they tried to eradicate the Jews multiple times. Doubt they would have given Palestinians the land even if they had been successful though. The surrounding Arab nations get no share of the responsibility for the Palestinian refugees when they had a large hand in their current situation.
|
United States42826 Posts
On December 01 2012 04:54 NicolBolas wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2012 04:47 SupLilSon wrote:On December 01 2012 04:39 blinken wrote:On December 01 2012 04:37 farvacola wrote:On December 01 2012 04:32 blinken wrote:On December 01 2012 04:25 KwarK wrote:On December 01 2012 04:22 blinken wrote:On December 01 2012 04:04 sc2superfan101 wrote:On December 01 2012 03:52 blinken wrote:
It is hard to really understand why Hamas is elected, since we can't fathom what a populace is really like when it has lived in the prison like conditions it has for so long. who put them in that prison?
The US and Israel are not interested in Palestinian interests, as this problem would have been solved long before the rise of Hamas.
(edit: many, not all) Palestinian leaders don't want a solution which includes Israel existing.
I can't find a good argument from the Israeli side. I mean, what is the argument? Is it "god promised us this land! he promised! why are we being attacked for ripping down homes and destroying families when god promised us this land!? it's in the bible people!"
how about: you don't get to slaughter children because their great-grandparents may or may not have taken your great-grandparents land? does that argument hold any water with you? That argument doesn't hold a drop of water with me, possibly because I don't understand it. "Slaughtering children" would be better attributed to the Israelis in this context, since obviously they've killed more children. Next, what are you implying with "may or may not have taken... land." This is implying that you feel the Jews have a right to this land. There have been barely any Jews living in that geographic location since the third Jewish revolt against the Roman Empire (Bar Kokhba Revolt,) almost two thousand years ago. It would be like saying Italy has a right to France because it once was a part of the Roman Empire. The Jewish population was practically nothing in the region known as Palestine for almost the entire period from the third revolt to the start of the 20th century. I don't understand, do people think there were a sizable amount of Jews living there the entire time. Speaking for myself I give the "it's our ancestral homeland from 2000 years ago" argument no weight whereas I give the "we live here now" argument an awful lot of weight. It is simply not realistic to put all the Israelis back where they came from, a lot of them were born there. I support a two state solution, so I am not implying that we move the Israelis anywhere. What holds more weight, "it's our ancestral homeland from 2000 years ago and we still live here," or, "we live here now because we waged several wars to be here and are conducting practices condemned by the UN and international law." Yeah, that's a tough one. Boiling down each side into pathetically oversimple statements does not make for a convincing argument. In fact, it simply makes you looks disingenuous. Perhaps reading the preceding comments, rather then jumping in at the end and making grand assumptions does not make for a convincing post. In fact, it makes you look like myopic. Making posts without knowing what you are talking about makes you look idiotic. I agree with Farva here. Blinken's point is that Kwark did the exact same thing with his `Speaking for myself I give the "it's our ancestral homeland from 2000 years ago" argument no weight whereas I give the "we live here now" argument an awful lot of weight.` statement.
I could use more words but I don't think more are required. The argument is that not denying the wrongs done to the Palestinians it would be a greater wrong to attempt to undo the past injustice at the expense of the Israelis born and currently living in Israel. That the reality is that Israel exists and that is, in itself, an argument for its continuation.
|
On December 01 2012 04:52 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2012 04:44 Elroi wrote:On December 01 2012 04:03 Elroi wrote:On December 01 2012 03:30 KwarK wrote:On December 01 2012 03:28 Elroi wrote:On December 01 2012 03:23 KwarK wrote:On December 01 2012 03:21 oneofthem wrote:
that this crisis is happening on israel's doorsteps does in itself put responsibility on israel to do something, particularly when active measures are contributing to the ongoing situation.
This would be why Israel gives a colossal amount of humanitarian aid to Palestine? Which doesn't correspond even to a small bit to what they make out of the land that legally belongs to the Palestinians? They don't let the Palestinians trade or export their goods, they don't give them access to what used to be their cultivable land, they don't let them fish more than 10 km from the cost. They keep them alive, barely, but talking about humanitarian aid is just too much, in my opinion. I think you mean legally belonged to the British when they inherited the rights of the Turks. Either way, dwelling on the injustices of 60 years ago does absolutely nothing to help the Palestinians alive today. When you talk about it sounds almost like the Israelis just happens to be there. It sounds like it was by accidents that they are continually violating the borders from 67 (the legal borders as I see it). But it is, as I understand it, a politically and religiously very conscious way of ethnically cleansing the land from Palestinians. (Yes, the word ethnic cleaning actually fits here I think... But like whether water boarding is torture or not, you can twist the words around, exchange them for innocent ones.) I hope I am making sens, this is a very difficult topic for me to discuss since I am very much emotionally invested into this. Chomsky described this colonial politics in a debate in an interesting way: It's given accurately by the leading academic specialist on the occupation, Harvard's Sara Roy, as she writes that under the terms of disengagement, Gazans are virtually sealed within the Strip, while West Bankers, their lands dismembered by relentless Israeli settlement, will continue to be penned into fragmented geographic spaces, isolated behind and between walls and barriers.
Her judgment is affirmed by Israel's leading specialist on the West Bank, Meron Benvenisti, who writes that 'the separation walls snaking through the West Bank will create three Bantustans (his words): north, central and south, all virtually separated from East Jerusalem, the center of Palestinian commercial, cultural and political life. And he adds that this, what he calls the soft transfer from Jerusalem, that is an unavoidable result of the separation wall, might achieve its goal. Quoting still, 'the goal of disintegration of the Palestinian community, after many earlier attempts, have failed.' 'The human disaster being planned,' he continues, 'will turn hundreds of thousands of people into a sullen community, hostile, and nurturing a desire for revenge.' So, another example of the sacrifice of security through expansion that's been going on for a long time.
A European Union report concludes that U.S.-backed Israeli programs will virtually end the prospects for a viable Palestinian state by the cantonization and by breaking the organic links between East Jerusalem and the West Bank. Human Rights Watch, in a recent statement, concurs. I know many people are talking to you at the same time, Kwark, but you never responded to this post... I believe the political will within Israel to preserve a viable Palestinian state when the Palestinians themselves either do not wish to create a two state solution or are unable to police their more extreme elements is fading. There are, of course, extremists within Israel who would rather see Palestine disappear and moderates who, when faced with Palestinian resistance, simply put the needs of Israel first. It's an ongoing process that is a result of the polarisation caused by the conflict and it will continue until one side inevitably wins and the other loses. Palestine needs to rein in its more extreme elements, if it can do so then the higher aspirations of Israel and international pressure will force a solution.
That I don't buy. Israel has done enough bad acting in this war to make me suspicious of any "higher aspirations" they might have. Their opposition of Palestinian statehood being a prime example.
There is no reason for them to oppose statehood other than their own personal self-interest. They don't want the Palestinians to be able to come to the bargaining table as equals or even slightly more equally. They want to force the Palestinians to do everything exactly as they want.
Israel ceded the moral high ground long ago. To me, the only difference between the two is which one has the bigger army.
|
United States42826 Posts
On December 01 2012 04:56 HomeWorld wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2012 04:44 KwarK wrote:On December 01 2012 04:40 HomeWorld wrote:On December 01 2012 04:34 KwarK wrote:On December 01 2012 04:31 HomeWorld wrote:On December 01 2012 04:19 KwarK wrote:On December 01 2012 04:16 HomeWorld wrote:On December 01 2012 04:13 KwarK wrote:On December 01 2012 04:11 HomeWorld wrote:
Allow me throw a little nuke in this thread: does Israel past half century expansionism (on a smaller scale) mirrors Hitler's ruled Germany "conquest" for "vital space" ? If that's true, palestinians can be seen as french/italian/spanish/whatever resistance were. No, it doesn't. And just in case you think you're clever for making the "Israel is the new Hitler" argument, you're not. It's a really, really stupid argument. I'm not saying that, I'm just trying to find a god damn good reason for all this mess that happens there. Also, please back up your "really stupid argument" by some fine arguments against it. The reason what happens there happens is because both sides have legitimate grievances and there are too many human factors for a lasting peace to endure. Nobody there is Hitler, in fact most problems in the world don't involve anyone being Hitler. Let me ask you another question: Please show me an existing border conflict between two nations (planet wide) other than Israeli/Palestinian one. There are none (with very few exceptions, mostly light skirmishes that aren't even news worthy) Anyway, the way I see it, UN started this mess ( back in '47 - UN General Assembly Resolution - partition of british mandate for palestine) , UN should solve it. You need to read more, there are dozens of ongoing conflicts. North Korea still fires shells at South Korea from time to time, Pakistan and India still shoot at each other, Turkey and Syria exchange fire and those are just three recent ones between established states. Once you get into Africa you just have all out war all over the place. The fact that you don't read the news does not mean these things don't happen. I did said "excepting light skirmishes", your examples aren't fierce fights for territories but just exactly what I excluded from that post : ppl throwing "tomatoes" at each others. On a 1 to 10 scale your examples are at the bottom compared to Palestinian/Israelian situation. There aren't fierce fights for territories in Palestine, there are terrorists firing rockets on one side and the army responding on the other or pre-emptively striking known terrorists whereas NK and SK are actually at war with each other. You seem to have absolutely no understanding of what the Israel Palestine situation involves, nor what any other conflict involves. I guess, by your judgement, the french resistance (as an example) were terrorists too (tho this assessment was perpetuated by the ones at power, no big surprise at present time) Historically speaking what happens right now in that area isn't very different from what happened during ww2
Historically speaking what happens right now is in no way anything like WWII. WWII was a total war between great states. It saw large scale tank battles, armies numbering hundreds of thousands advancing hundreds of miles across Europe, cities firebombed, two nuclear bombs used, multiple theatres of war on every continent and involving damn near every nation. I'd say you need to read a history book but you should open with a dictionary so you don't repeat the mistake of speaking "historically".
|
On December 01 2012 04:58 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2012 04:54 NicolBolas wrote:On December 01 2012 04:47 SupLilSon wrote:On December 01 2012 04:39 blinken wrote:On December 01 2012 04:37 farvacola wrote:On December 01 2012 04:32 blinken wrote:On December 01 2012 04:25 KwarK wrote:On December 01 2012 04:22 blinken wrote:On December 01 2012 04:04 sc2superfan101 wrote:On December 01 2012 03:52 blinken wrote:
It is hard to really understand why Hamas is elected, since we can't fathom what a populace is really like when it has lived in the prison like conditions it has for so long. who put them in that prison?
The US and Israel are not interested in Palestinian interests, as this problem would have been solved long before the rise of Hamas.
(edit: many, not all) Palestinian leaders don't want a solution which includes Israel existing.
I can't find a good argument from the Israeli side. I mean, what is the argument? Is it "god promised us this land! he promised! why are we being attacked for ripping down homes and destroying families when god promised us this land!? it's in the bible people!"
how about: you don't get to slaughter children because their great-grandparents may or may not have taken your great-grandparents land? does that argument hold any water with you? That argument doesn't hold a drop of water with me, possibly because I don't understand it. "Slaughtering children" would be better attributed to the Israelis in this context, since obviously they've killed more children. Next, what are you implying with "may or may not have taken... land." This is implying that you feel the Jews have a right to this land. There have been barely any Jews living in that geographic location since the third Jewish revolt against the Roman Empire (Bar Kokhba Revolt,) almost two thousand years ago. It would be like saying Italy has a right to France because it once was a part of the Roman Empire. The Jewish population was practically nothing in the region known as Palestine for almost the entire period from the third revolt to the start of the 20th century. I don't understand, do people think there were a sizable amount of Jews living there the entire time. Speaking for myself I give the "it's our ancestral homeland from 2000 years ago" argument no weight whereas I give the "we live here now" argument an awful lot of weight. It is simply not realistic to put all the Israelis back where they came from, a lot of them were born there. I support a two state solution, so I am not implying that we move the Israelis anywhere. What holds more weight, "it's our ancestral homeland from 2000 years ago and we still live here," or, "we live here now because we waged several wars to be here and are conducting practices condemned by the UN and international law." Yeah, that's a tough one. Boiling down each side into pathetically oversimple statements does not make for a convincing argument. In fact, it simply makes you looks disingenuous. Perhaps reading the preceding comments, rather then jumping in at the end and making grand assumptions does not make for a convincing post. In fact, it makes you look like myopic. Making posts without knowing what you are talking about makes you look idiotic. I agree with Farva here. Blinken's point is that Kwark did the exact same thing with his `Speaking for myself I give the "it's our ancestral homeland from 2000 years ago" argument no weight whereas I give the "we live here now" argument an awful lot of weight.` statement. I could use more words but I don't think more are required. The argument is that not denying the wrongs done to the Palestinians it would be a greater wrong to attempt to undo the past injustice at the expense of the Israeli's born and currently living in Israel. That the reality is that Israel exists and that is, in itself, an argument for its continuation.
People don't mention that in times of relative peace Israel has done much more than any neighboring Arab nation for the Palestinians. Yet Israel is constantly labeled the bad guy because they take measures when fired upon by rockets. This is a case of the dog biting the hand that feeds it.
That I don't buy. Israel has done enough bad acting in this war to make me suspicious of any "higher aspirations" they might have. Their opposition of Palestinian statehood being a prime example.
There is no reason for them to oppose statehood other than their own personal self-interest. They don't want the Palestinians to be able to come to the bargaining table as equals or even slightly more equally. They want to force the Palestinians to do everything exactly as they want.
Israel ceded the moral high ground long ago. To me, the only difference between the two is which one has the bigger army.
To my knowledge they resisted Palestinian statehood because Hamas is a terrorist organization. Palestinian statehood essentially equates to a state governed by a malicious terrorist faction. Regardless of the sentiments of your average Palestinian, how can you not see this as a concern to Israel...?
|
Can anyone explain why Israel and USA (and some other nations too) opposed the status upgrade Palestine got. Their words are usually that of ''resolving the conflict through negotiations'' and this UN thing doesn't really oppose it. They also say that they are for a Palestinian state so shouldn't they vote for? Anyone with more insight?
|
On December 01 2012 04:57 SupLilSon wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2012 04:50 blinken wrote:On December 01 2012 04:47 SupLilSon wrote:On December 01 2012 04:39 blinken wrote:On December 01 2012 04:37 farvacola wrote:On December 01 2012 04:32 blinken wrote:On December 01 2012 04:25 KwarK wrote:On December 01 2012 04:22 blinken wrote:On December 01 2012 04:04 sc2superfan101 wrote:On December 01 2012 03:52 blinken wrote:
It is hard to really understand why Hamas is elected, since we can't fathom what a populace is really like when it has lived in the prison like conditions it has for so long. who put them in that prison?
The US and Israel are not interested in Palestinian interests, as this problem would have been solved long before the rise of Hamas.
(edit: many, not all) Palestinian leaders don't want a solution which includes Israel existing.
I can't find a good argument from the Israeli side. I mean, what is the argument? Is it "god promised us this land! he promised! why are we being attacked for ripping down homes and destroying families when god promised us this land!? it's in the bible people!"
how about: you don't get to slaughter children because their great-grandparents may or may not have taken your great-grandparents land? does that argument hold any water with you? That argument doesn't hold a drop of water with me, possibly because I don't understand it. "Slaughtering children" would be better attributed to the Israelis in this context, since obviously they've killed more children. Next, what are you implying with "may or may not have taken... land." This is implying that you feel the Jews have a right to this land. There have been barely any Jews living in that geographic location since the third Jewish revolt against the Roman Empire (Bar Kokhba Revolt,) almost two thousand years ago. It would be like saying Italy has a right to France because it once was a part of the Roman Empire. The Jewish population was practically nothing in the region known as Palestine for almost the entire period from the third revolt to the start of the 20th century. I don't understand, do people think there were a sizable amount of Jews living there the entire time. Speaking for myself I give the "it's our ancestral homeland from 2000 years ago" argument no weight whereas I give the "we live here now" argument an awful lot of weight. It is simply not realistic to put all the Israelis back where they came from, a lot of them were born there. I support a two state solution, so I am not implying that we move the Israelis anywhere. What holds more weight, "it's our ancestral homeland from 2000 years ago and we still live here," or, "we live here now because we waged several wars to be here and are conducting practices condemned by the UN and international law." Yeah, that's a tough one. Boiling down each side into pathetically oversimple statements does not make for a convincing argument. In fact, it simply makes you looks disingenuous. Perhaps reading the preceding comments, rather then jumping in at the end and making grand assumptions does not make for a convincing post. In fact, it makes you look like myopic. Making posts without knowing what you are talking about makes you look idiotic. I agree with Farva here. Haha, an ad hom without an ounce of substance. You sir are a gentleman and a scholar. Your posts show you haven't taken any care to read the history of the conflict or you are just being willfully ignorant and biased. If you thing Israel waged several wars with the intention of conquest then you need to read a history book.
If anything, my posts have shown the complete opposite, but I doubt you've taken the time to read them as in today's society the ad hom rules all.
Definition of conquest: The subjugation and assumption of control of a place or people by use of military force.
Israel was given the land and almost immediately several Arab countries declared war on them. In your mind, the Israelis are defending land that was given to them. In reality, the Israelis knew they would have to fight for it, and were given enough arms to combat 5 nations alone. Tell me, if their intentions didn't involve conquest, why did they possess a military capable of defeating the combined forces of 5 Arab nations?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
