EPTWar in Gaza - Page 15
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
larrysbird
375 Posts
| ||
|
qrs
United States3637 Posts
| ||
|
larrysbird
375 Posts
| ||
|
Locke.
Israel562 Posts
On January 06 2009 03:24 MoltkeWarding wrote: Zionism was of course a 19th century European product, and European intellectual trends went a long way toward re-inventing Israel for the modern era, but even so, Jewish nationalism was a synthetic product suited to minority tastes well into the 20th century; the common experience of European Jews in the Second World War probably aided the concept more than any of her original theologians. In the circumstances, the emigration to the Palestine prior to the Second World War did not amount to more than trickle of ambitious European Jews, and by 1948 it's clear that the swelling demographic presence of Jews in the Palestine did not warrant the erroneous partition made by the UNSC which allotted 56% of Palestinian territory to the Jewish minority, the State of Israel encompassing an Arab minority amounting to over a third of the population, whereas the Palestinian state was exclusively Arab. If the Palestinian nation was an artificial nation, born out of resistance to Israeli occupation, the same can be moreso argued of Israel, mutandis mutatis. The United States does not bear sole responsibility for Israel's survival. From the beginning it was clear that Israel's fighting ability far surpassed that of her arab neighbours, even in 1948, when Israel certainly did not possess any element of materiel superiority. The conflicts between Israel and her neighbours have perpectually been rehashes of colonial wars of military inequality between small numbers of well-organized White men and larger Asiatic armies which stretch back to the confrontations between Greece and Persia. Prior to 1967, France was the primary arms supplier to Israel, and it was only during the 1970s that the firm geopolitical alliance between America and Israel was struck. Although since that time, the United States has done much to establish Israel as the regional hegemon, this was true even earlier due to the weakness of her Arab neighbours. Israel's actions seem uncouth to much of the world, because her military strength and existential insecurity co-exist comfortably, and the reactions of insecure powerhouses are always problematic. Israel's very history perpectuates her identity as a nation under siege, and these impressions last long after tangible physical dangers have passed. "common experience of European Jews in World War II" - that's a rather peculiar way of describing the systematic murder of the Jewish people, it sounds almost positive. The British stopped the Jewish from immigrating to Israel using The White Book and many other actions. A very large of European Jews could have been saved by the atrocities of your country if the British would have allowed them to come BEFORE the holocaust and not just after. You are right that the "Palestinian nation" is an artificial nation created to destroy the Jewish presence in Israel. To say that the opposite is just as much true is plain non sense, Israel was created to be a place for Jews all over the world. The Jews are not a fictive nation they weren't invented in the 19th century and their historic connection and love to the land of Israel didn't start with the modern Zionist movement. It goes back continuously a whole lot longer than Islam exists.. When the Germans could not read or write our extensive foundation as a people was already set and at its core the wish to return to Israel and to Jerusalem and build it anew. Adding Latin to it doesn't make it more valid. "From the beginning it was clear that Israel's fighting ability far surpassed that of her arab neighbours," - Complete fabrication. There was a complete weapon embargo on Israel in 1948, its army was a lot weaker than the 6 huge Arab nations attacking it. It was expected that the Arabs would win and their defeat came as a great shock. The next 2 wars weren't different, though to be fair we were able to buy weapon, had more money, and had more time to organize. Israel was threatened with its complete destruction by all her surrounding countries a lot of times. The Egyptians had a huge air force before 1967 and the Syrians, Egyptians, Jordanians, and Iraqis had a lot more tanks than Israel as well. NOT a "rehashes of colonial wars of military inequality between small numbers of well-organized White men and larger Asiatic armies". It's not a colonial war when the Arabs have a trained air force and a huge number of tanks and are united in attempts to destroy Israel - you are fabricating the truth. "Physical dangers have passed" - if you think Israel will continue to exist without the massive army it holds you are delusional. | ||
|
Magibon
10 Posts
| ||
|
KlaCkoN
Sweden1661 Posts
On January 06 2009 08:13 Locke. wrote: "From the beginning it was clear that Israel's fighting ability far surpassed that of her arab neighbours," - Complete fabrication. There was a complete weapon embargo on Israel in 1948, its army was a lot weaker than the 6 huge Arab nations attacking it. It was expected that the Arabs would win and their defeat came as a great shock. The next 2 wars weren't different, though to be fair we were able to buy weapon, had more money, and had more time to organize. Israel was threatened with its complete destruction by all her surrounding countries a lot of times. The Egyptians had a huge air force before 1967 and the Syrians, Egyptians, Jordanians, and Iraqis had a lot more tanks than Israel as well. NOT a "rehashes of colonial wars of military inequality between small numbers of well-organized White men and larger Asiatic armies". It's not a colonial war when the Arabs have a trained air force and a huge number of tanks and are united in attempts to destroy Israel - you are fabricating the truth. "Physical dangers have passed" - if you think Israel will continue to exist without the massive army it holds you are delusional. I think you are misunderstanding him, though considering his language that's not exactly strange. What he (on the military issue) said was very much in agreement with what you posted. Namely that Israel in 1948 in no way was materially surprerior yet the attacking arabs were defeated relatively easily, thus Israels' "fighting ability" far surpassed that of the surounding nations. The same goes for the second part, read his post again and you will realize that you are saying the same thing; the israelis managed to win versus much larger armies simply by being better soldiers. As it stands Israel isn't threatened anymore, I can understand that the people living there _feel_ threatened due to the history of the nation but Israel of today is powerful enough that no nation on earth can touch her. Yes there are obvious and irrelevant exceptions. | ||
|
TeCh)PsylO
United States3552 Posts
their historic connection and love to the land of Israel didn't start with the modern Zionist movement. It goes back continuously a whole lot longer than Islam exists "In Hapardes (Year 11, Issue 7) Rabbi Pardes describes what he saw at the Convention: “Rabbi Wasserman, Rabbi Kotler, Rabbi Rottenberg from Antwerp, rabbis from Czechoslovakia and Hungary were unanimous in rejecting any proposal for a “Jewish State” on either side of the Jordan River, even if it were established as a religious state because such a regime would be a form of heresy in our faith in the belief in the coming of the Messiah, and especially since this little “Jewish” state would be built on heresy and desecration of the Name of G-d." -Jews against Zionism Israel is a product of zionism. Initially most jews were not zionist and many opposed zionism and the creation of Israel. | ||
|
wwooaa
Croatia179 Posts
and i dont remember who said it but gratz to that guy: does anyone defend by attacking other country, incredible! and the ppl believe to that fairy tales, xD | ||
|
MoltkeWarding
5195 Posts
You are right that the "Palestinian nation" is an artificial nation created to destroy the Jewish presence in Israel. To say that the opposite is just as much true is plain non sense, Israel was created to be a place for Jews all over the world. The Jews are not a fictive nation they weren't invented in the 19th century and their historic connection and love to the land of Israel didn't start with the modern Zionist movement. It goes back continuously a whole lot longer than Islam exists.. When the Germans could not read or write our extensive foundation as a people was already set and at its core the wish to return to Israel and to Jerusalem and build it anew. Adding Latin to it doesn't make it more valid. There is a practical difference between Jews as a nation, religion or tribe, and zionism as an ideology. By the 19th century most countries of Central and Western Europe had emancipated the Jewish minority, and the majority of Jews saw themselves as nationals of the respective states into which they had assimilated first and foremost. The largest exception, the Jews of the Russian Empire, had overwhelmingly elected to emigrate, if at all, to Western Europe and the United States during the the reign of Alexander III. The intellectual basis of revived Jewish nationalism coincided with the development of European nationalisms of the 19th century. It is telling that Theodore Herzl developed his zionist institutions after a periodic flirtation with German romantic nationalism. The dispossession of European Jews after the Second World War was instrumental to the growth of Israel; had the holocaust never occurred, the Jews of Europe would have remained tied to their respective host nations. For decades, after the Second World War, American Jews remained ignorant and even apathetic to the plight of Jews in Europe and what only in the 70s came to be popularly called the holocaust. The sense of dispossession and national exclusivity which affected European Jews in 1945 had no resonance in the United States. The majority of Jews in the world today inhabit the Western Hemisphere, and the majority are positively not zionists; many are leading critics of Israel and Zionism. Regarding Israel as an eternal union from the covenant of Abraham through the diaspora and up until the present time ignores the psychological realities of what has happened to the descendants of the original race. As for the artificiality of Palestine, I am indifferent to what constitutes a artificial or real nation. A nation is a group of people who think that they are one people, exclusive of superior identities. That a nation defines itself based on geographical and political criterion rather than the organic processes of community built upon the ages is rather besides the point. The British, the French, the Germans had all existed in one form or another for over a thousand years, but it was not until around two hundred years ago that their sense of nationhood was sufficiently developed to supercede their feudal, communal, or tribal ties. "From the beginning it was clear that Israel's fighting ability far surpassed that of her arab neighbours," I am going to assume that your English is far from perfect, so I will only reiterate that I do not refer to fighting ability in terms of numerical, or even material strength. It's not a colonial war when the Arabs have a trained air force and a huge number of tanks and are united in attempts to destroy Israel On the contrary, the Israel-Arab conflicts propagate many of the typical features of colonial wars. Colonial wars are not primarily defined by the technological or numerical differences between the protagonists. They are defined by a small band of settlers (undeniably what Israelis were) who defeat larger armies of autochthons, who may or may not be inferior in weaponery, but more relevantly, inferior in discipline, training organization, doctrine, skill, and leadership. The only Israel-Arab war with the direct purpose of destroying "Israel" was the 1948 war. The 1967 war had a diplomatic casus belli in the passage of Israeli ships through the Straits of Tiran. The Egyptian objective in the 1973 war was the reversal of the losses suffered in the 1967 war. Israel took the initiative to attack Egypt in 1956 and Lebanon in 1982, in neither case was Israel's "survival" in jeopardy. "Physical dangers have passed" - if you think Israel will continue to exist without the massive army it holds you are delusional. Deductive reasoning requires the the fulfillment of relevant premises to reach their conclusions. Even if I thought whatever you're saying I thought, that is only one premise, and by itself, holds nothing apart from the premise itself. In any case, the role of the Israeli army itself confirms what you deny. The primary objectives of the IDF has shifted in the past decades from a war-making force to a policing force. There is no physical threat to Israel but terrorists; and terrorists are not an existential threat. | ||
|
IzzyCraft
United States4487 Posts
On January 06 2009 08:12 larrysbird wrote: Arabs are descendants of Ishmael while Jews are for Isaac. As far as I can remember they're already fighting in the old times. Yeah if they just settled this by killing off one of them back then when no one cared there would be no porblems! =p | ||
|
qrs
United States3637 Posts
On January 06 2009 09:26 MoltkeWarding wrote: On the contrary, the Israel-Arab conflicts propagate many of the typical features of colonial wars. Colonial wars are not primarily defined by the technological or numerical differences between the protagonists. They are defined by a small band of settlers (undeniably what Israelis were) who defeat larger armies of autochthons, who may or may not be inferior in weaponery, but more relevantly, inferior in discipline, training organization, doctrine, skill, and leadership. Moltke, your eloquence dazzles me as always, but I must take issue with this. I had to look up "autochthon", but having done so: the Arabs are not "the earliest known inhabitants" of Palestine, nor were they the ones who controlled the land when Jews began to settle there in greater numbers (there was a Jewish presence in Palestine, albeit a small one, for thousands of years, predating the arrival of the Arabs, in fact, which in itself is a significant reason to view your appellation "colonialism" as a mischaracterization). Before the British, there were the Turks; before the Turks, it is true, there were the Sultans, but if you go back far enough, before the Sultans (and the Byzantine/Roman Empire) there was a Jewish kingdom. Arabs were a majority population for a long time, but they were not the original inhabitants nor the ruling government when Jews began to settle in numbers. Moreover, the Arabs initiated the 1948 war, so I don't see how you can call that a war of colonialism. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
| ||
|
MoltkeWarding
5195 Posts
On January 06 2009 10:14 qrs wrote: Moltke, your eloquence dazzles me as always, but I must take issue with this. I had to look up "autochthon", but having done so: the Arabs are not "the earliest known inhabitants" of Palestine, nor were they the ones who controlled the land when Jews began to settle there in greater numbers (there was a Jewish presence in Palestine, albeit a small one, for thousands of years, predating the arrival of the Arabs, in fact, which in itself is a significant reason to view your appellation "colonialism" as a mischaracterization). Before the British, there were the Turks; before the Turks, it is true, there were the Sultans, but if you go back far enough, before the Sultans (and the Byzantine/Roman Empire) there was a Jewish kingdom. Arabs were a majority population for a long time, but they were not the original inhabitants nor the ruling government when Jews began to settle in numbers. Moreover, the Arabs initiated the 1948 war, so I don't see how you can call that a war of colonialism. If we consider the territory of the Palestine as a whole, the crescendo of Jewish immigrations largely occurred after 1880. In 1948, the Jewish population of the Palestine amounted to approximately 600 000 people, or one-third of the total population between the sea and the river Jordan. The majority of these were first or second generation immigrants extracted from Europe. Prior to circa 1900, the Jewish population in the Palestine was not only smaller than the Arab majority, but also than the Christian minority. The demographic trends of the Palestine show that sometime after the expulsion of the Crusaders in the 12th century, the Arab population has been the demographic majority in the Palestine, outnumbering the Jews by at least ten-to-one until the late 19th century. Now, the last period when the Jews were a majority presence in the same territory prior to the establishment of Israel in 1948, was at the time of the sac of Jerusalem in 70 AD. In 70 AD, the Celts were the British, the Bretons were British Celts, the English were Southern Baltic Germans, the Germans were spread in various tribes between the Rhine and the Volga, we don't know where the Slavs were during this time, so it would be impossible to assign them a legitimate homeland, but in Western Russia were Germanic Goths, to the immediate East of the Germans were the scythians, to the Northwest, Finns, and in Finland, Lapps, to their east, Huns. We don't know who was in Hungary at this time, but several centuries later it was traversed by the Vandals and the Goths. France was Gallic, the French were Western Germans. North Africans were semitic colonists sprung from Phonecia, Arabs were creatures confined to the Arabian deserts, and no one apart from the Mormons knows what was happening in the Americas during this time. Linguists speculate that we all emerge from somewhere near the Caspian sea area, palentologists speculate that we may stem from Africa, Biblical archeologists infer the original location of the Garden of Eden to be near the Persian Gulf. Perhaps the Arabs were not the Urfolk of the Palestine, but neither are Jews, since their own myths relate that they were led to that land by Moses, on the promise of God. What is the criteria for an eternal bond between blood and soil? Is it established through religious covenant? Is it the cultivation of land? Is it the construction of more complex systems of society rooted in the land? Is it the right of conquest by the stronger peoples? Using the term judiciously, what I suppose I meant by autochthon is this: the nation with the longest continuous roots in a certain territory, and having displaced the prior occupants beyond a reasonable span of memory. If you see the war of 1948 from the Arabs' perspective, that of the Israelis as a settler nation, which they were at that time, it's easy to infer the sources of their anger at relinquishing land to the newer population. | ||
|
qrs
United States3637 Posts
On January 06 2009 11:18 MoltkeWarding wrote: If you see the war of 1948 from the Arabs' perspective, that of the Israelis as a settler nation, which they were at that time, it's easy to infer the sources of their anger at relinquishing land to the newer population. OK, although your historical overview was very interesting, let's focus on the brass tacks: relinquishing land. What precisely do you mean by this? I see several possibilities. -Do you mean relinquishing political control of the land? I am sure you don't mean that, as the Arabs had not had political control themselves since the Ottoman conquest centuries before. -Do you mean physical displacement? If so, when, and by what means? Certainly before 1948 there could be no question of Jews taking land by military force. Perhaps, then, you refer to Jews moving into land that they had bought from some absentee landlord, which had previously been occupied by Arabs. -Perhaps you refer to physical displacement after 1948. There is still a lot of controversy over whether and/or to what extent Jews encouraged/intimidated Arabs into fleeing in the aftermath of the 1948 war. Certainly it is true that Arabs who had fled were not always allowed to reclaim their old property. -Finally, perhaps you refer to political control after all, your argument being that, although the Arabs had not actually had political control of the land, they felt that it should be given to them, the majority-inhabitants of the region for many years, as you point out, rather than to the Jews, most of whom were relative newcomers. There is room for discussion on all these points, but which one or ones of them did you mean when you said "relinquishing land"? Or did you have something else in mind? | ||
|
MoltkeWarding
5195 Posts
Iraq and Egypt had obtained independence prior to the Second World War (although they were occupied during the course of the war) and all other Arab states in the Middle East were granted independence after the war. Of course, it's true that the primary targets of terrorism in Palestine was anti-British during this period, but the claims of Arab independence was by then almost universally recognized. The historical occupancy of the land by Arabs is their basis for claiming the entire territory of the Palestine as Arab territory, but even taking into account the presence of the then-large Jewish minority, the partition plan of 1948 was flawed on geographical and demographic lines, placing 407 000 Arabs along with 498 000 Jews within the Jewish demarcation lines. The partition placed over a third of the Palestinian Arabs population under Israeli government. I do not claim that the Arab reactions would have been different given a more equitable partition line, but allotting the State of Israel a majority share of Palestinian territory when they physically occupied sporadic settlements certainly did not ease the deal. Nor am I being a partisan. I am simply inferring that there were reasonable causes behind anti-Israeli sentiment since the birth of Israel, just as I recognize the gravity of Hebrew religion on Israeli perspectives, but I would all the same not expect Arabs to endorse the idea of a Jewish state simply because God promised Moses in the Torah. | ||
|
Locke.
Israel562 Posts
 No way I'll have the time to respond to all of it.You are right that the Zionism of Herzl is very different from what was (and is) considered Judaism. His goal was to create a normal western place where Jews can be protected from their constant persecutions. He didn't want anything to do with the Jews as a unique nation. What he wanted was to be "a nation like all other nations" meaning an ordinary western country for the persecuted Jews. "The sense of dispossession and national exclusivity which affected European Jews in 1945 had no resonance in the United States." - Jewish US organizations provided the largest financial and political assistance to post-war Jews. These organizations also donated the most to Israel before and after the holocaust. You write very eloquently as if you are an encyclopedia but you state many things which are plain wrong. "Regarding Israel as an eternal union from the covenant of Abraham through the diaspora and up until the present time ignores the psychological realities of what has happened to the descendants of the original race." ? we all know the psychological realities of constant persecution for 2000 years. We also know that amazingly the Jewish people survived and kept its identity in an unbelievable manner. reads the same Torah and Talmud, has the same Halacha, speaks the same language(especially after 19th century revival of Hebrew) and prays the exact same words said after the Temple was destructed by the long gone Romans. If anything the "psychological realities" make it even more phenomenal that the Jews are back in Israel after 2000 years. "On the contrary, the Israel-Arab conflicts propagate many of the typical features of colonial wars. Colonial wars are not primarily defined by the technological or numerical differences between the protagonists. They are defined by a small band of settlers (undeniably what Israelis were) who defeat larger armies of autochthons, who may or may not be inferior in weaponery, but more relevantly, inferior in discipline, training organization, doctrine, skill, and leadership." Colonialism is essentially a system of direct political, economic, and cultural intervention and hegemony by a powerful country in a weaker one. There is no fucking way you are saying the war that 6 huge Arab nations waged on the tiny Jewish population (which was backed by no powerful country in 1948) without any prior threat to their land and with the open goal of destroying Israel and killing its Jews is colonialism on the Jews side. It makes no sense no matter how eloquently you try and write it. The only Israel-Arab war with the direct purpose of destroying "Israel" was the 1948 war. The 1967 war had a diplomatic casus belli in the passage of Israeli ships through the Straits of Tiran. The Egyptian objective in the 1973 war was the reversal of the losses suffered in the 1967 war. Also wrong, the 1967 war started after the Syrian, Egyptian and Jordanian entire armies were placed on the Israeli borders with the open goal of destroying Israel. They even created a radio station to terrorize the Israelis prior to their attack. That went along with the closing of the Straits of Tiran for Israeli ships. They miscalculated that Israel will not wait until the actual attacks and they paid for it with a huge defeat. You are naive if you think that in 1973 the Arabs wanted just to take back what was taken in 1967. "There is no physical threat to Israel but terrorists; and terrorists are not an existential threat." - both claims are wrong. there are several countries in the middle east who have hostile population, dictatorial regimes and a history of trying to destroy Israel. The huge terror organization Hizbollah and the well funded Hamas was created by Iran, funded by Iran and trained by Iran. No country in the middle east currently have the need to take the risk of attacking Israel but they are still a threat. Given enough time terrorism combined with internal problems can certainly destroy a country like Israel. | ||
|
outqast
United States287 Posts
On January 06 2009 16:42 Locke. wrote: "On the contrary, the Israel-Arab conflicts propagate many of the typical features of colonial wars. Colonial wars are not primarily defined by the technological or numerical differences between the protagonists. They are defined by a small band of settlers (undeniably what Israelis were) who defeat larger armies of autochthons, who may or may not be inferior in weaponery, but more relevantly, inferior in discipline, training organization, doctrine, skill, and leadership." Colonialism is essentially a system of direct political, economic, and cultural intervention and hegemony by a powerful country in a weaker one. There is no fucking way you are saying the war that 6 huge Arab nations waged on the tiny Jewish population (which is backed by NO powerful country) without any prior threat to their land and with the open goal of destroying Israel and killing its Jews is colonialism on the Jews side. It makes no sense no matter how eloquently you try and write it. Great posts both of you. I just read the last page, but really high quality. I just wanted to interject with something that may or may not be relevant. Many Palestinians and members of the West Bank consider Israel's continual domination of their territory (backed by US support/aid) colonialism. If we consider Israel and the entire "holy land" the relevant region of conflict, it is Israel's militaristic domination of the relevant region is what people consider "colonialism." I think many "arabs" (I object to that world, but that is not really the argument) animosity for Jews, especially those of Israel, starts with their domination, mistreatment of Palestinians, and colonization of "Palestine." This is just a side point, but I don't think you can ignore the effect of US and European open militaristic backing of Israel. One cannot just say "6 huge Arab nations waged on a tiny population," it is really "6 huge Arab nations waged on a tiny population with the militaristic and economic support from the superpowers of the world" I think it comes back to the central problem of what we believe ex-ante... that is, if we believe that it is Israel's right to their land, it is not colonialism because they are defending themselves against hostile nation(s). If ex-ante we believe, that Palestinians and "Arabs" have a right to their land then it is certainly colonialism from their perspective. Regardless, keep it coming it is good reading. | ||
|
Locke.
Israel562 Posts
On January 06 2009 18:02 outqast wrote: Great posts both of you. I just read the last page, but really high quality. I just wanted to interject with something that may or may not be relevant. Many Palestinians and members of the West Bank consider Israel's continual domination of their territory (backed by US support/aid) colonialism. If we consider Israel and the entire "holy land" the relevant region of conflict, it is Israel's militaristic domination of the relevant region is what people consider "colonialism." I think many "arabs" (I object to that world, but that is not really the argument) animosity for Jews, especially those of Israel, starts with their domination, mistreatment of Palestinians, and colonization of "Palestine." This is just a side point, but I don't think you can ignore the effect of US and European open militaristic backing of Israel. One cannot just say "6 huge Arab nations waged on a tiny population," it is really "6 huge Arab nations waged on a tiny population with the militaristic and economic support from the superpowers of the world" I think it comes back to the central problem of what we believe ex-ante... that is, if we believe that it is Israel's right to their land, it is not colonialism because they are defending themselves against hostile nation(s). If ex-ante we believe, that Palestinians and "Arabs" have a right to their land then it is certainly colonialism from their perspective. Regardless, keep it coming it is good reading. Only after 1967 we started receiving large American support. In 1948 there was a weapon embargo by the US on Israel, there was literally no military support from the superpowers of the world. But that is not the issue. "Neutrally" observing the situation means quite nothing and there is no description of history which isn't biased through the eyes of the historian. Israel has an historic right to be in Judea and Samaria even more than it has to be in Tel Aviv. We took that land in a war that was forced upon us, from countries who conquered it in 48 Jordan, Syria and Egypt. There is no reason we should return it to them, Jerusalem and Hebron belong to the Jewish people a whole lot more than to the Jordanians who occupied it for 20 years. The tragedy was that we didn't deal with the problem straight after 1967. We should have added all Judea and Samaria officially to Israel and explained to the Arab population that they can live peacefully as a minority in Israel but if they oppose the existence of Israel as a Jewish state they can do it from a different country. Looking at the larger scope of things, ironically by nurturing the "Palestinian" hope we created a war that cannot be ended unless Israel is destroyed or the "Palestinian" hope for a country is greatly diminished. The definition of "Palestine" is to create a country instead of Israel and bring about Israel's destruction. If they would have genuinely wanted a country for their "Palestinian" identity they would have asked the Jordanian conqueror and the Egyptian conqueror for a country, after all the PLO was formed some years before 1967 and what is called the "occupied territories" meaning Judea, Samaria and Gaza was then occupied by Jordan and Egypt. | ||
|
Physician
United States4146 Posts
rehashes of colonial wars lol.. Molkte's way of pushing the envelop! | ||
|
afg-warrior
Afghanistan328 Posts
On January 05 2009 08:37 Locke. wrote: That's a lie. We have been supplying food, electricity, water, humanitarian aid and a lot of money for the whole period before the operation. They only stopped it for a day here and there when the Hamas fired more than usual. Egypt on the other hand has closed its checkpoint completely not allowing the "innocent" Palestinians to find shelter in Egypt while the operation is going on and stopping humanitarian aid. Two weeks before the operation the Israeli government transferred 100 Million $ to the Hamas, while the rockets continued to fall. If that's not treason, what is? BTW if the Palestinians would use the money they get to better the life of their civilians instead of using it all on weapons and terror, they would be in a better situation. lol thats why there is a massive shortage at every Palestinian hospital? the point is israel regulates everything that goes into gaza. if thats not a clusterfuck of a huge "FU your my bitch" gesture than no one knows what is. lol. all independent and UN observers were stating that there was a humanitarian crisis in gaza and it has just gotten a shit load worse On January 05 2009 08:20 IzzyCraft wrote: I'm pretty sure the blockade and siege is due to the break down a cease fire. Why not work on internal improvements instead of lets play hide and go seek with our missiles and the Israeli air force. Can't say they are planning to win. its been going on way before the ceasefire On January 05 2009 12:46 daz wrote: While it is true that Israel's blockade of Gaza is driving them to fire rockets and respond harshly, can you blame Israel for enforcing that blockade after the people in Gaza freely elected Hamas, an organization whose sole purpose is the destruction of Israel and actively attempts to act towards that purpose. I don't see why Israel should be expected to have any dealings at all with that country, much less provide them aid. Since most of you here are from the United States, let me use an example that will be easy to understand. Imagine that here in Canada we elected Al-Queida to power. How do you imagine the American government would respond to that? blame democracy and the fact that hamas has been the only political group that is able to make law and enforce it legitimately. and the fact that the people of palestine have been killed and fucked over by a 10 ta 1 ratio since day 1. | ||
| ||
