[QUOTE=Big Blue;33550096]thread is now "why jews are bad and no one should support them"[/QUOTE]
Thanks for your contributory remarks - generalizing an entire thread by pulling out the antisemitism card which in process delegitimizes any other argument critical of Israel, simply because a single user posted an image of some nasty scriptures from the Torah.
I just added that little bit of info because the Arab Peace Initiative and to some extent the Quartet Roadmap and the Geneva Accord are based on the 1967 borders, though the last two afford some flexibility. I was trying to show that early on the Jews at least said that they would accept a two-state solution. Along with how now the Arabs request it, though initially they rejected the two-state solution.
Also you act like the violence was completely one sided, while I don’t support what the Jews did, they were also being targeted for quite some time. In 1929 133 Jews were killed by Palestinians during the time of British rule which was based on The Palestine Mandate. Though 110 Palestinians also died due to the British trying to quell the unrest. Violence continued between the two up to 1948 and beyond.
I’m not saying that the Jewish people didn’t do horrendous things between 1929 and 1948 but the Arabs are also guilty of atrocities in that time frame.
Oh and you’re right, there was really no way that the two state solution that was put forth by the UN special committee was going to work in 1948.
I also want to add that the peace talks currently happening are somewhat pointless because the Palestinians aren’t properly represented within the Palestinian Authority. Hamas isn’t represented at all even though they govern the Gaza Strip. This makes the Palestinian people feel that whatever the PA and Israel decide upon, is invalid because new elections in the PA have been postponed and only the gatah party is playing a role. Since Hamas isn’t part of the PA they oppose the negotiations and have said that they will refuse to accept them if the PA makes a deal.
[QUOTE=Contag;33547136]How have there been [B]three[/B] Jewish states?
When statehood is a post-ottoman empire construction?[/QUOTE]
Use whatever word you want: state, kingdom, empire, etc. My meaning was that the area has previously been owned solely by the Jews multiple times before the Arabs even moved into that part of the world.
[QUOTE=Starpluck;33550163]Thanks for your contributory remarks - generalizing an entire thread by pulling out the antisemitism card which in process delegitimizes any other argument critical of Israel, simply because a single user posted an image of some nasty scriptures from the Torah.[/QUOTE]
They weren't from the Torah, they were from the Talmud.
[QUOTE=sgman91;33551610]Use whatever word you want: state, kingdom, empire, etc. My meaning was that the area has previously been owned solely by the Jews multiple times before the Arabs even moved into that part of the world.[/QUOTE]
Yeah and the Moores lived in Spain for hundreds of years, in fact more recently than when the Israelites allegedly did.
Who gives a fuck, the Arabs owned nearly 100 percent of Palestine, the only claim the Jews had to it was historical. Just like any ethnic group to any masses of land across the world.
[QUOTE=Starpluck;33549646]I notice when people bring this up, they never cease to omit the most important points.
1. The plan was to partition Palestine between its indigenous natives and the new Jewish European immigrants.[/QUOTE]
Palestine is an area of land, not a country. So saying they partitioned Palestine is similar to saying they partitioned something like Appalachia in the US. Remember, the Jews were only living in Europe because they were previously expelled from that area by conquest.
[QUOTE=Starpluck;33549646]I notice when people bring this up, they never cease to omit the most important points.
2. Under the UN plan, the newly immigrated European Jews were granted more than fifty six per cent of historical Palestine while the native Palestinians, [highlight]who owned ninety three per cent of the territory[/highlight], were offered [highlight]less than forty four per cent of their own land.[/highlight][/QUOTE]
Native Palestinians owned absolutely 0 of the territory. It was owned by the Ottoman Empire up to 1917 and then a collective of allies after that. The people who lived in that area didn't govern themselves at any point until the creation of a Palestinian state after WWII.
[editline]3rd December 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=Dr. G;33551670]Yeah and the Moores lived in Spain for hundreds of years, in fact more recently than when the Israelites allegedly did.
Who gives a fuck, the Arabs owned nearly 100 percent of Palestine, the only claim the Jews had to it was historical. Just like any ethnic group to any masses of land across the world.[/QUOTE]
The Arabs conquered it from the Jews. Essentially the allies just conquered it back for them. And no, the Arabs didn't own any of it. The allies did.
Free Palestine
[QUOTE=Glorbo;33535003]You sound like a 12 year old.
Anyway, to the debate- My solution is that there is no solution. Both the Israelis and the Palestinians have the same right to the land-None. If current Israel was a chair, then the Israelis claim the have a right to sit on the chair because they bought it 3000 years ago, and the Palestinians claim to own the chair because they sat on it for a very long time. Both of these claims are preposterous in my opinion.
It's a shame the Palestinians didn't agree to the 1947 partition plan-We could have set up a huge tourism empire out of this whole "holy land" bullshit, and scam Christians [b]together[/b] instead of doing it separately.[/QUOTE]
Why don't they get a bench and share. Theocracies are bullshit. Both Jews and Muslims need to learn to live together.
[editline]3rd December 2011[/editline]
What I think they should do? Make it one country. Call it Palestine. And allow both Jews and Muslims to live there together and intermingle. If they refuse, send in the UN and make them cooperate. This fighting over thousand year old sand is a ridiculous loss of life and money.
[QUOTE=OvB;33553597]Why don't they get a bench and share. Theocracies are bullshit. Both Jews and Muslims need to learn to live together.
[editline]3rd December 2011[/editline]
What I think they should do? Make it one country. Call it Palestine. And allow both Jews and Muslims to live there together and intermingle. If they refuse, send in the UN and make them cooperate. This fighting over thousand year old sand is a ridiculous loss of life and money.[/QUOTE]
The UN can't make a country cooperate.
[QUOTE=sgman91;33551610]Use whatever word you want: state, kingdom, empire, etc. My meaning was that the area has previously been owned solely by the Jews multiple times before the Arabs even moved into that part of the world.[/QUOTE]
By that logic Israel should be part of an Islamic Caliphate.
also:
[quote]The genetic profile of Palestinians has, for
the first time, been studied by using human leukocyte
antigen (HLA) gene variability and haplotypes. The com-
parison with other Mediterranean populations by using
neighbor-joining dendrograms and correspondence
analyses reveal that Palestinians are genetically very close
to Jews and other Middle East populations, including Turks
(Anatolians), Lebanese, Egyptians, Armenians and
Iranians. [B]Archaeologic and genetic data support that both
Jews and Palestinians came from the ancient Canaanites,
who extensively mixed with Egyptians, Mesopotamian and
Anatolian peoples in ancient times. Thus, Palestinian-
Jewish rivalry is based in cultural and religious, but not in
genetic, differences[/B]. The relatively close relatedness of both
Jews and Palestinians to western Mediterranean
populations reflects the continuous circum-Mediterranean
cultural and gene flow that have occurred in prehistoric
and historic times. This flow overtly contradicts the demic
diffusion model of western Mediterranean populations
substitution by agriculturalists coming from the Middle
East in the Mesolithic-Neolithic transition[/quote]
When people say Arab, they don't usually know that they're referring to a huge group of different ethnicities. The Palestinians are not necessary Arabic, or in any case, 'more Arabic' then the current Israelites.
Throw the two of them into a secular constitutional republic called Canaan.
[editline]4th December 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;33554078]The UN can't make a country cooperate.[/QUOTE]
They can. The UNSC has used the 'humanitarian intervention' card as an ad-hoc casus belli before.
In my opinion both the Israelis and Palestinians have valid claims why they're the genuine owner of the ''holy land'', but also both sides have their shortcomings. It's a big fuckup with countless moral infringements. And most ''solutions'' I see in these kind of threads end up in bloodshed or deportation and such.
One peacefull solution I can think of is the forming of one secular democratic Israel/Palestinian state, compromised out of both the Gaza strip and nowadays Israel. Nobody has to be expulsed from their homes, and Jews and Muslims would live side by side.
Unfortunately 2 religions are outright facing each other: a big portion of the population seems to treat the other side as nothing more than feral beasts, and both sides have a lot of extremists in them. Making this pretty much impossible.
[QUOTE=cheezey;33555655]In my opinion both the Israelis and Palestinians have valid claims why they're the genuine owner of the ''holy land'', but also both sides have their shortcomings. It's a big fuckup with countless moral infringements. And most ''solutions'' I see in these kind of threads end up in bloodshed or deportation and such.
One peacefull solution I can think of is the forming of one secular democratic Israel/Palestinian state, compromised out of both the Gaza strip and nowadays Israel. Nobody has to be expulsed from their homes, and Jews and Muslims would live side by side.
Unfortunately 2 religions are outright facing each other: a big portion of the population seems to treat the other side as nothing more than feral beasts, and both sides have a lot of extremists in them. Making this pretty much impossible.[/QUOTE]
But one of the sides has a modern military, nuclear weapons and the backing of a superpower.
Wheras the other has unguided, ineffective rockets, outdated infantry weapons and stone-throwing children.
[I]Maybe[/I] you could have made that argument in 1967 but Israel is actively stealing land and occupying other people's land.
This is in no way a conflict, more of a long-protracted genocide (In the sense that the Palestinians' land and identity is slowly being taken from them, along with a lot of their people being killed.)
[QUOTE=WhatTheKlent;33556092]
[I]Maybe[/I] you could have made that argument in 1967 but Israel is actively stealing land and occupying other people's land.
This is in no way a conflict, more of a long-protracted genocide (In the sense that the Palestinians' land and identity is slowly being taken from them, along with a lot of their people being killed.)[/QUOTE]
[b]Stealing[/b] land?
Last time I checked, nobody can properly claim it. So the Palestinians own it because they've been sitting on it for a long time? It sound like 9 year-old logic.
And besides, why would I want any of the land in the West Bank or Gaza? The answer is- I don't. Only religious zealots want that.
You know why most Israelis don't give a shit about what will happen to the Palestinians? Because the Palestinians kicked the beehive and expected the bees to go back in. By responding with violence, and against civilians no less, the Palestinians have basically turned their last chance, the Israeli public, against them. You can piss off the Government, you can piss off the military, but you don't piss off the people. Why? Because the people are your last defense, your last chance. Government might oppose you, but the people can convince it to back down. But once the people say "hey, we're sick and tired of this bullshit, this needs to stop [b]no matter what[/b]" (and the words in bold are important here), the government basically gets permission to wash all of its dirty laundry in public, and without anyone giving a shit.
This is going to be a long analogy, but bear with me.
In this analogy, there are two People- Palestinian and Israel. Israel took Palestinian's car, and Palestinian wants it back. Now, Palestinian tries to talk to Israel about the car for a while. Palestinian claims that he owns that car for a long time, and he really needs it to live properly. Israel says that Palestinian never owned the car in the first place, he just borrowed it from whoever owned it for a long time, and besides, Israel's house burned down some time ago, so he [b]obviously[/b] needs it more than him anyway. Palestinian is mad, but he doesn't try to fight Israel for the car, oh no-He waits outside of Israel's house, and beats up his little brother when he comes out. Big mistake. Why? Because before that, some of Israel's family kind of wanted him to give the car back to Palestinian; But now nobody in Israel's family gives a single shit about what's going to happen to Palestinian. Israel goes to his arms-dealing buddy, United-States, and asks him for help. US arms Israel up, Israel goes to Palestinian's house, shoots him in the leg, prevents him from leaving the house and doesn't allow anyone else to enter either. Palestinian sometimes sneaks out and beats up members of Israel's family as revenge, which causes Israel to tighten security around Palestinian's house, and repeat again and again and again.
Now, who is to blame for this, Israel or Palestinian? The answer is [b]both[/b]. Israel over reacted and shot Palestinian because he wanted to get his family's support for a long time, And Palestinian beat up Israel's little brother, even though he [b]knew[/b] that it won't bring him back his car and would only anger Israel more. None of them have [b]any right to the car[/b], so trying to solve this argument by finding out "who [b]really[/b] owns the car" is not only pointless, but dumb as well, [b]because the argument was never about the car in the first place.[/b] It is about revenge, public support, and fear.
Well, that took me a long time to write.
[quote]So the Palestinians own it because they've been sitting on it for a long time?[/quote]
Why do the (european) Israelites own it, then?
[QUOTE=Contag;33557540]Why do the (european) Israelites own it, then?[/QUOTE]
Read my post above please. To it's fullest. It will explain.
[QUOTE=Glorbo;33557553]Read my post above please. To it's fullest. It will explain.[/QUOTE]
The problem is that it fails to include Britain. Perhaps Britain is an abusive step-father who stole the car from some distant relative of Palestine. Wow the analogy gets really complex really quickly.
I agree that both sides are at fault because of the violence that is committed by both sides, but that Israel is 'more' at fault due to their far greater power.
[QUOTE=Contag;33557720]
I agree that both sides are at fault because of the violence that is committed by both sides, but that Israel is 'more' at fault due to their far greater power.[/QUOTE]
I tend to disagree. If someone wants to kill you, it doesn't matter if he has a cannon or a slingshot, because his intent is what matters. Guns don't kill people, people do.
We're basically arguing on one of the most common topics in philosophy- What matters, the potential (as in, intent) or the existing (the actual device for the intention)? I believe that intention is at the root of the problem, as it causes the most long term damage, and it should be solved first. You don't blow up someone's house if you don't have a detonator, and you don't kill someone if you don't have the intention to. On the other hand, with enough intention, you can kill with anything. So my equation doesn't really factor in power.
Why are the Arabs allowed to conquer it and keep it, but when the Allies conquer it and give it to the Jews it's wrong? Seems like a double standard to me.
There has been too much blood shed, anger, hate and grief between either group for a solution to be effective in a short time. No matter the solution, someone is going to feel as though they are getting the short end of the stick.
Extremists on both sides only serve to fuel the flames. Many of the peace treaties, or peaceful times were destroyed by the actions of a few, causing the suffering of many. The extremists often get labelled as part of the whole, not a outlying figure, by the other side. Short of eliminating the entirety of one side or another, there is not going to be any sort of solution that magically stops all violence. There is simply to much history and bad blood between the two groups.
However in its current situation, Israel does have to much control and power in the region, in my opinion.
[QUOTE=Glorbo;33557457][b]Stealing[/b] land?
Last time I checked, nobody can properly claim it. So the Palestinians own it because they've been sitting on it for a long time? It sound like 9 year-old logic.
And besides, why would I want any of the land in the West Bank or Gaza? The answer is- I don't. Only religious zealots want that.
You know why most Israelis don't give a shit about what will happen to the Palestinians? Because the Palestinians kicked the beehive and expected the bees to go back in. [u]By responding with violence, and against civilians no less, the Palestinians have basically turned their last chance,[/u] the Israeli public, against them. You can piss off the Government, you can piss off the military, but you don't piss off the people. Why? Because the people are your last defense, your last chance. Government might oppose you, but the people can convince it to back down. But once the people say "hey, we're sick and tired of this bullshit, this needs to stop [b]no matter what[/b]" (and the words in bold are important here), the government basically gets permission to wash all of its dirty laundry in public, and without anyone giving a shit.
[/QUOTE]
I'll address the underlined point first, Israelis killing civilians isn't justified just because [U]some[/U] Palestinians killed Israeli civilians.
The civilians on either side did nothing to deserve to be killed or have their home demolished, both sides have committed terrible acts but as I've said before when one side has a technologically advanced and well-equipped military, and the other has fuck-all with which to compete I think it's up to the stronger side to step up and try to end it.
It's comparable to a 20 year-old man being hit by a 4 year-old child and hitting them back, it's up to the stronger party to sort it out in a peaceful way without such childish excuses as "they hit us first".
And I'm not going to get into your analogy, because it just backs up my point.
Is it okay if I steal your car and claim you didn't own it? And why would 'Palestinian' need to fight 'Israeli' for the right to the car when it was clearly his to begin with, in fact you say "Israel took Palestinian's car" which is basically stating that it was rightfully Palestinian's car to begin with.
[QUOTE=Glorbo;33557817]I tend to disagree. If someone wants to kill you, it doesn't matter if he has a cannon or a slingshot, because his intent is what matters. Guns don't kill people, people do.
We're basically arguing on one of the most common topics in philosophy- What matters, the potential (as in, intent) or the existing (the actual device for the intention)? I believe that intention is at the root of the problem, as it causes the most long term damage, and it should be solved first. You don't blow up someone's house if you don't have a detonator, and you don't kill someone if you don't have the intention to. On the other hand, with enough intention, you can kill with anything. So my equation doesn't really factor in power.[/QUOTE]
Intention may have some importance but 'actions speak louder than words' as they say, I might want to steal someone else's television but it doesn't really become a problem unless I can follow through with it.
Wheras Israel has both bad intentions and the means to carry out those intentions, and they have done so for quite a while (Demolishing houses to build settlements fragmenting what little territory the Palestinians have left, carrying out indiscriminate attacks without regard for civilians).
[i]Note: I know it's a long post, but please read all of it[/i]
[QUOTE=WhatTheKlent;33565311]Israelis killing civilians isn't justified just because some Palestinians killed Israeli civilians.[/QUOTE]
No, it's not. I never said it is. In fact, I clearly stated that Israel over reacted.
But lets consider the Palestinian logic here for a second. What did they hope to achieve by attacking Israel, and [b]innocent civilians[/b] no less? What, did they think that the clearly stronger Israel would say "oh, well, we totally didn't expect this shit, you can have everything"? Did they expect that the Israeli public wouldn't want to get back at them? Did they expect that the Israeli government wouldn't use their acts of terror to gain support? Did they expect pouring gasoline on the fire would suddenly put it out? What did they expect?
The answer is, they didn't care about any of that, because as I said, it was never about the land in the first place, it is about getting revenge.
[QUOTE=WhatTheKlent;33565311]
It's comparable to a 20 year-old man being hit by a 4 year-old child and hitting them back[/QUOTE]
No, it's not. It is fucking not. Stop treating them like all they have is slingshots and rocks for god's sake, they use [b]BM-21 rockets, car bombs, explosives, and machine guns.[/b] Your argument falls into the territory of "Well, all they do is charge at you with knives, bows and arrows and spears so when you fire your gun you're clearly using disproportional force". Well what the fuck do you want me to do? [b]Not[/b] gain a technological edge? And besides, if the terrorist organizations could use bigger guns, you think they wouldn't use them, or at least threaten to use them? The only thing that prevents Hamas from launching rockets at Tel Aviv (and they have rockets capable of reaching there) is because they are afraid of a massive Israeli response.
[QUOTE=WhatTheKlent;33565311]Is it okay if I steal your car and claim you didn't own it? And why would 'Palestinian' need to fight 'Israeli' for the right to the car when it was clearly his to begin with, in fact you say "Israel took Palestinian's car" which is basically stating that it was rightfully Palestinian's car to begin with.[/QUOTE]
My wording was a bit off. Palestinian didn't own the car, he just borrowed it from whoever had it for a long time. Just because he did it doesn't automatically makes the car his-The car belongs to whoever the last owner wants to give it to. Also, it seems weird to me that Palestinian was pissed when Israel took the car, but didn't really give a shit when Jordan was doing the same.
Claiming that you own a piece of land because you sat on it for a long long time is the same as that kid in the classroom that claims a chair is his because he sat on it all year long. And as I've said, Israel's claim to the land doesn't really make much sense either.
[b]Just because a terrorist organization has less strength, doesn't mean it has the moral superiority.[/b] I'm sorry, but plotting to and murdering innocent civilians is not how you supposedly "defend" your people, it's acts of petty revenge. "BUT THE ISRAELIS ARE KILLING MORE PEOPLE!" Yeah, but their main target is the terrorist organizations, not the civilian population as a whole. You really think that if the Israelis wanted to kill Palestinian civilians they would kill this little? If the Israeli military was to target civilians, death wouldn't be in the hundreds, it would be in the hundreds of thousands. If Israel really wanted to kill civilians in Gaza in 2009, it wouldn't even bother to send in ground troops-Why risk troops running around in alley and streets and entering booby-trapped houses when you can just bomb shit from the air?
[b]The part where Israel is at fault is that it tries to constantly squeeze votes out of the conflict, and in nasty ways most of the time.[/b] Why do you think the house demolishing and the Gaza blockade were and are still used? Because people like the feeling of revenge, and if a government or a party to be exact gives it to them, they vote. Why do you think all the leaders in Israel constantly try to give benefits to the religious nuts? Because they know that these guys hold a large block of the voting power in Israel, and that their vote is almost unanimous-What their religious leaders tell them to put in the ballot, they put there. Israeli leaders constantly try to feed the people's appetite for revenge, and sometimes they even try to aggravate the terrorist organizations to get some credit (granted, they do it non violently usually, but it's still utter bullshit).
Here is my main point for you. [b]Stop being such a political hipster[/b]. The underdog isn't always the victim, and just because he's weaker doesn't mean his blows can't hurt just as bad. [b]Murder is Murder is Murder[/b]. There is no "morally justifiable" murder, there is no "necessary" murder, there is [b]Murder[/b].
[QUOTE=Glorbo;33566845]No, it's not. I never said it is. In fact, I clearly stated that Israel over reacted.
But lets consider the [b][u]Palestinian logic[/u][/b] here for a second. What did they hope to achieve by attacking Israel, and innocent civilians no less? [/QUOTE]
This is another one of the problems in this conflict rearing its head. Both sides take the actions of a few as the actions of the whole.
[QUOTE=Corewarp3;33534289]Problem: Israel has military technology from America and NATO.
Israel is a very close ally to America.
Israel was given to the "Jews" after WW2 because of the holocaust.
After seeing how Israelies and other Jews act today against Muslims and other people, I can't help but think that Hitler was right in some respects.[/QUOTE]
I can't help but think it is the fact you assume things on the basis of nothing (i.e I R WATCH NEWS I KNOW THE TRUTH), choose to ignore the basic fact news, unlike the old days, isn't there to bring just news but money as well. Where there's money, there are lies and scandals.
I can't help but think, your idiotic analogy and practically childish way of thinking is what makes this "rage" against Israel still burn.
[QUOTE=Ogopogo;33566957]This is another one of the problems in this conflict rearing its head. Both sides take the actions of a few as the actions of the whole.[/QUOTE]
Notice How I wrote "terrorist organization" most of the time and not "Palestinians". This is because I didn't really mean Palestinian society as a whole, but the militias that are among them or that run them. So that word kind of slipped, but it wasn't my intention to generalize.
[QUOTE=Ogopogo;33566957]This is another one of the problems in this conflict rearing its head. Both sides take the actions of a few as the actions of the whole.[/QUOTE]
You have a point. Though, it's invalid. People follow, and will blindly follow forever with the simplest amount of persuasion (take Hitler for example). At the state of the current Middle Eastern conflict, I'd say it's a doomed situation.
[QUOTE=Seith;33567018](take Hitler for example)[/QUOTE]
God dammit, you just had to didn't you?
I am bound to. I'm jewish.
[QUOTE=Seith;33567632]I am bound to. I'm jewish.[/QUOTE]
Godwins law skips no one.
I think that law is only validated constantly because the fact all debates come from the same place, with the exact same opinions on each side. We're humans and we're bound to be subjective whether we want or not.
That's why I never give out my opinion, but rather a crude observation of the situation.
[QUOTE=Sickle;33537820]Oh wow that's fucking sick.[/QUOTE]
Every other religious text bashes the other.
Reading the Koran it advocates that captured prisoners of war be converted to Islam. It should also be stressed that the Koran called out on how the people of the book (Jews and Christians) have been corrupted by being led astray. The same could be said about Christians on Catholics and vice-versa
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.