41 Palestinians killed, 5,000 injured since March at Gaza border protests
75 replies, posted
Are you saying Palestinians don't have a right to the area despite living there for centuries? I guess Israelites don't either!
Nope.
Reality has other ideas.
My great grandparents immigrated to the US from Germany.
Is Germany obligated to give me citizenship if I demand it? No. This is the same principle. You can have a legitimate argument for anyone who lived in the Mandate before 1948, but there are very few of them left these days. All those other people are demanding a right to live in a land they have never lived there before.
And let's not forget that fellow Arab nations treat Palestinians like trash and have so for decades. They bar them from jobs, keep citizenship away from them, and hold them in permanent refugee camps that have turned into cities of Palestinian enclaves. If Israel's neighbors treated them better, I suspect Israel wouldn't have even half of these people demanding entry into a place they do not know nor have ever stepped foot into.
Might makes right and everything actually belongs to america
it seems very simple to me
palestinians have lived on the land before the jews
it's their land
the end
Overwhelming majority of the Palestinians that have lived before the Jews are long dead. I guess maybe they could push for a right to be buried in Israel, but their descendants do not not "inherit" a right to live there.
What the fuck is the point of this kind of post, other than waving Israel's nuclear cock around?
If your point has nothing to do with ethical justification, then don't fucking mention it. As if you hadn't derailed the thread - which, need I remind you, is about Israeli soldiers killing Palestinians - enough already, you feel the need to point out that they could wipe out even more of them?
You best have the backing of at least two world powers before you are allowed any sort of dignity.
I'm pretty sure the purpose of the thread is the Palestinian desire to "return" to "their" land. That's what they're protesting for, which is what these in the OP were killed doing.
What's your point? Jews do have the right to return to israel because they've lived there centuries ago? Palestines don't have the right to return despite living there for centuries? because Israel is stronger?
The Jews that immigrated there between 1890 and 1948 probably didn't have much of a right to do so if they illegally got their way in.
However, the Jews that live there today, the ones that were born there and have never lived elsewhere, have a complete right to live where they were born to.
I could go to israel right now and gain citizenship if wanted to.
Good for you. I don't really agree with that law either for the same premise.
yeah because its a jewish state, if you're jewish you're entitled to citizenship
the Jewish right to return is more about being able to easily leave a country and settle in israel with minimized trouble, its nothing to do with religion, its more about escaping persecution if needed for example the expulsion of Jews from Arab countries or operation Solomon
It has little to do with their ability to massacre Palestinians and a lot more to do with how they interact with other countries.
Assuming Israel hit the point where outside military intervention became appealing, it would remain a non starter because they are a nuclear nation. We CAN'T intervene. Nobody can.
Even enacting sanctions would in turn starve the nation, which would force them to turn aggressive. They would attack like a wounded animal and invade and seize surrounding territories.
I apologize that this wasn't clearer.
I've never heard of that law as a concept of refuge before
they widened the law to include Jews that aren't actually Jewish by religious standards but just by ethnic standards because of that, there's been cases of Christians being able to get into israel using the law of return because one of the spouses had a jewish grandfather, it's definitely partly a refuge law
Probably should have a talk with my Arab-Israeli Conflict professor. She described it solely as a method of increasing the population of Israel and thus the defensive capabilities of the country as well as boosting the legitimacy of the nation's existence.
what's her actual experience with the israel/palestine conflict? a lot of professors who say they have experience in this visit israel, masturbate with other academics in the tel aviv bubble, and then leave the country claiming to be a expert on the country and the conflict
I don't quite remember, I had her like 5 years ago in college. I do remember that she had her specific history degree related to Israel in some manner, or the middle east at large and that she "travels to Israel every year".
Let's ignore the part where the Palestinians declared war on an infant Israel and brought several Arab nations along for the ride. If Israel actually kept to the 1948 borders after their neighbors expressed such a distinct willingness to destroy the country, it would be an act of suicide.
You do realize theres "rights" as things granted, which are factually dependent on the authority, and "rights" that are taken as ideals that all people deserve as part of a universal system, right?
One being a legal fact doesn't stop the other being an ideal, part of a moral system.
Look, it doesn't matter.
It doesn't matter who was there first and who came later. It doesn't matter who has more of a right to what. You can argue over this forever and it will achieve absolutely fucking nothing.
The fact is we're both here. Israel is here and isn't going anywhere. The Palestinians are here and aren't going anywhere. Jews aren't going to hand over the keys to the land and fuck off back to Europe and North Africa and the rest of the Middle East or submit to yet another despotic Islamic rule. The Palestinians aren't going to fuck off into the rest of the Arab world and settle for being second class citizens everywhere else in the Middle East.
There is only one solution to this conflict, and as much as both side hate it both sides and pretty much the rest of the world realize it's the only solution that makes sense: two states. One for us, one for them. Both sides are going to give up stuff they want. Claims to land. Birth rights. Jerusalem. Both sides will end up feeling fucked over. But we'll both have our own shitty little countries, and we won't be killing each other.
That's it. That's all that counts. Everything else is politics and maneuvering.
Hamas isn't trying to reclaim Israel. The Gazans they're using to break down the border and march into Israel aren't trying to move into Israel and shoo away the Jews, or lay claim to their ancestral land or whatever. They're there to help get Hamas militants across the border, hopefully do some damage on the Israeli side, definitely get some Palestinians killed in the process to show the world and the Palestinians. Because Hamas is currently shunned by the world at large, the Arab world and the Palestinian Authority. They're starved for cash, they can't pay for electricity and salaries and they're on the verge of collapse. They need a conflict with Israel to maintain legitimacy, because that's pretty much the only thing they're about.
Are you trying to say that economic sanctions necessarily involves outright starving the fucking country?
Maybe if a certain nation wasn't so keen on vehemently sucking the dick of a government that faces otherwise international condemnation for their behavior, it would be a good start?
The notion that any form of sanction would lead to them turning aggressive is just ridiculous. Would you have the same line of reasoning about North Korea, another, much more antagonistic, nuclearly-armed nation? If that were true, that would be all the more reason to stop supporting them anyway.
I was suggesting that they would be starved of resources, not food. Economic setbacks would threaten their physical security and they would likely respond in kind.
Anyhow, on to the second point. Why would the US stop supporting Israel?
I recognize that you view the mistreatment of the Palestinians as a reason, and I'm not suggesting that it isn't a valid moral argument, but it hardly compares to the benefit of a mostly competent culutrally similar military ally in the region at a political level. It is a simple pro vs con.
You mean the nuclear warheads that they couldn't use without a massive amount of international condemnation and probably a cut off of all outside support besides daddy America?
Oh yeah sure they're deffo going to nuke the countries surrounding them yeah totally, I can see that happening without any kind of backlash at all.
(Btw unironically supporting Might is Right whilst having a BOS pic as your PP is hilarious irony)
For the second time, might does not make right.
It is, however, the means by which power is established.
Israel isn't likely to nuke their neighbors, no. It is, however militarily unassailable. If you stack up to invade, they would probably deploy a nuke defensively.
Again Israel is in power. There is no sequence of events which could realistically achieve the "return" of lands to the Palestinians.
Nor should it, they were the aggressors in the conflict.
Meanwhile Israel will continue to get support from the US because they are the regional power that is both relatively stable and has generally fucked us the least.
Yes. And you should live with it.
No matter the progress in our lives, might ist richtig in its primitives. Israel didnt get their land fairly, very true, but after setting a claim they brushed off everyone.
Uhh, wasn't that the entire argument for the foundation of Israel to begin with? "Promised Land" and all that? That's a pretty hypocritical thing to say. Double standards.
They still wouldn't use a nuke and if they did it would be a complete and utter disaster for them support wise, they'd be responsible for the deaths of millions (or at the very least hundereds of thousands) and i'd wager even the US would abandon them at that point
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.