Reflect - SciForums.com

otheadp

01-11-10, 09:17 PM

Man, you see what the youth are rambling about?

Every subsequent generation of young pro-"palestinian" activists have information that went through another iteration of Broken Telephone. It's such bullshit.

The real longstanding underlying issue here is not this silly map. I could provide you with the REAL maps, but you of course will dismiss them and call me names, and it's not what the real debate is or should be about. The real issue is this: do the "palestinians" and their so-called supporters in the "neighbourhood" (so-called, because I don't see them supporting them at all, other than to NOT grant them citizenship or immigrant status, which is no support at all) recognize Israel's right to exist. If they do, there will be negotiations and some sort of border will be drawn up. A little sand for us, a little sand for them (G-d knows they don't have enough sand, these poor Arabs), and we'll be done with it once and for all. Both peoples (only once a FINAL agreement is reached I will reluctantly and grudgingly recognize the Arabs calling themselves "palestinians" as a unique and separate people) will have their own state, and will flourish and live in dignity and even become good good friends after a decade or three.

But they don't recognize Israel as the national home of the Jewish people. Jews in Israel don't have any where else to go. Do you understand? That's their home. It's been where they've yearned to go for thousands of years. "Be'shana ha ba'a be'Yerushalaim" ("next year in Jerusalem") is said in every single Passover Seder, which is the longest running religious ceremony on earth - it's been celebrated every year for thousands of years. Before Islam was even created. Before Arabs made their way up the Arabian peninsula in their expanding wars into Palestina (a word that they can't even pronounce, let alone claim the identity of its "original" inhabitants). The real masses of which, by the way, started making their way to Palestine only when the Jewish pioneers came, drained the swamps, created the kibbutzim, and created some sort of economy. So the Arabs from the surrounding areas (today's Iraq, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon) came flocking in. Not all of the Palestina's Arabs came there that way, but most did.

Anyway, all these side arguments are simple distractions. Once the Arabs and Muslims in the Middle East recognize the principle of Israel being the national home for the Jews, forever, then we can do business and do the whole "land for peace" crap. Until then it'll be what it's been for the past 90 years (beginning with the Hebron massacres of Jews by Arabs in 1920s, before Israel even existed as an independent state, before any UN partitions, before any defensive wars where Israel won and grabbed territory. Or maybe even earlier than that.)

ElectricFetus

01-11-10, 09:26 PM

Ok. You see the Area which was all Palestine? Over time, Israel kept taking more and more and more of the land which was once called Palestine. Have you seen how this is done? They tear down peoples houses, with a bulldozer. They do not give them a new home and they do not give them money. They tell them to get lost.

If israel could give back a section of egypt than they could give back a section of palestine, for example they gave back the lower section of gaza in 2005.

Egypt and Palestine are not the same thing. So, for example. I demolish your house and kick you out from your country, and I tell you to go live in Canada? Is this humane? Is this how Israel and America deal with 3rd world countries? Is this the democracy they are trying to spread? What are you trying to go against? The truth?

Well I don't know what israel trying to spread nor do I think their actions are ethical, all I was saying is that israel growth has not been so continues as that chart suggest its missing all the times israel has return land.

-ND-

01-11-10, 09:52 PM

If israel could give back a section of egypt than they could give back a section of palestine, for example they gave back the lower section of gaza in 2005.

Well I don't know what israel trying to spread nor do I think their actions are ethical, all I was saying is that israel growth has not been so continues as that chart suggest its missing all the times israel has return land.

I don't think so. This is most recent I can find.

http://regionalgeography.org/101blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/Israel-debM.jpg

Clearly shows nothing has been given back. It was strictly conquest. I thought people stoped conquering land after WW2. I guess Imperialism is not dead.

http://regionalgeography.org/101blog/?p=432

ElectricFetus

01-12-10, 02:26 AM

See that lower part on Gaza, in 2005 israel withdraw from their completely
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel%27s_unilateral_disengagement_plan

Clearly you have to look at more than just maps.

Buffalo Roam

01-12-10, 08:44 AM

Yup. They stole everything. No one seems to care.

Really?

Not according to the historical facts.

What started out as a National Home Land for the Israelis, The Palestinian Mandate, became a Land of Arabs.

The problem was cause by a overly promising, Royal Air Force Colonel, Lt.Col. T. E. Lawrence, who made His own policies promises to the Arabs.

The British recieved the Mandate, from the Treaty of Paris, and the San Remo Convention,

The preamble of the mandate;

Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have also agreed that the Mandatory should be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2nd, 1917, by the Government of His Britannic Majesty, and adopted by the said Powers, in favor of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.

Article 2.

The Mandatory shall be responsible for placing the country under such political, administrative and economic conditions as will secure the establishment of the Jewish national home, as laid down in the preamble, and the development of self-governing institutions, and also for safeguarding the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine, irrespective of race and religion.

Now how did these Lawful Treaty ending WWI, establishing a Homeland for the Jews, under the League of Nations auspices, in The Palestine Mandate, end up giving 80% of the Mandate to the Arabs, in what was called the Transjordan, (the real State of Palestine) to the Arabs, and then taking the 20% that was left, and again promised to the Jews as a State for them,
(Which again was divided, giving 65% of the Land to the Arabs) become the Israelis stealing the Lands of the Mandate?

The next question is;

The Arabs rejected U.N. 181, meaning that they also rejected the establishment of a Palestinian State West of the Jordan, ( A Palestinian State already having been established East of the Jordan, The Transjordan) went to war to take all the lands of the Palestinian Mandate, and lost, and in so losing had no right to the lands because they rejected a treaty, U.N. 181 which would have given them surety over those lands.

So who stole the lands? The Arabs, by hook crook and attempted war.

pjdude1219

01-12-10, 10:34 AM

Did you read a thing I said, they gave back the whole Sinai so it possible that with enough of the right kind of pressure they will give back the settlements.

See
http://www.mrburnett.net/apworldhistory/maps/middleeastisrael1967.bmp

the reason that pressure came for the sinai came from the british and the suez cannel(one of the most importand water ways in the world in respects to trade) the same incentive to put that kind of pressure just doesn't exist with what is currently recognized as occupied palestine nor for that matter palestine as a whole. I think we can all agree whether pro palerstine or Israel that palestine just isn't as important to the global economy as freely being able to pass through the suez.

pjdude1219

01-12-10, 10:36 AM

Exactly, and Israel gave it back.

not willing though.the british,us and I believe french pressured them to giv it back.

fedr808

01-12-10, 10:42 AM

you must be pro-israel. Enough said.

Actually, I believe most of that land taken actually belonged to other countries and in most cases it wasnt an offensive war, it was actually other countries attacking the Israelis, and the Israelis coutner attacked and took loads of land before their political leaders could have the change to cry for a cease fire:bawl:.

fedr808

01-12-10, 10:44 AM

the reason that pressure came for the sinai came from the british and the suez cannel(one of the most importand water ways in the world in respects to trade) the same incentive to put that kind of pressure just doesn't exist with what is currently recognized as occupied palestine nor for that matter palestine as a whole. I think we can all agree whether pro palerstine or Israel that palestine just isn't as important to the global economy as freely being able to pass through the suez.

I thought Israel giving it back wasnt because of pressure, but as a condition of the peace treaty with Egypt.

pjdude1219

01-12-10, 10:51 AM

Man, you see what the youth are rambling about?

Every subsequent generation of young pro-"palestinian" activists have information that went through another iteration of Broken Telephone. It's such bullshit. You mean like how young Israelis aren't tough pre war of zionist/jewish aggression demographics?

The real longstanding underlying issue here is not this silly map. I could provide you with the REAL maps, but you of course will dismiss them and call me names, and it's not what the real debate is or should be about. These are the real maps.
The real issue is this: do the "palestinians" and their so-called supporters in the "neighbourhood" (so-called, because I don't see them supporting them at all, other than to NOT grant them citizenship or immigrant status, which is no support at all) recognize Israel's right to exist. That is a false issue. No one should have to be made to say a crime against them was right.
If they do, there will be negotiations and some sort of border will be drawn up. But they have and no border has been made. Israel still takes more.
A little sand for us, a little sand for them (G-d knows they don't have enough sand, these poor Arabs), And that is your fundmental misunderstanding. One side doesn't deserve sand for their own country(Israel)
and we'll be done with it once and for all. No we won't. Ignoring the real problems never fixes any thing.
Both peoples (only once a FINAL agreement is reached I will reluctantly and grudgingly recognize the Arabs calling themselves "palestinians" as a unique and separate people) will have their own state, That will happen long after you and me are dead.
and will flourish and live in dignity and even become good good friends after a decade or three. Why not make them friends and have one state for all palestinians jewish or arab.

But they don't recognize Israel as the national home of the Jewish people. Jews in Israel don't have any where else to go. except where they came from.
Do you understand? That's their home. No it isn't. You don't get to ignore something for 1700 years and claim it as a home.
It's been where they've yearned to go for thousands of years. "Be'shana ha ba'a be'Yerushalaim" ("next year in Jerusalem") is said in every single Passover Seder,which is why no effort was made to get there?
which is the longest running religious ceremony on earth - it's been celebrated every year for thousands of years. Well Zorastrisim has been going longer? you know the religion that Judasism stole from
Before Islam was even created. Keep on trying to turn Israel into a religious thing just hurts your cause.
Before Arabs made their way up the Arabian peninsula in their expanding wars into Palestina (a word that they can't even pronounce, let alone claim the identity of its "original" inhabitants). which is why the first record of arabs was in palestine? the proto arab people moved into the area about the same time as the other semitic peoples.
The real masses of which, by the way, started making their way to Palestine only when the Jewish pioneers came, drained the swamps, created the kibbutzim, and created some sort of economy. If that were the case we would see it reflected in land ownership but we see the reverse. the palestinians owning the land. how do you account for that?
So the Arabs from the surrounding areas (today's Iraq, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon) came flocking in. Not all of the Palestina's Arabs came there that way, but most did. some did but most were their long before zionism.

Anyway, all these side arguments are simple distractions. Once the Arabs and Muslims in the Middle East recognize the principle of Israel being the national home for the Jews, I think they would be willing to recognize as a jewish home if Israel were to recognize that arabs have a link almost as long and should be allowed to live in their ancestral home too.
forever, nothing is forever
then we can do business and do the whole "land for peace" crap. Youy mean giving back stolen shit so that they can keep other stolen shit. I will agree thats crap. all of it should be returned.
Until then it'll be what it's been for the past 90 years (beginning with the Hebron massacres of Jews by Arabs in 1920s, before Israel even existed as an independent state, before any UN partitions, before any defensive wars where Israel won and grabbed territory. Or maybe even earlier than that.) Arabs defending themselvers against theft?

pjdude1219

01-12-10, 10:53 AM

I thought Israel giving it back wasnt because of pressure, but as a condition of the peace treaty with Egypt.

out side pressure got in their and pushed for a peace treaty. Thje british were horrified at the idea of Eygpt and Israel fighting along the banks of the suez.

pjdude1219

01-12-10, 10:54 AM

Actually, I believe most of that land taken actually belonged to other countries and in most cases it wasnt an offensive war, it was actually other countries attacking the Israelis, and the Israelis coutner attacked and took loads of land before their political leaders could have the change to cry for a cease fire:bawl:.

but international law(which Israel as at least claimed to sign on to) under the montevideo convention(which is merely a restating of the law not creating it) states that countries should not recognize territiorial gains through conquest no matter the cause of the war.

Crunchy Cat

01-12-10, 02:50 PM

http://sydwalker.info/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/palaestine_wiped_off_the_map.jpg

Did anyone ever notice this?

The map is inaccurate (that's one that sam liked to use consequently). The majority of the expansion, after the initial British partition, is a result of Israelis being attacked, winning, and owning captured land. The rest of the expansion is a result of Israel annexing land because they can. I suspect the Israelis feel justified in their actions because of all the attacks they sustained and beat in the past. In a sense, arabs played a big role in turning them into what they are today. To make matters more difficult, Israel is vastly more valuable to the world than Palestine (part of which is run by an organization internationally recognized as terrorists).

ElectricFetus

01-12-10, 04:07 PM

Crunchy Cat

01-12-10, 04:47 PM

Quite correct.

ElectricFetus

01-12-10, 05:35 PM

not willing though.the british,us and I believe french pressured them to giv it back.

If that was true than it would only help my argument about the right pressure being needed for Israel to abandon settlements and leave the west bank and gaza alone.

pjdude1219

01-12-10, 06:46 PM

The map is inaccurate (that's one that sam liked to use consequently). The majority of the expansion, after the initial British partition, is a result of Israelis being attacked, winning, and owning captured land. The rest of the expansion is a result of Israel annexing land because they can. I suspect the Israelis feel justified in their actions because of all the attacks they sustained and beat in the past. In a sense, arabs played a big role in turning them into what they are today. To make matters more difficult, Israel is vastly more valuable to the world than Palestine (part of which is run by an organization internationally recognized as terrorists).

International law doesn't recognize any expansion through military means no matter who started the war.

pjdude1219

01-12-10, 06:48 PM

If that was true than it would only help my argument about the right pressure being needed for Israel to abandon settlements and leave the west bank and gaza alone.

true but they also had far more reason to apply in the egypt thing than with palestine.

pjdude1219

01-12-10, 06:54 PM

The map also does not show all the land lost by Jews during the Jewish exodus from Arab lands after the formation of israel, most of those jews were forced out without payment for land and property left behind. In fact it is estimated that 4 times the amount of land Israel takes up was lost to Arabs when the Arabs forced the jews out of their countries.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_exodus_from_Arab_lands and as almost any palestinian support will tell you they deserve compensation they don't deserve to keep stolen palestinian homes

Israelis did not force out the arabs in all the land they occupied in reprisal, Your right it was what triggered the expelling of the jews. the expelling of the jews was a reprisal
this was not a wise move in the long term for israel, since when have any of Israel's ventures been wise for the long term safety. most of them ensure it long term safety goes down.
if israel had forced out all the palestinians in the west bank and gaza after the 6-day war they would not have this occupation problem, for a person who judges other peoples beliefs so much perhaps you might not want too encourage the breaking of international law.
if the arab states had accepted all those refugees then there would not be a refugee problem today from the 1948 war and following wars.
Why should they be forced to continual pay for refugees when the person who expelled them benifits from that? it basically encourage the breaking of laws regareding refugees. Also if Israel would have invaded palesztinian lands in the partitian than no war and you have a pontential freindly arab state at this point in history

Crunchy Cat

01-12-10, 07:39 PM

International law doesn't recognize any expansion through military means no matter who started the war.

That is quite correct and in practice international law is flexible. Had the Israelis left the original borders after being attacked, they would have been at a big disadvantage from future attacks (which there were). Naturally they valued their safety.

Norsefire

01-12-10, 07:44 PM

Here's my brilliant solution to this problem: let them kill each other. Then, Syria or Lebanon or heck, even Greece can come in and take the land and actually do something with it.

pjdude1219

01-12-10, 08:01 PM

That is quite correct and in practice international law is flexible. Had the Israelis left the original borders after being attacked, they would have been at a big disadvantage from future attacks (which there were). Naturally they valued their safety.

and constantlly starting shit is the way to be safe. and while I admit their borders were a bit loopy that made it harder to defend than most other borders but the only reason the borders were like that is do to the gerymandering that war required to produce a jewish majority in an area.

Crunchy Cat

01-12-10, 08:44 PM

It is what it is. Now they're in a situation where the Israelis are annexing land and Fatah and Gaza are jacked.

ElectricFetus

01-12-10, 09:00 PM

and as almost any palestinian support will tell you they deserve compensation they don't deserve to keep stolen palestinian homes

Sure why not give them the jewish lands the jews were kick out of in the arab states, that 4 times the amount of land Palestinians originally had!

Your right it was what triggered the expelling of the jews. The expelling of the jews was a reprisal

And when the arab states keep Palestinians in refugee camps against Israelis borders what is that?

since when have any of Israel's ventures been wise for the long term safety. most of them ensure it long term safety goes down.

Maybe.

for a person who judges other peoples beliefs so much perhaps you might not want too encourage the breaking of international law.

Where was international law when the arabs kicked out all the jews?

Why should they be forced to continual pay for refugees when the person who expelled them benifits from that?

How are they benefiting? They lost more than they gained when the arabs kicked them out of their states and took all of their land and property.

it basically encourage the breaking of laws regareding refugees. Also if Israel would have invaded palesztinian lands in the partitian than no war and you have a pontential freindly arab state at this point in history

You mean if the Arabs had not attacked and accepted the UN mandate?

true but they also had far more reason to apply in the egypt thing than with palestine.

Well then apply the right pressure.

Norsefire

01-12-10, 09:02 PM

You mean if the Arabs had not attacked and accepted the UN mandate?

I must say, who the hell gave the UN the right to make that decision for the Palestinians? Let the Palestinians decide amongst themselves whether or not to let the Israelis live there.

ElectricFetus

01-12-10, 09:04 PM

Norsefire

01-12-10, 09:07 PM

The Jews living their would disagree, the UN decision was fair to all: split the two waring populations.

The UN decision was not fair to the Palestinians, because it is overriding their authority. Let the Palestinians decide. The UN need not get involved.

Let the Palestinians decide, and if they decide the Jews can live there, then so be it; if not, the Jews must leave.

Or should I override the authority you possess in your own house, to force you to accept a guest you do not want? Is that fair?

ElectricFetus

01-12-10, 09:42 PM

The UN decision was not fair to the Palestinians, because it is overriding their authority. Let the Palestinians decide. The UN need not get involved.

And thus the jews living there had no authority?

Let the Palestinians decide, and if they decide the Jews can live there, then so be it; if not, the Jews must leave.

One might say why the native Americans or the Aborigine could not kick out the immigrants! And in fact many of those jews living there were doing so for hundreds of years, even thousands.

Or should I override the authority you possess in your own house, to force you to accept a guest you do not want? Is that fair?

If I did not own the house to begin with, sure, the Palestinians did not own or control that land, Britain did.

Norsefire

01-12-10, 09:46 PM

And thus the jews living there had no authority? The Jews that have been living there do, but not the 99% of them that only came after 1948.

If I did not own the house to begin with, sure, the Palestinians did not own or control that land, Britain did.
Nice! I knew you'd finally get around to advocating Imperialism!

Nice one, man.

pjdude1219

01-12-10, 10:06 PM

Sure why not give them the jewish lands the jews were kick out of in the arab states, that 4 times the amount of land Palestinians originally had if the palestinian refugees wish to go to those states than it wouldn't be a problem; problem is they don't want to go to those states they want to go back to their homes.

And when the arab states keep Palestinians in refugee camps against Israelis borders what is that? common sense. thet know more are comming make them in the easiest places to get to.

Maybe. its what happens when you have to systems of radicalization feeding off each other combined with a general state of fear and mistrust.

Where was international law when the arabs kicked out all the jews? probably using your argument of you can't do anything for them with out doing anything for both groups.

How are they benefiting? They lost more than they gained when the arabs kicked them out of their states and took all of their land and property. they don't have to pay to help the refugees if they force them out. I would consider that a benefit.

You mean if the Arabs had not attacked and accepted the UN mandate? The UN had no mandate in fact the partitioning of palestine was directly opposed to the precedent and rules the UN itself stated that countries would be formed along old colonial borders.( its one of the reasons the partitioning of palestine is os hienous it was a different standard for them than for everyone else) secondly the arabs didn't attack. Jewish(non zionist jews were part of the armed forces so yes jewish applies) attacks out side of the jewish part happened before the reverse during the part where the jews/zionists started the escalation. though in all honesty we don't know who started it.

Well then apply the right pressure.

where is the incentive too? most of the west has large jewish population next to no palestinian population and economically it would have a small negative effect on the countries. When the incentive exists than it will happen.

pjdude1219

01-12-10, 10:08 PM

And thus the jews living there had no authority? not for a seperate statre but as a voic e of the state.

One might say why the native Americans or the Aborigine could not kick out the immigrants! technolgy
And in fact many of those jews living there were doing so for hundreds of years, even thousands. the same thing for the arabs?

If I did not own the house to begin with, sure, the Palestinians did not own or control that land, Britain did.um british records show they did have ownership of the land while not having political control and the whole forcible taking land thing was dealt with starting with the magna carta in the UK.

ElectricFetus

01-12-10, 10:26 PM

if the palestinian refugees wish to go to those states than it wouldn't be a problem; problem is they don't want to go to those states they want to go back to their homes.

Well I'm sure many of those Jews kicked out of the arabs states would have loved to keep their land and money too.

common sense. thet know more are comming make them in the easiest places to get to.

So the treating them like shit is common sense?

probably using your argument of you can't do anything for them with out doing anything for both groups.

Exactly, the jews get israel and the palestinians get all the former jewish land, unfortunately the other arabs kept the land for them selves, shoved the Palestinians in refugee camps, treated them like shit and said it was israel problem.

they don't have to pay to help the refugees if they force them out. I would consider that a benefit.

They paid by losing their land and money to begin with, if the Arabs had transfer it to the Palestinians the Palestinians would have been much better of and much more wealthy then they were!

The UN had no mandate in fact the partitioning of palestine was directly opposed to the precedent and rules the UN itself stated that countries would be formed along old colonial borders.( its one of the reasons the partitioning of palestine is os hienous it was a different standard for them than for everyone else) secondly the arabs didn't attack. Jewish(non zionist jews were part of the armed forces so yes jewish applies) attacks out side of the jewish part happened before the reverse during the part where the jews/zionists started the escalation. though in all honesty we don't know who started it.

First of all the UN mandate was real, you my find it hienous but it was real, second palestine/israel was in a state of civil war jews were entering and palestinens were enter, and both were leaving bodies, now the attack I speak of was when jordon and egypt and syria, etc decided to get involved.

where is the incentive too? most of the west has large jewish population next to no palestinian population and economically it would have a small negative effect on the countries. When the incentive exists than it will happen.

Exactly, and whent do you think that will be?

pjdude1219

01-12-10, 10:36 PM

Well I'm sure many of those Jews kicked out of the arabs states would have loved to keep their land and money too. and they have right to get it back

So the treating them like shit is common sense? no making it easy to get to.

Exactly, the jews get israel and the palestinians get all the former jewish land, unfortunately the other arabs kept the land for them selves, shoved the Palestinians in refugee camps, treated them like shit and said it was israel problem. Except that ignores the little thing in law that states the refugees get to choose not me, not you, and not anybody but them selves. and if Israel didn't force them out they wouldn't be refugees so yeah it is Israel's problem.

They paid by losing their land and money to begin with, and "their" state compensated them for it.
if the Arabs had transfer it to the Palestinians the Palestinians would have been much better of and much more wealthy then they were! why would they give money to foriegners that had no inclination of moving their?

First of all the UN mandate was real, you my find it hienous but it was real, I never said it wasn't. pay attention I said it was hienous that different standard was being used for that area.
second palestine/israel was in a state of civil war jews were entering and palestinens were enter, and both were leaving bodies, now the attack I speak of was when jordon and egypt and syria, etc decided to get involved.[/QUOTE] attack palestine maybe but not Israel only 2 armies actually entered in to the jewish section.

Exactly, and when do you think that will be? as things stand now never but few things remain constant. right now we have something that kinda echos the logic behind the gambler's conceit.

-ND-

01-12-10, 10:51 PM

-ND-

01-12-10, 10:53 PM

See that lower part on Gaza, in 2005 israel withdraw from their completely
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel%27s_unilateral_disengagement_plan

Clearly you have to look at more than just maps.

you did not click the link i provided you with.

Crunchy Cat

01-13-10, 01:03 AM

LOL, of course the maps are inaccurate. I guess everyone posts inaccurate maps. You keep telling me that, but the recent map I showed you is from 2009. Palestinian land is still occupied by Israel. They still make the rules in someone else state.

I am Palestinian by the way, I have been there, I know what happens there. Spare your lecturing opinions of ignorance and go use your biases somewhere else. The maps are there, you don't have to be Einstein to figure it out. You guys are just playing a little game of yours.

Your "people" played a huge part in turning the Israelis into what they are today. Their best chance is to declare peace and let the international community get their non-wartime annexed land back and enforce the peace on both sides. Any land that arabs lost to Israelis when attacking them is gone forever.

Michael

01-13-10, 02:45 AM

ElectricFetus

01-13-10, 05:22 AM

and they have right to get it back

Sure and if they were to get that land back then maybe we could talk about dramatically shrinking israel.

no making it easy to get to.

huh?

Except that ignores the little thing in law that states the refugees get to choose not me, not you, and not anybody but them selves. and if Israel didn't force them out they wouldn't be refugees so yeah it is Israel's problem.

Israel did not force them out anymore than the arab states told them to leave to make way for the glories arab armies to crush the jews. Besides I don't see the arab states bowing to law and letting the jews return.

and "their" state compensated them for it.

Well the arab states could have certainly compensated the Palestinians with all that stolen land and money for the jews.

why would they give money to foreigners that had no inclination of moving their?

To be humane to a displace follow people of course, oh that right the arab states care more about being a thorn to the jews than the Palestinian people.

I never said it wasn't. pay attention I said it was hienous that different standard was being used for that area.

Which like I said matter not. The Mandate happened, whin all you want about it being hienous.

attack palestine maybe but not Israel only 2 armies actually entered in to the jewish section.

Oh that makes a difference? "Hey its only one army of British invading America, no big deal."

as things stand now never but few things remain constant. right now we have something that kinda echos the logic behind the gambler's conceit.

Wishful thinking.

StrawDog

01-13-10, 02:15 PM

And in fact many of those jews living there were doing so for hundreds of years, even thousands.
Of course they were. (G_d bless them.) right alongside the Palestinians, their blood being indistinguishable from the Palestinians. Unlike the Europeans. :m:

StrawDog

01-13-10, 02:28 PM

Your "people" played a huge part in turning the Israelis into what they are today. Their best chance is to declare peace and let the international community get their non-wartime annexed land back and enforce the peace on both sides. Any land that arabs lost to Israelis when attacking them is gone forever.
There is blame on both sides of this issue. The Zionists are directly responsible for creating militant Palestinians and of course how does a starving little strip of land with no means of defense declare "peace"? You make it sound like its Palestine who is the mighty military machine. :m:

Let me be candid, for Israel to exist peacefully in the future, there will need to be large compromises in terms of land restitution or (most likely) a shared nation. The era of of carte blanche Zionist carnage is over. The world is not, and will no longer condone it.

Crunchy Cat

01-13-10, 03:53 PM

There is blame on both sides of this issue.

Oh yeah.

The Zionists are directly responsible for creating militant Palestinians...

They played a big part in it.

...and of course how does a starving little strip of land with no means of defense declare "peace"? You make it sound like its Palestine who is the mighty military machine. :m:

Giving Gaza back resulted in increased attacks on Israel. Suffocating Gaza has resulted in decreased attacks. Gaza of course is run by an organization that wants to destroy Israel and that organization has to change their intent to expect any reciprocation from Israel.

Let me be candid, for Israel to exist peacefully in the future, there will need to be large compromises in terms of land restitution or (most likely) a shared nation. The era of of carte blanche Zionist carnage is over. The world is not, and will no longer condone it.

I agree to an extent. I think Israel can and should restore all non-war annexed land as part of a peace deal. I don't think Israelis and Hamas can share any land whatsoever without significant violence. Israel and Fatah certainly could but as to whether they would want to is another story. The internataional community backs Israel and Fata and they will put pressure on both to achieve a peace accord. Hamas on the other hand may be a lost cause, but there is no reason Fatah can't help Israel wipe them out and then take over Gaza.

Buffalo Roam

01-13-10, 07:51 PM

I must say, who the hell gave the UN the right to make that decision for the Palestinians? Let the Palestinians decide amongst themselves whether or not to let the Israelis live there.

The world, when they signed the treaty to join the League of Nations and later the U.N. including Turkey.

Second off there is no such thing as a palestinian, the land was Ottoman Land, lost as a result of being on the wrong side in WWI, and that land was ceded to the British, under League of Nation Mandate.

-ND-

01-13-10, 09:31 PM

-ND-

01-13-10, 09:39 PM

I was pretty sure a large number of Palestinians were originally Jewish?

Israel is about as big as the pan-handle of Florida. That is to say it is TINY. TEENY. PUNY. It's so small no one should give to f*cks about it.

Palestinians and Jews lived in peace, before your American and Britain installed the state of Israel. Zionists are in control of Israel and America.

I agree with you, no one should care. What you don't understand can't hurt ya right? Wrong. They need the Holy Land inorder to get their Anti-Christ. Zionists are Satan worshipers. Do you know that America sends 1/3 of their yearly spending to Israel for over 60 years now?

nirakar

01-13-10, 11:25 PM

By 2030 Israel will have taken 60% of the land the Palestinians currently still have in the West bank. Just watch. Nobody is going to stop them. The slow speed ethnic cleansing costs Israel and the USA a lot of money but it works.

By 2060 Israel will have moved most of the West Bank Palestinians to Gaza and will have begun deporting their Arab citizens. As long as the Arabs remain disunited subjects of dictators that fear their own people the slow speed ethnic cleansing won't face any obstacles large enough to make it stop.

If Israel tried to stop the ethnic cleansing they would end up on the verge of an internal Jewish civil war.

nirakar

01-13-10, 11:44 PM

I vote for kicking the Jews and Palestinians out of Jerusalem and repopulate Jerusalem with Haitians. Jerusalem Issue solved. Or if Haitians are ineligible to get Jerusalem because they are Christians then give Jerusalem to the Shan and Karen people. They need a home and are Buddhists and therefore have no stake in the stupid religious fights over Jerusalem. Move the UN there too. Jerusalem would be a nice location for the UN. Jerusalem is a much more central location than New York.

Crunchy Cat

01-14-10, 03:38 AM

LOL. Ignornace.

That's a claim without evidence.

So who made you what you are today?

Irrelevant.

I don't think you understand. Down there Israel makes the rules, if you don't like it you die.

Irrelevant again.

Spare me more ignorant comments please.

Claiming something is ignorant doesn't make it so. You have to demonstrate your claim using objective data.

Crunchy Cat

01-14-10, 03:49 AM

Palestinians and Jews lived in peace, before your American and Britain installed the state of Israel...

Oh boy. Jews and arabs were fighting very frequently.

Zionists are in control of Israel and America.

Don't know about Israel, but America couldn't care less about "zionists" or their desires.

...They need the Holy Land inorder to get their Anti-Christ. Zionists are Satan worshipers.

If "zionists" are of the jewish religion then they don't believe in Satan.

Do you know that America sends 1/3 of their yearly spending to Israel for over 60 years now?

Seriously? Are you just making things up as you go along?

otheadp

01-14-10, 06:21 AM

-ND-

01-14-10, 09:17 AM

That's a claim without evidence.

Irrelevant.

Irrelevant again.

Claiming something is ignorant doesn't make it so. You have to demonstrate your claim using objective data.

LOL! OK. You win.

-ND-

01-14-10, 09:21 AM

Oh boy. Jews and arabs were fighting very frequently.

Don't know about Israel, but America couldn't care less about "zionists" or their desires.

If "zionists" are of the jewish religion then they don't believe in Satan.

Seriously? Are you just making things up as you go along?

Ohh man, you have a long way to go. Answer my posts in 100 liftimes maybe you will have caught up to me by then. Your range of knowledge is as limited as you far as you can see with your eyes, not very far. Spare me the assumption and irrelevence comments.

-ND-

01-14-10, 09:24 AM

I'd say most of these "palestinians" have these fairytale "facts" in their heads (which is why they call themselves "palestinians" and think Israel belongs to them). I suppose I should be glad that he doesn't think we drink childrens' blood and bake matsas with them, and instead "only" thinks that 1/3 of America's budget is sent to Israel. Oh wait, he did say we are Satan worshipers...

Care to explain that one, "ND"?

Jews and Zionists are different. You foolish little person.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p7OlCcZSkPE

pjdude1219

01-14-10, 09:46 AM

Sure and if they were to get that land back then maybe we could talk about dramatically shrinking israel. They don't want it back though. they made the choice to resettle and garner compensation(through their demands of compensation rather than return to them) the same right to a choice you wish to deny the palestinians.

huh? it was clear

Israel did not force them out anymore than the arab states told them to leave to make way for the glories arab armies to crush the jews. so all those massacres in arab villages never happened?
Besides I don't see the arab states bowing to law and letting the jews return. They don't have to because the jewish refugees didn't choose to want to come back. they chose resettlement and compensation. Now if you can show an effort to return and regain their lands I'll concede the point.

Well the arab states could have certainly compensated the Palestinians with all that stolen land and money for the jews. but at the end of the day it still does nothing to actually address the root problem the palestinians want to return to their lands which is their right under international law. the jews kicked out in retaliation for the forcing out of the arab majority of palestine stile have a right to achieve compensation from the arab states regardless of Israel giving them anything.

To be humane to a displace follow people of course, Since when did you care about being human? Given people like you ensuring Israel view is the dominant one they cannot afford to willing pay for the people Israel has harmed. it sets a precedent that will continue to allow Israel to not pay any cost for those it fucks over.
oh that right the arab states care more about being a thorn to the jews than the Palestinian people. actually its probably more about economics. being forced to spend money on people that bring no money to the state for the benefit of an enemy power. Yeah any state would just wait in line for that opurtunity.

Which like I said matter not. actuually it does. the mandate was in direct contridiction of the UN charter. You might feel it can ignore its charter I dion't.
The Mandate happened, whin all you want about it being hienous.it was hienous,reprehensible, and all good and upstanding people would decry it it as such.

Oh that makes a difference? wheter your being inveaded or not depends on people entering your lands so yeah. secondly it was a reaction to jewish forces enter the arab section so by any normal mean its hard to call it attacking them.

Wishful thinking.

How so I feel eventually most people(the ones that are truely neutral) who hold beliefs like yours will realize their being used by Israel and become solidly pro palestinian. the rest will continue to slavishly support Israel. or we can follow the path you wish to go down. one group genocided the other a total pariah. as it stands the gambler's conceit sums it quite nicely.

pjdude1219

01-14-10, 09:50 AM

I agree to an extent. I think Israel can and should restore all non-war annexed land as part of a peace deal. why is it that every who has an idea to end the conflict always wants to throw part of the law out the window. crunchy Israel has zero right to war annexed lands. the only way to gain lands legitly is through diplomacy. Israel should give back all war annexed land.
I don't think Israelis and Hamas can share any land whatsoever without significant violence. at first but it would die down once it was figured out that palestinian finally had rights in their own lands again.

pjdude1219

01-14-10, 09:52 AM

pjdude1219

01-14-10, 09:54 AM

I'd say most of these "palestinians" have these fairytale "facts" in their heads (which is why they call themselves "palestinians" and think Israel belongs to them). I suppose I should be glad that he doesn't think we drink childrens' blood and bake matsas with them, and instead "only" thinks that 1/3 of America's budget is sent to Israel. Oh wait, he did say we are Satan worshipers...

Care to explain that one, "ND"?

given the shit you belivee you have no ground to complain. his beliefs while counterfactual are closer to reality than yours.

otheadp

01-14-10, 10:24 AM

Jews and Zionists are different. You foolish little person.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p7OlCcZSkPE

You do know it's just a talking point, don't you? Most Jews are Zionist, and it's besides the point, Ahmed (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1uwOL4rB-go).

That never stopped your buddies from targeting babies with sniper bullets and suicide bombs and ambushes. The insane hate emanating from Muslim terrorist leaders and their sympathizers is "Yahood" this and "Yahood" that. They only refer to Israel the country as "Zahyooni". Jews killed the prophet, and Jews are the violators of agreements, and Jews are sons of apes and pigs, etc.

And... what if people are Zionist? They deserve painful death? Do ZIONISTS drink babies' blood and make matsa from it?

You are a fool.

pjdude1219

01-14-10, 12:45 PM

You do know it's just a talking point, don't you? Most Jews are Zionist, and it's besides the point, Ahmed (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1uwOL4rB-go).

That never stopped your buddies from targeting babies with sniper bullets and suicide bombs and ambushes. The insane hate emanating from Muslim terrorist leaders and their sympathizers is "Yahood" this and "Yahood" that. They only refer to Israel the country as "Zahyooni". Jews killed the prophet, and Jews are the violators of agreements, and Jews are sons of apes and pigs, etc.

And... what if people are Zionist? They deserve painful death? Do ZIONISTS drink babies' blood and make matsa from it?

You are a fool.
as most conquers find out. you don't get to be left alone when those you have stolen and abused still exist if you do not wish to reconcile with them.

Crunchy Cat

01-14-10, 03:38 PM

Ohh man, you have a long way to go. Answer my posts in 100 liftimes maybe you will have caught up to me by then. Your range of knowledge is as limited as you far as you can see with your eyes, not very far. Spare me the assumption and irrelevence comments.

The repeated non-sequitor, ad-hom, and appeal to authority attempts aren't fooling anyone except yourself. I can't help you with that, as it's your problem.

Crunchy Cat

01-14-10, 04:28 PM

why is it that every who has an idea to end the conflict always wants to throw part of the law out the window.

It was against international law for Israelis to be attacked from the start. International law can't fit everyone at all times because not all people share the same values. This Israelis valued their safety above international law; hence, when they were attacked, the attackers land was annexed. This removed power, mobility, and ability from the attackers. Had Israelis not won then they might be been killed off and their land annexed (again regardless of international law).

...crunchy Israel has zero right to war annexed lands. the only way to gain lands legitly is through diplomacy.

Rights don't objectively exist. They require humans to make and enforce them. Israelis valued their survival and safety and annexed land at wartime as a result of those values.

Israel should give back all war annexed land.

Israel has no such obligation or committment. They can do what they want with that land. In peacetime they might choose to give a greater share a greater share of their overall land to the Palestinians, but that's a long ways off at the moment.

...at first but it would die down once it was figured out that palestinian finally had rights in their own lands again.

I think that is very optimistic. I suspect the reality would be a miniature afghanistan type of environment, especially if the results of giving back Gaza is any indicator.

ElectricFetus

01-14-10, 04:38 PM

They don't want it back though. they made the choice to resettle and garner compensation(through their demands of compensation rather than return to them) the same right to a choice you wish to deny the palestinians.

well did they get compensated, did they get all their original money back? I'm all for paying the Palestinians for their trouble, but the arabs aren't willing to pay either.

it was clear

Well then make it clearer.

so all those massacres in arab villages never happened? They don't have to because the jewish refugees didn't choose to want to come back. they chose resettlement and compensation. Now if you can show an effort to return and regain their lands I'll concede the point.

so your saying no jewish villages were massacred? It was a war zone.

Most of them didn't choose to leave to begin with, if I was kicked out of somewhere and resettle somewhere else were I'm welcomed I'm not going to go back if the opportunity presents it self, this does not mean a wrong was not committed against me. Take the case of Albert Metzger who was kicked out of egypt leaving behind his hotel, his children successfully sued Egypt in the 90's to get back ownership of the hotel, in fact:

"They told me I'd never win," says Patricia Metzger, 69, in a phone conversation with Haaretz from Dar es Salaam, "but I'm a very stubborn woman. I wanted to return to Alexandria and run the hotel, but the Egyptians told me 'Forget it, it's over.' They kept dragging things out, and in the end they offered us very low compensation."

Egypt in the end merely compensated them poorly over appealing the law suit to death.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/941518.html

but at the end of the day it still does nothing to actually address the root problem the palestinians want to return to their lands which is their right under international law.

Just as it should be the right for the jews to return to their properties in arab states.

the jews kicked out in retaliation for the forcing out of the arab majority of palestine stile have a right to achieve compensation from the arab states regardless of Israel giving them anything.

Agreed and if israel would compensate the Palestinians then their would not be a problem.

Since when did you care about being human?

Who I am does not matter.

Given people like you ensuring Israel view is the dominant one they cannot afford to willing pay for the people Israel has harmed. it sets a precedent that will continue to allow Israel to not pay any cost for those it fucks over. actually its probably more about economics. being forced to spend money on people that bring no money to the state for the benefit of an enemy power. Yeah any state would just wait in line for that opurtunity.

Aaah but the Arab states also fucked over the Palestinians, they attacked, they ruled over what was left of Palestine from 1948 to 1968 and then they refused to take the palestinians back while simultaneously kicking out all the jews to end up filling israel more. No it was not about economics, as King Hussein of Jordan said in 1960:

"Since 1948 Arab leaders have approached the Palestine problem
in an irresponsible manner.... they have used the Palestine
people for selfish political purposes. This is ridiculous and,
I could say, even criminal."

It political, its about creating a human weapon against israel.

actuually it does. the mandate was in direct contridiction of the UN charter. You might feel it can ignore its charter I dion't. it was hienous,reprehensible, and all good and upstanding people would decry it it as such.

you say. If the UN contradicted its charter so be it, they voted to do so.

wheter your being inveaded or not depends on people entering your lands so yeah. secondly it was a reaction to jewish forces enter the arab section so by any normal mean its hard to call it attacking them.

Oh yeah other neighboring countries come in to help defend you, then rule over you for the next 20 years, they only did it to help you.

How so I feel eventually most people(the ones that are truely neutral) who hold beliefs like yours will realize their being used by Israel and become solidly pro palestinian.

Then they would not be neutral.

the rest will continue to slavishly support Israel. or we can follow the path you wish to go down. one group genocided the other a total pariah. as it stands the gambler's conceit sums it quite nicely.

The path I want? You mean the 2 state solution? The whole israel leaving palestine alone path? that a bad path? well alright then.

-ND-

01-14-10, 05:11 PM

-ND-

01-14-10, 05:13 PM

given the shit you belivee you have no ground to complain. his beliefs while counterfactual are closer to reality than yours.

LOL, reality. What fucking lala land do you live in boy?

-ND-

01-14-10, 05:14 PM

The repeated non-sequitor, ad-hom, and appeal to authority attempts aren't fooling anyone except yourself. I can't help you with that, as it's your problem.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, please spare me.

pjdude1219

01-14-10, 06:06 PM

well did they get compensated, did they get all their original money back? I'm all for paying the Palestinians for their trouble, but the arabs aren't willing to pay either. isn't the statement that the arabs refuse to pay because Israel refuses to let the palestinians to have the choice between compensation with resettlement and a return to their homes.

Well then make it clearer. get smarter

so your saying no jewish villages were massacred? It was a war zone. a few were but it wasnst as systemic as the reverse nor part and parcile to their goal.

Most of them didn't choose to leave to begin with, if I was kicked out of somewhere and resettle somewhere else were I'm welcomed I'm not going to go back if the opportunity presents it self, this does not mean a wrong was not committed against me. Take the case of Albert Metzger who was kicked out of egypt leaving behind his hotel, his children successfully sued Egypt in the 90's to get back ownership of the hotel, in fact: and they deserve their rights something I'm not against. but arguing for one and not the other like people on your side are wont to do is offensive to me.

Just as it should be the right for the jews to return to their properties in arab states if they wish to return.

Agreed and if israel would compensate the Palestinians then their would not be a problem. sure their would be because Israel would still deny the legally mandated choice of compensation and resettlement or return home(though for both jewish and palestinian refugees I believe monetary compensation should be a part of. avoiding what ones responsibility should be punished)

Who I am does not matter. typo mean humane

Aaah but the Arab states also fucked over the Palestinians, they attacked, they ruled over what was left of Palestine from 1948 to 1968 and then they refused to take the palestinians back while simultaneously kicking out all the jews to end up filling israel more. No it was not about economics, as King Hussein of Jordan said in 1960:

"Since 1948 Arab leaders have approached the Palestine problem
in an irresponsible manner.... they have used the Palestine
people for selfish political purposes. This is ridiculous and,
I could say, even criminal."

It political, its about creating a human weapon against israel. I'm not saying their isn't a political component but to say that being inflicted with the costs of another groups crimes didn't play a part is just being ignorant.

you say. If the UN contradicted its charter so be it, they voted to do so. irrelevant. the charter is the highest of rules it abides by. if it is allowed to break it at will through votes than the charter is meaningless.

Oh yeah other neighboring countries come in to help defend you, then rule over you for the next 20 years, they only did it to help you. that was what they said they actual motives weren't as pure.

Then they would not be neutral. that's kinda of the point. you can be neutral 3 ways regards to facts, position, and outcome. the neutral in position as most"neutral" people in this field helps one side over the other. Like you you claim to be neutral and try to stay in the middle ground which prevents criticism against Israel which favors Israel because it continues to get to commit crimes. Neutral in outcome is basically saying at the end they should be on equal footing. Neutral of facts is basically folling the facts plugging them into the framework of the laws and saying this is what the laws says should happen so this is what we should try to achieve. I'm somewhere in between outcome and fact neutral.

The path I want? yes the end of the palestin ians.
You mean the 2 state solution? The whole israel leaving palestine alone path? where Israel gets to steal yet more land and still control much of palestine because it would be granted basic rights of states.
that a bad path? very much so
well alright then.I guess

pjdude1219

01-14-10, 06:07 PM

LOL, reality. What fucking lala land do you live in boy?

the one where the palestinains have to bear the burden of their mistakes.

pjdude1219

01-14-10, 06:13 PM

It was against international law for Israelis to be attacked from the start. International law can't fit everyone at all times because not all people share the same values. This Israelis valued their safety above international law; hence, when they were attacked, the attackers land was annexed. This removed power, mobility, and ability from the attackers. Had Israelis not won then they might be been killed off and their land annexed (again regardless of international law). actually you could argue international law required them to attack Israel.

Rights don't objectively exist. true but to have that as the basis of action brings back to barbarism.
They require humans to make and enforce them. which we failed in regard to palestine.
Israelis valued their survival and safety Really than why take a course of action that jeoprdized them than secuiring them attacking to gain land?
and annexed land at wartime as a result of those values. I would hardly call wanting land a value.

Israel has no such obligation or committment. the law says otherwise.the law says it is illegal to take through force and any land gained must be returned at the end of war.
They can do what they want with that land. No they can't.
In peacetime they might choose to give a greater share a greater share of their overall land to the Palestinians, but that's a long ways off at the moment. funny because giving back what they stole is key to peace. But typical you wish Israel to conquer and take more than you care about true lasting peace and the law.

I think that is very optimistic. I suspect the reality would be a miniature afghanistan type of environment, especially if the results of giving back Gaza is any indicator.
Not really its based on facts. and about gaza less abuse is still abuse and going to garner the same reactions.

Michael

01-14-10, 06:16 PM

Palestinians and Jews lived in peace, before your American and Britain installed the state of Israel. Zionists are in control of Israel and America.

I agree with you, no one should care. What you don't understand can't hurt ya right? Wrong. They need the Holy Land inorder to get their Anti-Christ. Zionists are Satan worshipers. Do you know that America sends 1/3 of their yearly spending to Israel for over 60 years now?I'm wondering -ND- do you think that Turkey should give back Constantinople to the Greeks who founded it and build that city?

Or I know, should they return the Church of Sophia back to the Christians whose fathers built it?

Or I know, should they return the Dome of the Rock back to the Jew's whose father's built their Temple Mount there?

Well? Should they?

Secondly, I wasn't born until the 1970s and didn't become an adult until the 1990s. I don't have one God damn thing to do with the creation of Israel. Yet, I still think your religion is an intolerant meme that should slowly be replaced. And actuality, that's exactly what's happening. But, this doesn't have anything to do with me either - it's the way the world is moving.

Lastly, you should appreciate the Jews taking over that small chuck of shit hole land - they share the same intolerance of other people's belief systems as you do. Or at least the Orthodox ones. Hell, Islam is Judaism's bastard love child.

pjdude1219

01-14-10, 06:18 PM

I'm wondering -ND- do you think that Turkey should give back Constantinople to the Greeks who founded it and build that city?

I believe you mean Byzantium

-ND-

01-14-10, 06:19 PM

the one where the palestinains have to bear the burden of their mistakes.

I can say the samething for the holocaust. They had to bear their burden of their mistake.

-ND-

01-14-10, 06:23 PM

I'm wondering -ND- do you think that Turkey should give back Constantinople to the Greeks who founded it and build that city?

Or I know, should they return the Church of Sophia back to the Christians whose fathers built it?

Or I know, should they return the Dome of the Rock back to the Jew's whose father's built their Temple Mount there?

Well? Should they?

Secondly, I wasn't born until the 1970s and didn't become an adult until the 1990s. I don't have one God damn thing to do with the creation of Israel.

You are such a child, it is not even funny. The Zionists were given a part and the Palestinians were given a part. Israel area was split up. Over the years the Zionists kept kicking people out of their homes in the areas that they wanted to take. Over 60 years they pretty much took most of Israel and left very little. That is what the map shows you fool. It shows the Israelis stealing the land over a period of 60 years.

Michael

01-14-10, 06:35 PM

I believe you mean ByzantiumAnd what's your point? Oh, I know, I think you mean to say it's now Turkey. Just like Palestinain is now Israel. See how easy that is?

So done and done.

Michael

01-14-10, 06:36 PM

You are such a child, it is not even funny. The Zionists were given a part and the Palestinians were given a part. Israel area was split up. Over the years the Zionists kept kicking people out of their homes in the areas that they wanted to take. Over 60 years they pretty much took most of Israel and left very little. That is what the map shows you fool. It shows the Israelis stealing the land over a period of 60 years.

I'm wondering -ND- do you think that Turkey should give back Constantinople to the Greeks who founded it and build that city?

Or I know, should they return the Church of Sophia back to the Christians whose fathers built it?

Or I know, should they return the Dome of the Rock back to the Jew's whose father's built their Temple Mount there?

ElectricFetus

01-14-10, 06:41 PM

isn't the statement that the arabs refuse to pay because Israel refuses to let the palestinians to have the choice between compensation with resettlement and a return to their homes.

hey the Israelis aren't allowed such a choice either.

get smarter

its not my fault you can't convey your self better.

a few were but it wasnst as systemic as the reverse nor part and parcile to their goal.

So you claim.

and they deserve their rights something I'm not against. but arguing for one and not the other like people on your side are wont to do is offensive to me.

Oh yeah that because I heard you calling for the jews to get back their property and money in Arab countries all the time!

if they wish to return.

Of course because if they return they will be treated so well...

sure their would be because Israel would still deny the legally mandated choice of compensation and resettlement or return home(though for both jewish and palestinian refugees I believe monetary compensation should be a part of. avoiding what ones responsibility should be punished)

yeah kicking out people to put back people that were kicked out is soooo fair and just, wait a minute that just repeating a crime!

I'm not saying their isn't a political component but to say that being inflicted with the costs of another groups crimes didn't play a part is just being ignorant.

it was the arab countries crimes as much or more so then israel, the arabs attacked, the arabs ruled over what was left of palestine fore 20 years, they treated the refugees like shit.

irrelevant. the charter is the highest of rules it abides by. if it is allowed to break it at will through votes than the charter is meaningless.

either that or they didn't break the charter in their opinions.

that was what they said they actual motives weren't as pure.

dido.

that's kinda of the point. you can be neutral 3 ways regards to facts, position, and outcome. the neutral in position as most"neutral" people in this field helps one side over the other. Like you you claim to be neutral and try to stay in the middle ground which prevents criticism against Israel which favors Israel because it continues to get to commit crimes. Neutral in outcome is basically saying at the end they should be on equal footing. Neutral of facts is basically folling the facts plugging them into the framework of the laws and saying this is what the laws says should happen so this is what we should try to achieve. I'm somewhere in between outcome and fact neutral.

Hey I advocated israel remove the settlements and leave the palestinians alone, this would allow equal footing assuming the palestinians can creat a functional state of their own then, if you want to interpret international law your way you would strip israel of much of its land providing dis-equal footing.

yes the end of the palestin ians. where Israel gets to steal yet more land and still control much of palestine because it would be granted basic rights of states. very much so I guess

How is the leaving the west bank and gaza stealing more land or ending palestine, maybe because Jordon will take the west bank if all the settlements were removed? So destroying Israel and removing the Israeli by lethal force is a good path? What is the path you think is good?

pjdude1219

01-14-10, 06:42 PM

And what's your point? my point was that in your comment of turning it back over you used the roman name and not the greek
Oh, I know, I think you mean to say it's now Turkey.and no I meant Byzantium the city that is now Istanbul. I believe in using the standards of the time.
Just like Palestinain is now Israel. how did the the people(palestinian) become land(Israel)?
See how easy that is? easy yes right no. palestine should be given back to the palestinians.

So done and done.

only if we ignore everything about being decent, honest, and lawful.

pjdude1219

01-14-10, 06:56 PM

hey the Israelis aren't allowed such a choice either. Um no their not.

ts not my fault you can't convey your self better. so its my fault you can't understand a six word sentence solely comprised of one and two syllable words?

So you claim. find the evidence of at least 40 or 50 towns decimated and I will believe it.

Oh yeah that because I heard you calling for the jews to get back their property and money in Arab countries all the time! because no one was arguing against it.

Of course because if they return they will be treated so well... that is irrelevant abd they would probably actauly have more right than palestinians in jewish occupied palestine.

yeah kicking out people to put back people that were kicked out is soooo fair and just, wait a minute that just repeating a crime! Only in your fucked view. Nothing criminal in it. Your logic behind this is idiotic. TYhieves don't get to keep stolen proprety unless you ruling than its criminal to take it.

it was the arab countries crimes as much or more so then israel, How so?
the arabs attacked, They attacked jewish forces in palestine not the palestinians.
the arabs ruled over what was left of palestine fore 20 years, they treated the refugees like shit. Funny because they had more freedom of movement and such under the arabs.

either that or they didn't break the charter in their opinions. than they can't fucking read. because in no way shape or form dividing land to give people who don't live their a state is in line with creating countries through self determination.

Hey I advocated israel remove the settlements and leave the palestinians alone, well except for not being allowed to have an army to defend themselves, no control of their borders and air space.
this would allow equal footing assuming the palestinians can creat a functional state of their own then,[QUOTE] How is being beholden to a hostle state for movement in your state equal footing? [QUOTE]if you want to interpret international law your way you mean how its written?
you would strip israel of much of its land providing dis-equal footing. um yeah that's kinda what happens when the law states the existence of Israel is criminal.

How is the leaving the west bank and gaza stealing more land or ending palestine, First off ISrael under the ideas you supprt would take more land fro mthe west bank and would do nothing to address the reasons for violence so in the end palestinian genocided which you don't seem to have a problem with.
maybe because Jordon will take the west bank if all the settlements were removed? why would they do that Israel would just invade them if they did.
So destroying Israel and removing the Israeli by lethal force is a good path? I would like to gain compliance with the law through political means but I am not naive to think the ISraelis will be keen on that and will use force to keep what they have taken through force.
What is the path you think is good?

Do I really need to tell you again? you know if you wish to talk on a recuring subject perhaps you should remember what people's beliefs are rather than either forgetting or making up libels? I believe that land should slowly be turned over to the palestinian with the end result being one state for anyone who wishes to reside in palestine with equal rights.

Michael

01-14-10, 07:06 PM

my point was that in your comment of turning it back over you used the roman name and not the greek and no I meant Byzantium the city that is now Istanbul. I believe in using the standards of the time. how did the the people(palestinian) become land(Israel)? easy yes right no. palestine should be given back to the palestinians.

only if we ignore everything about being decent, honest, and lawful.Let me guess PJ you're a Muslim? Gee how did I ever guess that? This is the way this sort of thread goes every single time. All the Christians and Jews think that Israel is fine and dandy and all the Muslims think it's wrong (and maybe some Buddhists).

Look it was wrong when the Muslim Turks conquered Constantinople - so that should now give it back. Right?

It was wrong when the British conquered the America's right? Do you think that these lands should be given back to the indigenous? Do you think YOU have a right to live on this American land? I mean it was someone else's for 10 thousand years. It's only been America for a couple hundred.

How about the Temple Mount? Surely THAT peace of land is Jewish? I mean for Christ's sake. It's the central part of their religion? Shouldn't THAT land be given back?

If I were a Muslim Palestinian I'd give some serious consideration to converting to Judaism and trying to get a visa that way. Then I'd reflect on how stupid monotheistic religion is.

There is no Aztec Empire. There's no Palestine. There's no Constantinople. That's history. I didn't make it so. But, we'll have to live with it. Israel isn't going to go anywhere because the Israelis are much more powerful than the Muslim's around them and the USA is still the most powerful and there's a bunch of Evangelical's living in the USA who think Mohammad was Satan Spawn and the Qur'an the word's of Satan. They'll continue to support Israel until the Temple Mount is rebuilt.

Why?

Because monotheists are all a bunch of crazy religious psychos running on the One God meme. Again, reflect on how STUPID this monotheistic ideology is.

I can say one thing. If there was no religious difference then I don't think we'd see any problem at all. I guess that's the whole point of the Middle East - to serve as a reminder to the rest of Civilization on what's wrong with intolerant monotheism. Something to reflect on.

PJ - please tell me you don't live on occupied land, such as American, Canadian, Australian, New Zealand, etc.... YOU'RE not THAT big of a hypocrite are you?

Crunchy Cat

01-14-10, 07:29 PM

actually you could argue international law required them to attack Israel.

International law doesn't condone violent aggression.

true but to have that as the basis of action brings back to barbarism.

All it does is demonstrate the truth about what rights are and are not.

which we failed in regard to palestine. Really than why take a course of action that jeoprdized them than secuiring them attacking to gain land?

When Israel was attacked they took courses of action to prevent thier annihilation (which is a very correct response to a survival threat). Those attacks changed them. It biased them and harddened them against the Palestinians and now they are stealing land from the west bank and suffocating gaza. If they feel jeopardized then they will attack.

I would hardly call wanting land a value.

Their actions of taking wartime land in the past were a result of them valuing their safety. Their actions of taking land in the present are probably a result of greed.

the law says otherwise.the law says it is illegal to take through force and any land gained must be returned at the end of war.

Correct. That law was incompatible with Israeli values. Just as Hamas decided to attack Israel after being given Gaza... international law is not compatible with their values. They key point is that one size doesn't fit all.

No they can't.

They're doing it just fine. If they couldn't, that wouldn't be the case.

funny because giving back what they stole is key to peace.

Oh I agree. I consider any non-wartime land annexes outright theft. Any wartime land that was annexed on the other hand is not going to be a part of any peace deal. The security risk is too great for Israelis (i.e. the level security they have during the present conflict is seen as far more valuable).

But typical you wish Israel to conquer and take more than you care about true lasting peace and the law.

You are partially correct.

* I want Israel to give back all non-wartime land annexes.
* I want Fatah to accept that gesture and work out a peace deal.
* I want Israel, Fatah, and the world give Hamas an ultimatum... step down or be eliminated.
* I want Gaza to be given to Fatah.

At that point Fatah can declare its state and start building their society and relations with others.

Not really its based on facts.

Please do explain the facts in question. I can demonstrate Gaza being given back and immediately attacking Israel.

... and about gaza less abuse is still abuse and going to garner the same reactions.

Can that statement be paraphrased? I am not sure what message you intended to communicate.

pjdude1219

01-14-10, 07:55 PM

Let me guess PJ you're a Muslim? Gee how did I ever guess that? cause your a bigot who doesn't pay attention.
This is the way this sort of thread goes every single time. All the Christians and Jews think that Israel is fine and dandy and all the Muslims think it's wrong (and maybe some Buddhists). and some christians, jews,atheists, and other religions.

Look it was wrong when the Muslim Turks conquered Constantinople - so that should now give it back. Right? No different era and different rules. and if your going to make a comment on returning it to the greeks could you at least use the GREEK name, BYZANTIUM

It was wrong when the British conquered the America's right? Do you think that these lands should be given back to the indigenous? Do you think YOU have a right to live on this American land? I mean it was someone else's for 10 thousand years. It's only been America for a couple hundred. again different era with different rules. You get nowhere reflecting today's standards backwords. also the native poulations signed treaties ceding the lands.

How about the Temple Mount? Surely THAT peace of land is Jewish? I mean for Christ's sake. It's the central part of their religion? Shouldn't THAT land be given back? No. Should they be allowed to visit it. yes but they have no inherent right to own the land its on.

If I were a Muslim Palestinian I'd give some serious consideration to converting to Judaism and trying to get a visa that way. Then I'd reflect on how stupid monotheistic religion is. I'd doubt that. you still be as well lacking in intellect as you are now. SEE
Let me guess PJ you're a Muslim? despite the fact I have said numorous times that I'm not a muslim, was raised catholic(christian), currently have no faith, and am thinking on converting to wicca you still thought I was a muslim simply because I felt the law should followed and palestine returned to the palestinians.

PJ - please tell me you don't live on occupied land, such as American, Canadian, Australian, New Zealand, etc.... YOU'RE not THAT big of a hypocrite are you?
I live in the states though their is nothing hypocritical about it. Please read the following several times to ensure comprehension ans retention.
Different historical eras had different laws, rules, and standards pertaining to things. We must to be honest judge according to the times. When all of what you said happened naked force and aggression was ok to gain land when Israel was created it was illegal to gain by force and states had to be created through self determination. Please reflect on that.

pjdude1219

01-14-10, 08:11 PM

International law doesn't condone violent aggression. it condones enforcing it

All it does is demonstrate the truth about what rights are and are not.???

When Israel was attacked they took courses of action to prevent thier annihilation (which is a very correct response to a survival threat). their was no survival threat
Those attacks changed them. It biased them and harddened them against the Palestinians Great theory except its bullshit the zionist/jews were biased against the palestinian from the get go. they never even concieved that maybe the people all ready living their wouldn't want to live under or foriegn dominion.
and now they are stealing land from the west bank and suffocating gaza. which for some reason you don't seem to have a problem with.
If they feel jeopardized then they will attack. ecept anything that isn't unabashedly pro them they veiw as jeopradizing them.

Their actions of taking wartime land in the past were a result of them valuing their safety. Their actions of taking land in the present are probably a result of greed. it was always greed. You idea that they took it for safety fails in that the reason the became unsafe is they took the land.

Correct. That law was incompatible with Israeli values. you recognize the problem
Just as Hamas decided to attack Israel after being given Gaza... gross misrepresentation
international law is not compatible with their values. They key point is that one size doesn't fit all. and ignore it a problem. If Israel's "values" were incompatible with international law they never should have signed on to abide by them and uphold them.

They're doing it just fine. If they couldn't, that wouldn't be the case. I thought we were talking legally. they control it and do what they have the power to do so but they have zero right to under the law.

Oh I agree. I consider any non-wartime land annexes outright theft. at least your close to geting where you need to be.
Any wartime land that was annexed on the other hand is not going to be a part of any peace deal. So theft during peace bad during war good. theft is theft. They have an obligation under the alws they signed on to to return it.
The security risk is too great for Israelis (i.e. the level security they have during the present conflict is seen as far more valuable). short term maybe long term the risk is greater in keeping it.

You are partially correct.

* I want Israel to give back all non-wartime land annexes.
* I want Fatah to accept that gesture and work out a peace deal.
* I want Israel, Fatah, and the world give Hamas an ultimatum... step down or be eliminated.
* I want Gaza to be given to Fatah. Problems the nonwartime gains are a tiny part of what was stolen and still ignores the death blow a unconnected palestine would be for the states survival. secondly it ignores hamas was elected legally in a fair democratic election. stripping them of the meager bones they have managed to get from the ISraelis is something you want.

At that point Fatah can declare its state and start building their society and relations with others. under what goals and long term soultion to the problems?

Please do explain the facts in question. I can demonstrate Gaza being given back and immediately attacking Israel. How was it given back do they have any real control over it no they don't. What you call give back I call a really big cage. You don't own a cage you merely reside in it. plus you ignore that "giving it back" did nothing to address the base concerns and issues the palestinian have with Israel.

Can that statement be paraphrased? I am not sure what message you intended to communicate. ok let me use an analogy say your beating a guy with a stack at a rate of 60 times a minute and than you lessen it to 30 hits a minute your still hitting with a stick and the reaction to being hit is going to be the same.

does that help make it clear?

Michael

01-14-10, 09:33 PM

Different historical eras had different laws, rules, and standards pertaining to things. We must to be honest judge according to the times. When all of what you said happened naked force and aggression was ok to gain land when Israel was created it was illegal to gain by force and states had to be created through self determination.Then I suppose you only need to move that line in the sand up to the 1960s and I guess it's a done deal?

Look I don't like that way Israelis treat Palestinians anymore than I like the way Palestinians treat Israelis. But let's not kid ourselves. This is a religious war. It's really Jews and Muslims here. The roots are buried deep in religious intolerance of other faiths. The Muslims built a fucking monument to Mohammad right on top of the Jew's Temple Mount for Christ sake. If THAT doesn't hint as to the shit hole of a history they share then I don't know what does.

As long as each side believes in their little fairy tale expect more blood to be offered to their Gods. It's not going to end any time soon. Not till the Jews own all of the land. Then it'll still go on. Probably until one side it nearly obliterated. Kind of like the Native Americans or Australian.

Either way, the land is a speck. Tiny. Next to Nothing. No one would give to craps about it if it weren't for their asinine psychotic religious beliefs. I'll tell you what, I know MANY Palestinians and Jews who are happy to live in the USA. They surely don't see any irony in it.

Crunchy Cat

01-14-10, 10:29 PM

it condones enforcing it

International law condones enforcing violent aggression? Thats a new one.

???

Rights are agreements of human behavior that are enforced by the humans that made those agreements. That's all they are and nothing more. Recognizing that truth doesn't bring back barbarism. It simply recognizes that specific truth.

their was no survival threat

You mean for example the 6 day war wasn't a result of a threat to the Israelis? Sure! Lining up troops and tanks on your borders and cutting of your supplies is absolutely non-threatening.

Great theory except its bullshit the zionist/jews were biased against the palestinian from the get go. they never even concieved that maybe the people all ready living their wouldn't want to live under or foriegn dominion.

Those evil jews had it in for the palestinians. They wanted to enslave them and eat their babies. Meanwhile, I look at history and see a long trend of Israelis being threatenened/attacked, following by a swift ass-kicking. At some point you can see Israelis turning from defensive war-time annexing to non-wartime west bank theivery. That's an objective behavior change and it has everything to do with increased bias and a hardenning of attitudes.

which for some reason you don't seem to have a problem with.

It's interesting. I think I have repeatedly made it clear that I have a problem with Israel's non-wartime west bank theivery. It's like you want me to have the opposite position so badly that you wont acknowledge otherwise. That's simply your problem; however.

Regarding Gaza, the issue I have is with Hamas. Their actions brought about Israels decision to suffocate them. They were given many chances to avoid the situation and they didn't (they still have that opportunity). It sucks that the people under Hamas have to suffer. The only options I see there are Hamas steps down and gives control to Fatah / UN, Hamas is destroyed, or everyone in Gaza dies. Which outcome becomes reality depends on how much Hamas cares or doesn't care about it's people.

ecept anything that isn't unabashedly pro them they veiw as jeopradizing them.

Yep, that wasn't a biased or subjective statement. Good argument.

it was always greed. You idea that they took it for safety fails in that the reason the became unsafe is they took the land.

If someone attacks me from a fortress and I have the ability to destroy it, I am going destroy it and make sure that geography is never used against me again. And it works.

you recognize the problem

Virtually every nation has incompatibilities with international law. One size doesn't fit all. It's a quite an obvious truth.

gross misrepresentation and ignore it a problem.

Not really. It was completely against international law for Hamas to attack... but they did.

If Israel's "values" were incompatible with international law they never should have signed on to abide by them and uphold them.

That would have gotten them shunned from the international community... which is stupid. Everyone in the international community will not uphold all international laws because of value incompatibilites; however, it's beneficial for everyone in the international community to be a part of it. It's a survival strategy ingrained in human behavior.

I thought we were talking legally. they control it and do what they have the power to do so but they have zero right to under the law.

You're trying to argue from an international legal standpoint... and it doesn't matter. It's subjective and not enforcable. What matters is the objective. What is the current situation and what can be done to achieve peace or end the conflict.

at least your close to geting where you need to be.

Subjective judgment alert! If you were reading what I've been saying, I have not changed my position in any way (i.e. getting to "where I need to be").

So theft during peace bad during war good. theft is theft. They have an obligation under the alws they signed on to to return it.

Taking land during peace = theft (bad).
Taking land during wartime as the agressor = theft (very bad).
Taking land during wartime as the defender = less powerful enemy (good)
Giving back land taken during peace = a door opener (good).
Giving back land taken during wartime aggression = a change in thinking (good)
Giving back land taken during wartime defense = pure generocity (good) or pure stupidity if the new owners will attack you (very bad).

short term maybe long term the risk is greater in keeping it.

I really don't see the Israelis being at any greater risk.

Problems the nonwartime gains are a tiny part of what was stolen...

As I hope you see by now, we have different values. You see the wartime land annexes as theivery. I see it as an absolute necessity step to weaken the enemy.

If I were in your shoes, I would say something to the effect of some wartime annexed land could be given as a payment for the time and trouble the palestinians had to go through from non-wartime land annexing. That would be a very valid negotiation point and it's only available because Israel messed up and annexed land during non-wartime.

...and still ignores the death blow a unconnected palestine would be for the states survival.

That's something the Palestinians would have to adapt to. I am sure the Israelis and international community would be fine with implementing a rapid transit system to help with that.

secondly it ignores hamas was elected legally in a fair democratic election.

Mostly correct (in theory). The incorrect part is it doesn't ignore Hamas. It just acknowledges that they failed really badly. Impeachment is a rare event, but in this case it's direly needed.

stripping them of the meager bones they have managed to get from the ISraelis is something you want.

Absolutely. Fatah would use those bones in a constructive way and be backed by the international community. Hamas used the bones for destruction and are internationally recognized as terrorists.

under what goals and long term soultion to the problems?

The goal: Collect energy and persist.
The solution: Make the most of what you have and use the help offered by others.

How was it given back do they have any real control over it no they don't. What you call give back I call a really big cage. You don't own a cage you merely reside in it.

They could do with the land whatever they wanted. They chose to attack Israel and that's when it turned into a cage.

plus you ignore that "giving it back" did nothing to address the base concerns and issues the palestinian have with Israel.

Correct. Hamas want's Israel to be destroyed. If they get off that crazy horse then they can address objective issues.

ok let me use an analogy say your beating a guy with a stack at a rate of 60 times a minute and than you lessen it to 30 hits a minute your still hitting with a stick and the reaction to being hit is going to be the same.

does that help make it clear?

It makes it very clear and I think the analogy is inaccurate. One of them is saying if you stop hitting me then I'll stop hitting you... but the offer is never taken.

pjdude1219

01-14-10, 10:33 PM

Then I suppose you only need to move that line in the sand up to the 1960s and I guess it's a done deal?

Look I don't like that way Israelis treat Palestinians anymore than I like the way Palestinians treat Israelis. But let's not kid ourselves. This is a religious war. It's really Jews and Muslims here. The roots are buried deep in religious intolerance of other faiths. The Muslims built a fucking monument to Mohammad right on top of the Jew's Temple Mount for Christ sake. If THAT doesn't hint as to the shit hole of a history they share then I don't know what does.

As long as each side believes in their little fairy tale expect more blood to be offered to their Gods. It's not going to end any time soon. Not till the Jews own all of the land. Then it'll still go on. Probably until one side it nearly obliterated. Kind of like the Native Americans or Australian.

Either way, the land is a speck. Tiny. Next to Nothing. No one would give to craps about it if it weren't for their asinine psychotic religious beliefs. I'll tell you what, I know MANY Palestinians and Jews who are happy to live in the USA. They surely don't see any irony in it.

I'm done. Your quite clearly nuts in your anti religious beliefs. their is nothing religious about the conflict in a major way.

pjdude1219

01-14-10, 11:12 PM

International law condones enforcing violent aggression? Thats a new one.the accepts the use of force where peace has failed

Rights are agreements of human behavior that are enforced by the humans that made those agreements. That's all they are and nothing more. Recognizing that truth doesn't bring back barbarism. It simply recognizes that specific truth. bet without willing to enforce it its meaning less

You mean for example the 6 day war wasn't a result of a threat to the Israelis? Sure! Lining up troops and tanks on your borders and cutting of your supplies is absolutely non-threatening. your equating survival of the state and people as one and the same they aren't. their was no threat to the jewish people now the state of Israel as a whole. and really you couldn't have provided a better example than the clearest case of Israel starting a war?

Those evil jews had it in for the palestinians. They wanted to enslave them and eat their babies. no that would imply they thought about the ramifications of their action. they just flat out never considered the resident population nor how they would react.
Meanwhile, I look at history and see a long trend of Israelis being threatenened/attacked, following by a swift ass-kicking. but you discount the threat other states viewed Israel and its actions.
At some point you can see Israelis turning from defensive war-time annexing to non-wartime west bank theivery. its all theivery whether you wish to acknowledge at as such or not changes nothing.
That's an objective behavior change and it has everything to do with increased bias and a hardenning of attitudes. You mean they decided to find other ways to steal. that doesn't say their attitudes changed just how their methods were being viewed did.

It's interesting. I think I have repeatedly made it clear that I have a problem with Israel's non-wartime west bank theivery. It's like you want me to have the opposite position so badly that you wont acknowledge otherwise. That's simply your problem; however. I don't make the distinction you do. Just because you object to some of Israel's theivery doesn't change you condone the worse crime of theft through force.

Regarding Gaza, the issue I have is with Hamas. Their actions brought about Israels decision to suffocate them. They got elected because of Fatah's corruption and Israeli abuse of palestinians.
They were given many chances to avoid the situation and they didn't (they still have that opportunity). roll over and accept being treated worse than dog in your lands?
It sucks that the people under Hamas have to suffer. they would suffer anyways. Quit making excuses for ISrael. they abused the gazans before hamas and will do so after.
The only options I see there are Hamas steps down and gives control to Fatah / UN, Hamas is destroyed, or everyone in Gaza dies. So your solution is to fuck the election because they didn't vote for someone you like. if you want to get rid of hamas engender a sitution that gets them voted against.
Which outcome becomes reality depends on how much Hamas cares or doesn't care about it's people. By that logic the polish home army didn't give a fuck about the poles because they fought the Nazis. people fight because they care not the reverse.

Yep, that wasn't a biased or subjective statement. Good argument. show me where they have accepted a dissenting opinion?

If someone attacks me from a fortress and I have the ability to destroy it, I am going destroy it and make sure that geography is never used against me again. And it works. So they defend themselves from what they viewed as an attack so we were justified in attacking them? your logic is circular and ignores the non Israeli viewpoint. to make your analogy work it would be I attack lands under control of fortress they defend than I destroy fortress and make sure they are even weaker and less able to defend.

Virtually every nation has incompatibilities with international law. One size doesn't fit all. It's a quite an obvious truth.Its a stupid truism that excuses evil acts.

Not really. It was completely against international law for Hamas to attack... but they did actually while their methods are contrary the attacking its self is not. Where peace has failed to garner self determination international law allows for the use of force.

That would have gotten them shunned from the international community... which is stupid. than that's their problem for not wishing to pay the costs for their wants.
Everyone in the international community will not uphold all international laws because of value incompatibilites; however, it's beneficial for everyone in the international community to be a part of it. It's a survival strategy ingrained in human behavior. it has nothing to do with values and everything to do with gain.

You're trying to argue from an international legal standpoint... and it doesn't matter. the law is the only thing that matters.
says you. the law is not sunjective it is cold and unswayed by emotion. all we need is read it and apply it and when needed use force to ensure it is being followed. [QUOTE]What matters is the objective. according to you that's people's whims and wants.
What is the current situation and what can be done to achieve peace or end the conflict. following the law would do that. the palestinian get to go home and have no more reason to fight.

Subjective judgment alert! If you were reading what I've been saying, I have not changed my position in any way (i.e. getting to "where I need to be"). Nothing subjective. your showing nearer to whats needed recognizing both sides arguments have validity.

Taking land during peace = theft (bad). bad right

Taking land during wartime as the agressor = theft (very bad). very bad right

Taking land during wartime as the defender = less powerful enemy (good) very bad its still theft your wrong

Giving back land taken during peace = a door opener (good).
Giving back land taken during wartime aggression = a change in thinking (good) good right

Giving back land taken during wartime defense = pure generocity (good) or pure stupidity if the new owners will attack you (very bad). good because it shows restraint and respect for the law. meaning people are more likely to deal with in a peaceful way.

I really don't see the Israelis being at any greater risk. so you don't see the Israeli at more risk when their exists a reason to attack than when there is not one?

As I hope you see by now, we have different values. You see the wartime land annexes as theivery. I see it as an absolute necessity step to weaken the enemy. I believe you are mistaking occupation(which when temporary and to the betterment of the occupied I have no problems with) with annexation.

If I were in your shoes, I would say something to the effect of some wartime annexed land could be given as a payment for the time and trouble the palestinians had to go through from non-wartime land annexing. That would be a very valid negotiation point and it's only available because Israel messed up and annexed land during non-wartime. no land should bea nnexxed through warefare. their is a reason none of the allies took land after world war 2. first they saw it as an act of aggression and secondly they realized it only ensures more war. Annexing land through war was WHY WW2 happened. learn the lessons of history.

That's something the Palestinians would have to adapt to. I am sure the Israelis and international community would be fine with implementing a rapid transit system to help with that. or they could just return the negev. its solves the unconnection problem. shows a willingness to recitfy past wrongs and helps with the bedouin. I mean its not like the Israelis use it it only has one major town and while a port town it would really hurt Israel to cede it.

Mostly correct (in theory). The incorrect part is it doesn't ignore Hamas. just that they were elected. Mainly because fatah was corrupt and kept caving to Israel with out getting anything in return.
It just acknowledges that they failed really badly. Impeachment is a rare event, but in this case it's direly needed. Before you can pronounce that you need to understand why they were elected.

Absolutely. Fatah would use those bones in a constructive way and be backed by the international community. Hamas used the bones for destruction and are internationally recognized as terrorists. That makes no sense. I was refering to be allowed to elect their own government something you would strip them of because you don't like hamas. They chose them deal with it. plus hamas has made overtures of negoitation with ISrael.

The goal: Collect energy and persist.
The solution: Make the most of what you have and use the help offered by others. their goal is to get their homes back. their legal right. No matter how much you wish to ignore that that is the only way to peace.

They could do with the land whatever they wanted. chose what kind of things ISrael would bomb really isn't a choice.
They chose to attack Israel and that's when it turned into a cage. wow imagine that they attacked their abusers.

Correct. Hamas want's Israel to be destroyed. If they get off that crazy horse then they can address objective issues. ITs not crazy to wish Israel destroyed. I'm not crazy and I want that. ITs destruction is an objective issue one Israel's supports refuse to acknowledge because it would bring into question what was done.

It makes it very clear and I think the analogy is inaccurate. One of them is saying if you stop hitting me then I'll stop hitting you... but the offer is never taken. I was analogizing Israel stance toward the palestinians not the reverse which you have done.

Crunchy Cat

01-15-10, 12:04 AM

the accepts the use of force where peace has failed

bet without willing to enforce it its meaning less

your equating survival of the state and people as one and the same they aren't. their was no threat to the jewish people now the state of Israel as a whole. and really you couldn't have provided a better example than the clearest case of Israel starting a war?

no that would imply they thought about the ramifications of their action. they just flat out never considered the resident population nor how they would react. but you discount the threat other states viewed Israel and its actions. its all theivery whether you wish to acknowledge at as such or not changes nothing. You mean they decided to find other ways to steal. that doesn't say their attitudes changed just how their methods were being viewed did.

I don't make the distinction you do. Just because you object to some of Israel's theivery doesn't change you condone the worse crime of theft through force.

They got elected because of Fatah's corruption and Israeli abuse of palestinians. roll over and accept being treated worse than dog in your lands? they would suffer anyways. Quit making excuses for ISrael. they abused the gazans before hamas and will do so after. So your solution is to fuck the election because they didn't vote for someone you like. if you want to get rid of hamas engender a sitution that gets them voted against. By that logic the polish home army didn't give a fuck about the poles because they fought the Nazis. people fight because they care not the reverse.

show me where they have accepted a dissenting opinion?

So they defend themselves from what they viewed as an attack so we were justified in attacking them? your logic is circular and ignores the non Israeli viewpoint. to make your analogy work it would be I attack lands under control of fortress they defend than I destroy fortress and make sure they are even weaker and less able to defend.

Its a stupid truism that excuses evil acts.

actually while their methods are contrary the attacking its self is not. Where peace has failed to garner self determination international law allows for the use of force.

than that's their problem for not wishing to pay the costs for their wants. it has nothing to do with values and everything to do with gain.

the law is the only thing that matters. [QUOTESIt's subjective and not enforcable. says you. the law is not sunjective it is cold and unswayed by emotion. all we need is read it and apply it and when needed use force to ensure it is being followed. according to you that's people's whims and wants. following the law would do that. the palestinian get to go home and have no more reason to fight.

Nothing subjective. your showing nearer to whats needed recognizing both sides arguments have validity.

bad right
very bad right
very bad its still theft your wrong
good right
good because it shows restraint and respect for the law. meaning people are more likely to deal with in a peaceful way.

so you don't see the Israeli at more risk when their exists a reason to attack than when there is not one?

I believe you are mistaking occupation(which when temporary and to the betterment of the occupied I have no problems with) with annexation.

no land should bea nnexxed through warefare. their is a reason none of the allies took land after world war 2. first they saw it as an act of aggression and secondly they realized it only ensures more war. Annexing land through war was WHY WW2 happened. learn the lessons of history.

or they could just return the negev. its solves the unconnection problem. shows a willingness to recitfy past wrongs and helps with the bedouin. I mean its not like the Israelis use it it only has one major town and while a port town it would really hurt Israel to cede it.

just that they were elected. Mainly because fatah was corrupt and kept caving to Israel with out getting anything in return. Before you can pronounce that you need to understand why they were elected.

That makes no sense. I was refering to be allowed to elect their own government something you would strip them of because you don't like hamas. They chose them deal with it. plus hamas has made overtures of negoitation with ISrael.

their goal is to get their homes back. their legal right. No matter how much you wish to ignore that that is the only way to peace.

chose what kind of things ISrael would bomb really isn't a choice. wow imagine that they attacked their abusers.

ITs not crazy to wish Israel destroyed. I'm not crazy and I want that. ITs destruction is an objective issue one Israel's supports refuse to acknowledge because it would bring into question what was done.

I was analogizing Israel stance toward the palestinians not the reverse which you have done.

The list of bulleted replies is getting long and I would like to condense it into the key differences in our position so they can be objectified and supported as such. From what I can tell, our positions appear to have the following conflictive elements. Let me know if you agree and / or want to make changes:

1) * I think annexing land during wartime as the defender is be good option when it weakens your enemy and strengthens your defensive abilities.
* You think annexing land during wartime as the defender is bad in this scenario.

2) * I think international law is a binding contract insofar it doesn't conflict with the signers values and is irrelevant to the current conflict.
* You think international law is a binding contract for all signers and is crucial to the current conflict.

3) * I think the best path to an end of the conflict is a two-state solution with some territory restored to the Palestinians, international aid, and the removal of Hamas.
* You think the best path to an end of the conlict is the destruction of Israel.

pjdude1219

01-15-10, 05:35 PM

The list of bulleted replies is getting long and I would like to condense it into the key differences in our position so they can be objectified and supported as such. From what I can tell, our positions appear to have the following conflictive elements. Let me know if you agree and / or want to make changes:

1) * I think annexing land during wartime as the defender is be good option when it weakens your enemy and strengthens your defensive abilities.
* You think annexing land during wartime as the defender is bad in this scenario. once again I feel your conflating occuping and annexxing. what I have a problem with and you see no problem with despite it being against international law.(aned makes me think your an idiot for failing to learn the lessons of world war 2) is annexing land you've occupied. All it does is ensure more violence down the road.

2) * I think international law is a binding contract insofar it doesn't conflict with the signers values and is irrelevant to the current conflict.
* You think international law is a binding contract for all signers and is crucial to the current conflict. You see discharging responsibilities you have signed on to do as optional I don't. IF you have a problem with a set of rules don't sign on to it. Yes this hurts Israel because they have no intention of abiding by the rules and laws but unlike you I feel they should suffer for that. You think people should be allowed to flaunt the rules when it doesn't get them what they want ie. their "values"

3) * I think the best path to an end of the conflict is a two-state solution with some territory restored to the Palestinians, international aid, and the removal of Hamas. there by ignoring almost the entirety of the palestinain reasons for conflict. They want their legal rights in regards to their stolen land and their right to self determination on it. Your disdain for the basic rule of law is appalling. If we take your beliefs to their logical conclusion we end up with anarachy and barbarism with might makes right.

* You think the best path to an end of the conlict is the destruction of Israel. and a state for all of its citizins rather than just jews. My solution is simple undo the crime that is Israel and create what should have been created 60+ years ago.

and I'm sorry you dislike long posts but I deal with each individual point on its own.