Just how messed up is Israel? [Archive]

tibilicus

04-07-2009, 13:08

Yet we have to respect rediculously racist hamas because it was democratically elected, the double standard hits again. I don't agree with destroying homes of terrorists family's by the way. Nope things aren't going to be better but frankly they have it comming.

I don't think any one can support Hamas as an organization. The people of Gaza did elect them however so I guess it's their responsibility to live with the result of electing them..

Also to comment on the new government I agree totally. I think when you have ministers who actually want to expand the west bank settlements you have a serious problem..

HoreTore

04-07-2009, 13:53

Also to comment on the new government I agree totally. I think when you have ministers who actually want to expand the west bank settlements you have a serious problem..

The settlers are in my opinion a completely legitimate military target, just like a soldier. They are invaders and occupiers, to not be able to fight against that would be ridiculous. They're not weedy civilians, these people are extremists, terrorists and invaders, and should be dealt with as such.

Oh, and here's the real gem: What happens when the palestinians performs collective punishment, just like Israel has done for decades?

@Frags: When you have two different set of punishment for the same crime, one for one ethnic group and the other for another ethnic group, I fail to see how that can be called anything but racism.

As for dealing with Hamas and Israel; you have to have one plan for each tyrant, there is no "one solution" that can be applied to every situation. Hamas showed willingness to moderate themselves in exchange for more international support. Israel commits even worse atrocities when they gain more international support.

rory_20_uk

04-07-2009, 13:54

Israel just has different tenants of faith compared to almost any other country:

We are no all equal. Jews are more important than everyone else.
Not all countries are equal. Israel is more important than anywhere else.

So it's the good old "one of us is worth 1,000 of them" mentality that was seen in WW2.

Israel doesn't trust other countries to help Jews. Our track record is pretty poor, so they'll do it, and doing so is more important than the rights of anyone else.

~:smoking:

Fragony

04-07-2009, 14:51

Oh, and here's the real gem: What happens when the palestinians performs collective punishment, just like Israel has done for decades?

How could you call indiscriminate terror attacks any different then collective punishment? They have been collectively punishing Israel for decades. They would punish the Israeli's very collectively if they had the means.

@Frags: When you have two different set of punishment for the same crime, one for one ethnic group and the other for another ethnic group, I fail to see how that can be called anything but racism.

It would be helpful if you specified the crime, what crime. And even if the Israeli's have gotten a little racist, I don't blame them. What comes around goes around, I have zero sympathy and pity for the Palestinians, if they can't control their primitive bloodlust someone will have to do it for them.

HoreTore

04-07-2009, 14:55

It would be helpful if you specified the crime, what crime. And even if the Israeli's have gotten a little racist, I don't blame them. What comes around goes around, I have zero sympathy and pity for the Palestinians, if they can't control their primitive bloodlust someone will have to do it for them.

Let's say, oh I don't know; terrorism?

Does the state of Israel bulldoze the homes of the families of jewish terrorists?

Fragony

04-07-2009, 15:09

Let's say, oh I don't know; terrorism?

Does the state of Israel bulldoze the homes of the families of jewish terrorists?

Jewish terrorists I see, so again, what crime. And yes Israel bulldozes the homes of Jewish settlers. Serves them right as well in many a case.

HoreTore

04-07-2009, 15:15

Jewish terrorists I see, so again, what crime. And yes Israel bulldozes the homes of Jewish settlers. Serves them right as well in many a case.

The crime of terrorism? If you want a specific one, there's a bunch of them to choose from. But hey, let's take the assassinations of Jewish human rights advocates that took place last fall(if memory serves right).

And I can't think of a time they bulldozed their home in retaliation, just when they decided to shut down a settlement(only to build a new one somewhere else, of course).

Dutch_guy

04-07-2009, 15:30

hmm wait, never mind.

:balloon2:

Fragony

04-07-2009, 15:31

The crime of terrorism? If you want a specific one, there's a bunch of them to choose from.

Sure there are but on a scale like that, been a while. You see arab-Israeli have the same rights as jewish-Israeli, not a racist state. There are problems, yes. Having to be afraid a rocket lands on your head does that to people but I guess that only applies for Palestinians.

HoreTore

04-07-2009, 16:16

You see arab-Israeli have the same rights as jewish-Israeli, not a racist state.

They do? Enjoy reading this. (http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2007/100597.htm)

Institutional, legal, and societal discrimination against Israeli Arabs, non-Orthodox Jews, and other religious groups continued.

The government maintained unequal educational systems for Arab and Jewish students.

But, I guess the Bush administration were lost in "leftie lalaland".... Those darn hippies.

Fragony

04-07-2009, 16:23

So? We native dutch are discriminated against every day. No problem if muslim immigrants cheer 'all jews on the gas', if I would say something similar about muslims I would be mauled by the red machine until I cough up blood. If Israel is a racist state so is just about every western nation.

edit: didn't even click on article when I posted that, 'occupied territory', says enough. A country occupying land after a war that it didn't even provoke, outragious who would have thought. There is no official peace it's a cease fire. Within Israel's borders arabs have the same rights. Outside Israel's borders 'rights' lol.

HoreTore

04-07-2009, 16:26

We native dutch

Cry me a river, hippie.

Hooahguy

04-07-2009, 16:39

horetore, i love it how you call israel a racist state. i suppose you think its apartheid as well?
i wish i could respond more to this, but im leaving soon for NY for passover.
ah well.
try not to let the insults close this thing down before i get back in 2 weeks.
ha, like thats likely!

Fragony

04-07-2009, 16:42

Cry me a river, hippie.

bleed me one, that is what the Palestinians want after all.

Tribesman

04-07-2009, 17:47

edit: didn't even click on article when I posted that, 'occupied territory', says enough.
Errrr ...it says Israel and the occupied territories :idea2:, but if you bother to read it instead of just dismissing it because obviously it proves you completely wrong you will find that it only deals with human rights in Israel itself and there is a seperate document that details the human rights problems in the occupied territories .

A country occupying land after a war that it didn't even provoke:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4: Is that the occupied land from the war that started when Israel attacked its neighbours ?

Within Israel's borders arabs have the same rights.
You really havn't got a clue have you , within Israels borders even Jews don't have the same rights if they are the "wrong" kind of Jew .

Well done Hore , only someone with their head up their posterior would really try and counter that , and only someone with their head stuck so far up there for so long that they have forgotten what daylight is would attempt to counter it without even reading it .:2thumbsup:

rvg

04-07-2009, 18:05

Israel isn't a democratic state, Israel is a racist state.

And I doubt things will get better now that they've got a fascist in government...

Israel and the Palestinians truly deserve each other.

Fragony

04-07-2009, 18:13

1 i know it does, could it be that that is why I mentioned it.
2 well obviously not.
3 all the same for the law, ethiopian jews as well.

3 in a row, congratulations that qualifies as a faillure spree.

Tribesman

04-07-2009, 19:57

1 i know it does, could it be that that is why I mentioned it.

So you mentioned it in relation to the contents of the report because it isn't in the report .

2 well obviously not.

So you mean the occupied territories that are not the occupied territories .
OK Frag , so where are these mythical lands you are on about ?

3 all the same for the law, ethiopian jews as well.

:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
You really havn't got the faintest idea what you are on about .:yes:

3 in a row, congratulations that qualifies as a faillure spree.
Yes frag , as usual you are on an epic spree where your bullexcrement miserably fails to match fact .

Evil_Maniac From Mars

04-07-2009, 21:22

who tried to run over officers guarding the demolition of a home

I don't know, a man tries to run over you with a car with the intention of killing you, what are you going to do if you're a police officer?

:rolleyes:

HoreTore

04-07-2009, 21:31

I don't know, a man tries to run over you with a car with the intention of killing you, what are you going to do if you're a police officer?

:rolleyes:

Get out of the way?

There's a reason we don't trust police officers to carry guns around here ~;)

Evil_Maniac From Mars

04-07-2009, 21:44

Get out of the way?

Then he just turns around and comes back. This is self-defence by the officers in question, and I can't say much more but to deal with it. Maybe his home was knocked down unjustly, OK, I'm not saying it was or it wasn't. But if my home is knocked down, and I step outside with a steak knife and start charging officers, I should expect - and this is harsh - or even deserve to be shot.

Hax

04-07-2009, 21:50

To expand on the point that HoreTore made, even a country like Iran defends the rights of Jews living in the Islamic republic of Iran. Association with Israel is not tolerated, being Jewish is, contrary to the apparent rights of Israeli Arabs in Israel.

bleed me one, that is what the Palestinians want after all.

Awesome you know the wishes of all Palestinians.

So? We native dutch are discriminated against every day. No problem if muslim immigrants cheer 'all jews on the gas', if I would say something similar about muslims I would be mauled by the red machine until I cough up blood. If Israel is a racist state so is just about every western nation.

What exactly do you mean with "native Dutch"? People that have been born and raised in Dutchistan?

KarlXII

04-08-2009, 01:49

Awesome you know the wishes of all Palestinians.

I think Fragony is a Palestinian immigrant to the Netherlands. It's all an act guys, game's over. Time to go home.
Love ya Frag :laugh4:

What exactly do you mean with "native Dutch"? People that have been born and raised in Dutchistan?

This I wonder as well. Define "native", there are, for example, Native Americans and native Americans. Same as the Dutch, if you mean "born in the Netherlands", then you'll find a lot of your multicultural enemies are natives.

Fragony

04-08-2009, 07:48

So you mentioned it in relation to the contents of the report because it isn't in the report .

well I mentioned it because these laws don't apply to occupied territory, which makes;

So you mean the occupied territories that are not the occupied territories .
OK Frag , so where are these mythical lands you are on about ?

kinda silly if not impossible, yes they are occupied, can't just decide that I don't think it is occupied land, when was de decision made, and how?

:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:

Don't you choke.

Yes frag , as usual you are on an epic spree where your bullexcrement miserably fails to match fact.

Once again you end up talking to yourself

HoreTore

04-08-2009, 08:50

kinda silly if not impossible, yes they are occupied, can't just decide that I don't think it is occupied land, when was de decision made, and how?

Israel isn't an occupied territory. Gaza and the west bank is. That decision was made some decades ago...

Fragony

04-08-2009, 09:31

Israel isn't an occupied territory. Gaza and the west bank is. That decision was made some decades ago...

OH REALLY. And in these area's different laws apply ffs read

HoreTore

04-08-2009, 09:35

OH REALLY. And in these area's different laws apply ffs read

Yes, and that's why we're just talking about Israel itself, not gaza or the west bank. Just like that report is on Israel itself, not gaza or the west bank.

Fragony

04-08-2009, 09:44

Yes, and that's why we're just talking about Israel itself, not gaza or the west bank. Just like that report is on Israel itself, not gaza or the west bank.

"Instead, under international law, East Jerusalem is considered to be occupied territory."

Incongruous

04-08-2009, 09:51

The settlers are in my opinion a completely legitimate military target, just like a soldier. They are invaders and occupiers, to not be able to fight against that would be ridiculous. They're not weedy civilians, these people are extremists, terrorists and invaders, and should be dealt with as such.

Oh, and here's the real gem: What happens when the palestinians performs collective punishment, just like Israel has done for decades?

@Frags: When you have two different set of punishment for the same crime, one for one ethnic group and the other for another ethnic group, I fail to see how that can be called anything but racism.

As for dealing with Hamas and Israel; you have to have one plan for each tyrant, there is no "one solution" that can be applied to every situation. Hamas showed willingness to moderate themselves in exchange for more international support. Israel commits even worse atrocities when they gain more international support.

Thank god for some critical thinking here, to equate sttlers with civilians is bogus, they are weapon used by Israel in an underhadn way in order to steal land. Invaders is an apt name for them, they are armed and dangerous, they are racist to the extreme and have no qualms about murdering Palestinians, scum.

Lol at the finger pionting Frags, why do you think Hamas hates Jews?
The blatant fascism of Israel is a good starting point.

Fragony

04-08-2009, 09:54

Lol at the finger pionting Frags, why do you think Hamas hates Jews?

Because the jews initiated the french revolution, as well as the Russian revolution, but it doesn't stop there, they also initiated the first WW1, and even the second! Them naughty nosies, they are really the cause for all the evil in the world.

Incongruous

04-08-2009, 09:56

Because the jews initiated the french revolution, as well as the Russian revolution, but it doesn't stop there, they also initiated the first WW1, and even the second! Them naughty nosies, they are really the cause for all the evil in the world.

:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:

Ok, lets narrow it down, al-nakba ring a bell?

Fragony

04-08-2009, 10:20

:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:

Ok, lets narrow it down, al-nakba ring a bell?

It isn't about land it's about jews, everything I just mentioned is in their charters by the way. The jews want -ZIONIST WORLD GOVERNMENT- That is why they must kill them wherever they find them.

Incongruous

04-08-2009, 11:29

It isn't about land it's about jews, everything I just mentioned is in their charters by the way. The jews want -ZIONIST WORLD GOVERNMENT- That is why they must kill them wherever they find them.

:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:

Oh dear, you are willing to ignore the most important even in recent Middle Eastern history in order to brand Hamas as un thinking racists who were born racists because they are just sooo Arab and sooo Muslim, al-nakba changed nothing, these buggers have always wanted to bathe in the blood of Jews!!!

Where is that crack...

Banquo's Ghost

04-08-2009, 12:00

Gentlemen,

Cut out the aggressive tone and offensive generalisations please. It should be possible to have a discussion on Israel without deploying terms like "scum". Such usage provokes bad feeling, flaming and infraction points.

Thank you kindly.

:bow:

Fragony

04-08-2009, 12:20

:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:

Oh dear, you are willing to ignore the most important even in recent Middle Eastern history

Yes it is of no consequence for what Hamas is, religious facists. Did you think all this started with the sixth day war.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xi7GdviIsjQ

Incongruous

04-08-2009, 12:58

Yes it is of no consequence for what Hamas is, religious facists. Did you think all this started with the sixth day war.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xi7GdviIsjQ

Um, no, it started with al-nakba.

Fragony

04-08-2009, 13:09

Um, no, it started with al-nakba.

hear it from the good man himself, Fitna +/- 3:10

what a peach, I guess he was a visionary and saw al-nakba even before it happened

http://middleeastfacts.com/weblog/israel/arab-massacres-of-jews-before-1948/

^- so did they apparantly

So did the Hebron butchers, and many many more.

Dutch_guy

04-08-2009, 15:58

How and where the violence started in a conflict raging about 2000 years is silly and pointless.

:balloon2:

Fragony

04-08-2009, 16:03

a conflict raging about 2000 years

:inquisitive:

Hax

04-08-2009, 16:07

I think his point is that the mess in Palestina is going around for about 2,000 years.

Hooahguy

04-08-2009, 16:16

in the spirit of passover, Hamas sends regards (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E8IV6ZnzoDY)

Fragony

04-08-2009, 16:17

I think his point is that the mess in Palestina is going around for about 2,000 years.

5000 years if you include the Babylon captivity, 2000 is kinda hard anyway since the prophet was born in 570, but this particular conflict, 80 years or so.

ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88

04-08-2009, 17:56

HoreTore

04-08-2009, 19:20

What you expect them to do? Open up everything again and give everything up? God Forbid if they kill someone, but it's Ok if.... Meh. I don't feel sorry for the attack, I feel sorry for Israel for having to put up with this crap.

They should conquer a piece of Europe instead, we've been the ones doing the majrity of the jew-killings. A piece of Spain(inquisition) or germany(hitler) seems most appropriate.

I do wonder, however, what would've happened if Lenin had lived for 5 more years, and he had successfully created a jewish state in Russia?

Alexander the Pretty Good

04-08-2009, 19:32

They should conquer a piece of Europe instead, we've been the ones doing the majrity of the jew-killings. A piece of Spain(inquisition) or germany(hitler) seems most appropriate.
Well really, the UK and then the UN established the Jewish state more than it was "conquered"...

I do wonder, however, what would've happened if Lenin had lived for 5 more years, and he had successfully created a jewish state in Russia?
Probably pogrom'd by Stalin.

rvg

04-08-2009, 20:23

Um, no, it started with al-nakba.

nakba-shmakba, arabs attacked jews. arabs got whipped really bad. Israelis of course, exploit their victory to the max and act with utmost brutality. Their's a reason for it though, they have nowhere to go, it's israel or death. Now arabs lament over nakba. Instead of doing that, they should have allowed the palestinian refugees to integrate, but no, nobody except Jordan did that. So we still have people lingering in refugee camps 60 years after the war. Nakba. 67, same deal. It's like 1948 never happened and nobody learned anything from that failure. Once again, arabs get whipped real bad. Generated more refugees, lost more land. Nakba.

Nakba came to be largely because of the utter refusal on the arab side to negotiate a fair partition of palestine pre-48. Yes, Israel's policies are in many ways despicable, and it is most definitely not a democratic state, but in this conflict nobody is innocent.

Sheogorath

04-08-2009, 20:31

Well really, the UK and then the UN established the Jewish state more than it was "conquered"...

The British do have a bad habit of invading people and drawing silly lines on the map.

I find it endlessly amusing that the state which was probably most tolerant of Jews prior to the creation of Israel was the Ottoman Empire. But I guess they were too busy hunting down Kurds and Armenians.

You know, maybe the best solution to the whole Middle East problem is to just revive the Ottoman Empire. I'm sure Mehmet the sixth has some heirs floating around somewhere.

Plus, it'll give the Russians something to do to.

All of the worlds problems solved in one go! I'm a genius! :gring:

Vuk

04-08-2009, 22:19

I am a strong supporter of Israel's right to exist, and I think certain muslim groups have been infringing on it, and Israel should not get in trouble for defending its self. At the same time, I know that Israel is far from perfect. They have a messed up economic structure that teeters of communism and doesn't work for :daisy:. If they had to change it to survive, they would. Like...say...the west would stop enabling them... I think we should definately support them against those who infringe on their rights, but I also think that we should stop enabling them. We are providing military security for ever :daisy: European country as it is, but we have to, cause if those worthless places fall (no offense to Europeans, I am talking about the worthless militaries, not the people), our chance of success in any war will be greatly hindered. We cannot do anything about Europe cause they got us by the :daisy: (not that it will really help them in the long run. It will only end up hurting us all), but Israel we can do something about. We should slowly cut the aid to Israel, before dropping it off flat. We should still aid them militarily when enemies are infringing on their right to survive, because they are our allies, but they should be our allies, not leeches stuck onto us. Sorry if this sounds harsh, I got family in Israel (one of the reasons I know what a :daisy:hole it is :P) and am a strong supporter of Israel and think we should definately help it, I just think that our allies should act like allies and help us in return. As long as we enable them, they will never really be of any strength to help us, because we will be the ones always helping them. I do not blame the people, but the government.

Tribesman

04-08-2009, 22:44

"Instead, under international law, East Jerusalem is considered to be occupied territory."

Yes Fragony , so is the Golan and the farms , so currently is Gharjar , previously so was large parts of Lebanon and the Sinai .
That why they are not in the human rights report which deals only with Israel , you know the report that says to are talking complete rubbish when you say "Within Israel's borders arabs have the same rights. "
Only a complete fool would even try to claim that when even Jews within Israel don't have the same rights if they are the "wrong" kind of Jew .

Did you think all this started with the sixth day war.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xi7GdviIsjQ
Wow the Mufti wanted an alliance with Hitler , thats compelling stuff , errrr....who was that Yitzhak Shamir fella who wanted an alliance with Hitler too ?
Nice video , far too many factual errors though to be taken seriously .

hear it from the good man himself, Fitna
:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
that piece of crap by Wilders:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:

http://middleeastfacts.com/weblog/is...s-before-1948/

Wow that only includes a small number of attacks over a short period and contains absolutely none of those perpetrated by Zionist terrorists, nice and balanced isn't it:thumbsdown:

Strike For The South

04-09-2009, 00:04

I only support Israel because it aligns with the US. The day it stops I will send 400 billion to the Arabs.

How one could even defend the human rights violations is beyond me. Or the blatant taking of land.
That really doesn't matter to me though.

All that matters is there on Uncle Sam sides and everyone on Uncle Sam's side is a good guy:thumbsup:

KarlXII

04-09-2009, 01:50

You know, maybe the best solution to the whole Middle East problem is to just revive the Ottoman Empire. I'm sure Mehmet the sixth has some heirs floating around somewhere.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ertugrul_Osman_V

Jolt

04-09-2009, 03:37

The day it stops I will send 400 billion to the Arabs.

:jawdrop:

STFS is Bill Gates in disguise.

Seamus Fermanagh

04-09-2009, 04:11

Any Israeli citizen not being accorded the full rights of that citizenship is cause for concern. The rights given your own citizens in whatever constitution governs your nation must be held very precious. Anything else trends towards tyranny.

This is part of the reason I so adamantly opposed the Bush administration's detention of Jose Padilla. He was a U.S. citizen, arrested in the USA while not actively under arms against the USA (whatever he may have wanted to do), and was detained without charges for 3 years. He was a scumbag terrorist supporter of AQ and deserved to be tried for treason. However, NO citizen should be denied their rights in this manner. Caught on foreign soil fighting against the USA -- different. Renounced citizenship but trying to reclaim it later -- different. Otherwise, citizens are to be accorded their rights under the law. Try 'em for treason and slam home the penalty, fair enough, but their rights cannot be abrogated in that fashion.

Fragony

04-09-2009, 06:49

:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
that piece of crap by Wilders:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:

Not the best compilation of real footage I agree.

Incongruous

04-09-2009, 08:34

How and where the violence started in a conflict raging about 2000 years is silly and pointless.

Ummm, the conflict really got off after al-nakba, the Jews were kicked out by the Romans a bit less than 2000 years ago but anyway. The Palestinians and Israelis fo today are so far removed from that conflict that it is fallacy to connect the current conflict to the Jewish uprisings.

nakba-shmakba, arabs attacked jews. arabs got whipped really bad. Israelis of course, exploit their victory to the max and act with utmost brutality. Their's a reason for it though, they have nowhere to go, it's israel or death. Now arabs lament over nakba. Instead of doing that, they should have allowed the palestinian refugees to integrate, but no, nobody except Jordan did that. So we still have people lingering in refugee camps 60 years after the war. Nakba. 67, same deal. It's like 1948 never happened and nobody learned anything from that failure. Once again, arabs get whipped real bad. Generated more refugees, lost more land. Nakba.

Nakba came to be largely because of the utter refusal on the arab side to negotiate a fair partition of palestine pre-48. Yes, Israel's policies are in many ways despicable, and it is most definitely not a democratic state, but in this conflict nobody is innocent.

Nice to know historical fiction and complete lack of facts is still in good health when it comes to Israel and the Arabs. The land was Palestinains before al-nakba, it was Israeli afterwards, through the process of conquest, invasion and colonialism. I don't really know why the blame falls on other people of Arab stock to intergrate these refugees, it is not as if Arabs are a unified people, nationalism was rife in the period. Pan-Arabism never really got off the ground in Palistine or Syria and Nasser was just plain anti Palestinian. So, these nations in general, dislike the Palestinians because they are not the same nations, and they resent the fact that they are left with them. It was Israel that destroyed their lives.

Seamus Fermanagh

04-09-2009, 14:58

... The land was Palestinains before al-nakba, it was Israeli afterwards, through the process of conquest, invasion and colonialism...

I believe it was British under a mandate from the LofN and then subsequently the UN, no? Something about the Treaty of Paris and the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire if I recall.

KarlXII

04-09-2009, 22:52

in the spirit of passover, Hamas sends regards (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E8IV6ZnzoDY)

That's an....interesting signature you got there....

Evil_Maniac From Mars

04-09-2009, 23:22

That's an....interesting signature you got there....

Are you implying that his signature means he wants to drink the blood of Muslims? :inquisitive:

KarlXII

04-10-2009, 00:08

Are you implying that his signature means he wants to drink the blood of Muslims? :inquisitive:

You read the fine print didn't you? :laugh4:

Evil_Maniac From Mars

04-10-2009, 00:15

You read the fine print didn't you? :laugh4:

I see what you mean now. :sweatdrop:

Incongruous

04-10-2009, 03:10

I believe it was British under a mandate from the LofN and then subsequently the UN, no? Something about the Treaty of Paris and the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire if I recall.

It was not British, it was under mandate, but not British. Britai did not have the right to colonise the region. Anyway, if you wish to skip the issue of prior ownership of the land by Palestinians, then go ahead, but you are missing the issue then.

So, the land was Palestinian before al-nakba, yes? Did Palestinian farmers and such, have legal claim to property which they lived on? Or, do Jews, by dint of their race, have the right to take it? Is this just a case of extreme racism?
:yes:

Seamus Fermanagh

04-10-2009, 06:02

It was not British, it was under mandate, but not British. Britai did not have the right to colonise the region. Anyway, if you wish to skip the issue of prior ownership of the land by Palestinians, then go ahead, but you are missing the issue then.

So, the land was Palestinian before al-nakba, yes? Did Palestinian farmers and such, have legal claim to property which they lived on? Or, do Jews, by dint of their race, have the right to take it? Is this just a case of extreme racism?
:yes:

No, the point I was making was that, according to the generally accepted international rules of the time, the mandate was within the purview of the UN to distribute in whatever fashion they thought best. Obviously, this only applies to the original territory from the 1947 agreement. Israel holds suzerainty over any other lands only by right of conquest. Right of conquest was, but is no longer, acknowledged as valid in international law.

Now, you can argue that the UN decision was stupid in that it failed to address the resentment and deep disagreement felt by many (most? all?) Palestinian arabs towards that decision. It's pretty clear that racism was not the force motivating the UN decision, though being that high-handed toward the locals was presumptuous at best. Yet, by the standards of the time, this was viewed as being within the purview of the UN.

I've always wondered how things would have turned out had the CCCP not opted out of the meeting and had chosen to interpose its veto on the whole thing.

Tribesman

04-10-2009, 06:43

the mandate was within the purview of the UN to distribute in whatever fashion they thought best.
No , both the mandate and the declaration on which it was based contained specifics , those were not followed .

Incongruous

04-10-2009, 06:57

No, the point I was making was that, according to the generally accepted international rules of the time, the mandate was within the purview of the UN to distribute in whatever fashion they thought best. Obviously, this only applies to the original territory from the 1947 agreement. Israel holds suzerainty over any other lands only by right of conquest. Right of conquest was, but is no longer, acknowledged as valid in international law.

Now, you can argue that the UN decision was stupid in that it failed to address the resentment and deep disagreement felt by many (most? all?) Palestinian arabs towards that decision. It's pretty clear that racism was not the force motivating the UN decision, though being that high-handed toward the locals was presumptuous at best. Yet, by the standards of the time, this was viewed as being within the purview of the UN.

I've always wondered how things would have turned out had the CCCP not opted out of the meeting and had chosen to interpose its veto on the whole thing.

No the mandate was no such thing, what occured was a travesty of International justice.
Why even bring up the right of conquest? By the time Israel had been established it was already well past it, the U.S had been very certain about this.

The decison to recognise Israel was a farce, lead by the U.S, it was more than high handed, it was racism, the idea that you should help one ethnic group kill and oust another from its homeland is racist. The Jews were percieved to be more worthy of a home than the Palestinians.
The U.N did what the U.S told it to, deep and critical thought were not part of the process.

Seamus Fermanagh

04-10-2009, 21:13

No the mandate was no such thing, what occured was a travesty of International justice.
Why even bring up the right of conquest? By the time Israel had been established it was already well past it, the U.S had been very certain about this.

That was brought up merely to limit my commentary to the original UN decision, and to note that subsequent acquisition of territory by Israel had no such UN sanction behind it.

The decison to recognise Israel was a farce, lead by the U.S, it was more than high handed, it was racism, the idea that you should help one ethnic group kill and oust another from its homeland is racist. The Jews were percieved to be more worthy of a home than the Palestinians.
The U.N did what the U.S told it to, deep and critical thought were not part of the process.

The USA was certainly among the leading voices pushing for the creation of a Jewish state in Palestine. The decision, prompted in part by guilt over the Holocaust no doubt, may have been "racist" in that it preferenced Jews (though many would argue that this was not a race but a religious persuasion) at the expense of the indigenous population. I do NOT think there was any particular anti-arab sentiment. Any of the various peoples of the developing world would have been treated equally dismissively had they happened to be residing there. The Great Powers had decided to do this and (with China's veto still under Chiang's rule and the CCCP's absent from the room) thus it was done.

You can make a good argument that this kind of high-handedness seldom works and that this decision made prolonged conflict in the Middle East more or less inevitable -- history has borne this out quite clearly. On that basis, you can make a credible argument that it was a stupid decision and that the long-term consequences were simply ignored. I'd pretty well agree with that too.

By labeling it a "farce," however, you imply that the UN had no right to make such a decision. According to the standards of International Law at the time, as well as the UN charter, the UN did have this power. When the Charter was signed, most of the signatories assumed that the various mandates would be brought "online" as nations under the people's indigenous to the respective regions, but the exact process and pattern was not spelled out.

EDIT: Tribesman, you have a point. The decision almost certainly contravened the spirit of Article 73 if not the exact letter. Though I believe I have been acknowledging that aspect of things.

There was little anti-arab or anti-muslim sentiment in the USA during that time (at least in the sense that we mistrusted them no more and no less than any other "furriner"). If anything, we were enjoying our growing share of the oil revenues from the region and considered our relations with Iran to be very positive etc. Even during the earlier Arab-Israeli conflicts of 1948, 1956, and 1967 there was relatively little anti-arab sentiment even as we rooted for Israel the "plucky underdog." Only when OPEC took decisions to punish the USA and terrorism began to include Americans as targets did such a sentiment begin to develop.

Louis VI the Fat

04-11-2009, 19:20

There was little anti-arab or anti-muslim sentiment in the USA during that time (at least in the sense that we mistrusted them no more and no less than any other "furriner"). If anything, we were enjoying our growing share of the oil revenues from the region and considered our relations with Iran to be very positive etc. Even during the earlier Arab-Israeli conflicts of 1948, 1956, and 1967 there was relatively little anti-arab sentiment even as we rooted for Israel the "plucky underdog." Only when OPEC took decisions to punish the USA and terrorism began to include Americans as targets did such a sentiment begin to develop.That is a very balanced description of history. Much history of the US-Isral relationship l think is too coloured by present policy and feeling.

As with other special relationships, the US-Israel one isn't all that old or unproblematic. It didn't come about until 1967, under Johnson. Before that, Israel had its special relationship with a certain European country that I won't name here, lest I mention the same country in each and every one of my posts. In 1956, for example, the US sided with the Arabs (Egypt) against Israel.

Communism, anti-Semitism, relations with important Middle East countries like Egypt and Iran were more important to the US than Israel. Which enjoyed sympathy, much predating even 1948, but which should not be exaggarated, or read backwards into history.

Seamus Fermanagh

04-11-2009, 20:56

As with other special relationships, the US-Israel one isn't all that old or unproblematic. It didn't come about until 1967, under Johnson. Before that, Israel had its special relationship with a certain European country that I won't name here, lest I mention the same country in each and every one of my posts. In 1956, for example, the US sided with the Arabs (Egypt) against Israel.

Communism, anti-Semitism, relations with important Middle East countries like Egypt and Iran were more important to the US than Israel. Which enjoyed sympathy, much predating even 1948, but which should not be exaggarated, or read backwards into history.

History has already be rewritten in too many minds, Louis, in order to ladle a hefty chunk of the blame on the USA. We created Israel by fiat, the British were only partly involved, the French had no role, and the USA is simply using Israel as a stalking horse/proxy for our plans to economically and culturally dominate the Middle East. :rolleyes3:

Sadly, enough of the locals have learned something close to that version. This means that the parties who wish things to continue as they are can comfortably enjoy the knowledge that the USA can no longer broker peace. We can only support Israel, badger them to give up concessions, or cut them adrift. Nice choice huh? We get to be the focal enemy or the ally betrayer.

Hooahguy

04-12-2009, 02:17

That's an....interesting signature you got there....
why is it so interesting?

KarlXII

04-12-2009, 18:35

why is it so interesting?

Images of soldiers and destruction with a combined US/Israeli flag raised some of my eyebrows.

Hax

04-12-2009, 18:53

Yes, it would almost look like you actually took pride in destruction.

Evil_Maniac From Mars

04-12-2009, 19:02

OMG!!!!111!!! SOLDIERS AND A FLAHG!!!!HEISM\/RDERER!11ELEVEN!

EDIT: Sorry, had to add more caps and letters. Didn't look quite 1337 enough.

tibilicus

04-12-2009, 20:04

OMG!!!!111!!! SOLDIERS AND A FLAHG!!!!HEISM\/RDERER!11ELEVEN!

EDIT: Sorry, had to add more caps and letters. Didn't look quite 1337 enough.

Think they might be referring to the bomb blast, or what looks like no at least, not the actual soldier.

Evil_Maniac From Mars

04-12-2009, 20:24

Think they might be referring to the bomb blast, or what looks like no at least, not the actual soldier.

Was the bomb necessarily blowing anything up? Even if it was, is it really a big deal? Or is it simply an ad hominem attack?

Sheogorath

04-12-2009, 20:27

Was the bomb necessarily blowing anything up? Even if it was, is it really a big deal? Or is it simply an ad hominem attack?

Obviously it was blowing up Palestinian orphans. In a petting zoo. A petting zoo of kittens and puppies. Adorable ones.

Rhyfelwyr

04-12-2009, 20:28

Was the bomb necessarily blowing anything up? Even if it was, is it really a big deal? Or is it simply an ad hominem attack?

It was blowing up the orphanage for disabled children. The soldier then went on to shoot all their pet kittens.

EDIT: Gah Sheograth!

Great minds think alike... of maybe this is just what TW does to you.

Sheogorath

04-12-2009, 20:32

It was blowing up the orphanage for disabled children. The soldier then went on to shoot all their pet kittens.

EDIT: Gah Sheograth!

Great minds think alike... of maybe this is just what TW does to you.

Sarcasm Ninja, away!
*Flees like the wind*

Hax

04-12-2009, 20:38

OMG!!!!111!!! SOLDIERS AND A FLAHG!!!!HEISM\/RDERER!11ELEVEN!

I don't recall SwedishFish or me acting like an underdeveloped twelve year old, I merely stated my surprise in that he seems to advocate racial inequality in the Middle East.

You know, the same racial inequality the Jews suffered in Nazi Germany.

Vuk

04-12-2009, 20:48

I don't recall SwedishFish or me acting like an underdeveloped twelve year old, I merely stated my surprise in that he seems to advocate racial inequality in the Middle East.

You know, the same racial inequality the Jews suffered in Nazi Germany.

lmao, first of all, I hope you are not referring to the religion of islam as a race, because that would not be very intelligent.
Second of all, by him honoring a military alliance between two countries he is connected too, how does that "advocate racial inequality in the Middle East."? Would you say the same about someone who had a palestinian soldeir firing a weapon in their signature?

You know, the same racial inequality the Jews suffered in Nazi Germany

I'm sorry, but this is a really, really wrong of you. Do you have any idea what Hitler's victims suffered? Do you have any idea of the magnitude of destruction or ungodly bounds of human misery suffered under Hitler? How can you even say something like that? I really hope that you are not serious, and still think that it is in very poor taste...

Evil_Maniac From Mars

04-12-2009, 20:48

I don't recall SwedishFish or me acting like an underdeveloped twelve year old, I merely stated my surprise in that he seems to advocate racial inequality in the Middle East.

That doesn't in any way advocate inequality in the Middle East - which is why I played the "underdeveloped twelve year old" card.

You know, the same racial inequality the Jews suffered in Nazi Germany.

This is inaccurate in addition to getting old.

Rhyfelwyr

04-12-2009, 20:58

You know, the same racial inequality the Jews suffered in Nazi Germany.

Is there something in the water today? Thread over/

KarlXII

04-12-2009, 21:20

OMG!!!!111!!! SOLDIERS AND A FLAHG!!!!HEISM\/RDERER!11ELEVEN!

EDIT: Sorry, had to add more caps and letters. Didn't look quite 1337 enough.

When in doubt, play the card.

Hax

04-12-2009, 21:31

Well, I guess I did invoke Godwin's law.

lmao, first of all, I hope you are not referring to the religion of islam as a race, because that would not be very intelligent.

Sure dude. Shall I tell you something? Yesterday a guy asked me when I said when I was half Arabic whether I was "half Muslim". Of course this does not exist. However, I'm refering the racial inequality concerning the Jewish people which are regarded as deserving a free state more than others.

I'm sorry, but this is a really, really wrong of you. Do you have any idea what Hitler's victims suffered? Do you have any idea of the magnitude of destruction or ungodly bounds of human misery suffered under Hitler? How can you even say something like that? I really hope that you are not serious, and still think that it is in very poor taste...

I'm most certainly aware of the horrors in World War II, and I do admit that the situation in Israel is not half as bad as the situation was in Nazi Germany; however, I do wish to state that racial inequality is never acceptable.

Second of all, by him honoring a military alliance between two countries he is connected too, how does that "advocate racial inequality in the Middle East."? Would you say the same about someone who had a palestinian soldeir firing a weapon in their signature?

Well, I think it's impossible to deny that Israel does like to bomb Palestinian people. I think honouring military alliances is wrong, yes.

Would you say the same about someone who had a palestinian soldeir firing a weapon in their signature?
Yes.

Also, have you ever considered the point that people might be slightly offended by hooahguy's signature. I am neither pro-Israel nor pro-Palestine, but from what I have seen the Palestinians are in a worse situation than the Israelis.

tibilicus

04-12-2009, 21:37

Was the bomb necessarily blowing anything up? Even if it was, is it really a big deal? Or is it simply an ad hominem attack?

I never said it was showing anything, I have no problem with hooahguys sig, I was merely pointing out what KarlXII finds offensive about it.

In all fairness to Karl as well a sig like that is normally only going to be viewed in one way..

It's not really saying im into fluffy bunny's is it?

Megas Methuselah

04-12-2009, 22:18

Also, have you ever considered the point that people might be slightly offended by hooahguy's signature.

To be honest, I'm surprised by how long it actually took someone to finally point this out. The sig does tend to raise eyebrows, after all...

Evil_Maniac From Mars

04-12-2009, 22:28

In all fairness to Karl as well a sig like that is normally only going to be viewed in one way..

Your signature has a man with a vulture on his head. You must endorse eating rotting corpses, right?

Well, I think it's impossible to deny that Israel does like to bomb Palestinian people.

Israel enjoys bombing Palestinians? :laugh4:

I think honouring military alliances is wrong, yes.

Nothing to say but: :dizzy2:

Also, have you ever considered the point that people might be slightly offended by hooahguy's signature.

If you're offended by two soldiers and two flags, you really have to pick your battles.

I am neither pro-Israel nor pro-Palestine

Sure...

Hax

04-12-2009, 22:33

Israel enjoys bombing Palestinians? :laugh4:

Well sure, look at the random bombing of non-military targets during the Gaza war.

Nothing to say but: :dizzy2:

Then I have nothing to say in return. To each his own opinion.

If you're offended by two soldiers and two flags, you really have to pick your battles.

Once again; to each his own

Sure...

Well, I'm not asking you to believe me. Look at is this way; what I want is a dual-states solution in Israel/Palestine. At this moment however, the Palestinians clearly have a disadvantage, which I deem unfair.

To be honest, I'm surprised by how long it actually took someone to finally point this out. The sig does tend to raise eyebrows, after all...

I would also like the see the responses if I should take a signature picture which has a Hamas soldier with a Palestinian flag in the background.

Megas Methuselah

04-12-2009, 22:49

I would also like the see the responses if I should take a signature picture which has a Hamas soldier with a Palestinian flag in the background.

Exactly.

Evil_Maniac From Mars

04-12-2009, 23:10

Well sure, look at the random bombing of non-military targets during the Gaza war.

I'll let someone else rip this apart...

Then I have nothing to say in return. To each his own opinion.

If you can't honour a military alliance you may as well not have any at all.

I would also like the see the responses if I should take a signature picture which has a Hamas soldier with a Palestinian flag in the background.

Hamas is recognized as a terrorist organization by a huge variety of nations, and should be treated as such by Orgahs if it was displayed in a signature. If you want a Palestinian flag, so be it, that is no different than having any other flag in your signature.

Hax

04-12-2009, 23:14

Hamas is recognized as a terrorist organization by a huge variety of nations, and should be treated as such by Orgahs if it was displayed in a signature. If you want a Palestinian flag, so be it, that is no different than having any other flag in your signature.

Oh yes, and all of Israels actions were perfectly legit by all standards in the past.

I'll let someone else rip this apart...

Interesting, I just saw a Dutch documentary which showed a spring that had been completely blown to pieces by the Israelis. That spring irrigated 5 fields. Is Hamas now using the earth against Israel? How about the destruction of the planned harbour of Gaza?

I think it's safe to say that Israel as a state is fairly messed up, otherwise we wouldn't be having these discussions.

Askthepizzaguy

04-12-2009, 23:19

Obviously it was blowing up Palestinian orphans. In a petting zoo. A petting zoo of kittens and puppies. Adorable ones.

I would personally love to visit the Palestinian petting zoo, which is next to the Palestinian marshmallow mountain, on the corner of gumdrop lane.

Evil_Maniac From Mars

04-12-2009, 23:27

Oh yes, and all of Israels actions were perfectly legit by all standards in the past.

Of course they weren't. There is not a country in the world, from Liechtenstein to the United States, that can claim to be perfectly legitimate. However, there is a difference between a legitimate state and a terrorist organization.

When even the EU calls Hamas terrorists, you can be pretty sure that they are.

Interesting, I just saw a Dutch documentary which showed a spring that had been completely blown to pieces by the Israelis. That spring irrigated 5 fields.

I have not seen the documentary in question, and as a result I do not know why the spring was bombed, where it was located, when it was bombed, or who was using it. I could also not identify the spin in the documentary. Regardless, you can be sure that Israel did not bomb it for fun. Bombs cost too much money to do that.

I think it's safe to say that Israel as a state is fairly messed up, otherwise we wouldn't be having these discussions.

Every state has problems, and Israel certainly does as well, but to say that it is "messed up", which is apparently proven by the fact that we are "having these discussions" is silly. If Israel was "messed up", and that was proven, then there wouldn't be two sides to these arguments.

Sheogorath

04-12-2009, 23:43

I would personally love to visit the Palestinian petting zoo, which is next to the Palestinian marshmallow mountain, on the corner of gumdrop lane.

Too bad. The Israeli's blew those up too.

Hax

04-12-2009, 23:45

I have not seen the documentary in question, and as a result I do not know why the spring was bombed, where it was located, when it was bombed, or who was using it. I could also not identify the spin in the documentary. Regardless, you can be sure that Israel did not bomb it for fun. Bombs cost too much money to do that.

Yes, and incidentally, as soon as the Israelis start to bomb something, the European nations will jump in and give them money to rebuilt the stuff they just bombed. Also, doesn't the state of Israel receive millions if not billions of dollars each year from the United States. It's not really as if they have to be careful with their money.

Too bad. The Israeli's blew those up too.

Aww, man. That's a shame.

Pannonian

04-13-2009, 00:06

I think it's safe to say that Israel as a state is fairly messed up, otherwise we wouldn't be having these discussions.
By Middle East standards, Israel is as westernised as they get. By western standards, Israel is an alien country. It depends on what standards one judges Israel by. Probably as good an ally as one can find in the region for our interests, but certainly not something to model a western country on.

tibilicus

04-13-2009, 00:15

Your signature has a man with a vulture on his head. You must endorse eating rotting corpses, right?

No, because my signature isn't related to war and isn't suggestive that im a fan of or down with the Israeli/American military. Nor does it suggest that I support their actions. That's a poor comparison you made. I'm disappointed..

And if that sigs ok with you then I guess it's ok if I change my sig image to this. http://themustardseed.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/hamas_war0402.jpg

I have another one with some civilians in a cross hair but apparently the Israeli military stole it for their new t.shirts..
:2thumbsup: :wink:

Anyway back on topic, as I said earlier I have no problem with hooahguys sig, but I can see why some people might. If you can't see why some people find it offensive then it's your failure to see that. Now, as I mentioned, I don't find it offensive, I'm simply stating why some people would find it offensive, clear?

Evil_Maniac From Mars

04-13-2009, 00:19

No, because my signature isn't related to war and isn't suggestive that im a fan with the Israeli/American military nor that I support their actions. Nor does it suggest where my political views are coming from. I though you were a clever man, you surprise me...

So only things that are related to war are bad? Being a fan of the IDF or US Army is a bad thing? Really? I find it offensive that you endorse the consumption of carrion, but hey, if it isn't related to war, that must be alright.

And if that sigs ok with you then I guess it's ok if I change my sig image to this. http://themustardseed.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/hamas_war0402.jpg

I have explained the difference.

Your a man of freedom and all that so that's cool right?

It is perfectly OK for you to have it, but you will receive criticism and you will deserve it more than hooah.