Just how messed up is Israel?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KarlXII

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KarlXII

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

---

I see what you mean now. :sweatdrop:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bopa the Magyar

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.

Quote:

---

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 .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bopa the Magyar

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bopa the Magyar

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

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. [SARCASM]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.[/SARCASM] :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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KarlXII

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

---

why is it so interesting?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hooahguy

why is it so interesting?

---

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

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tibilicus

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

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*

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hax

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?

Quote:

---

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...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hax

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.

Quote:

---

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

---

This is inaccurate in addition to getting old.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hax

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

---

Is there something in the water today? Thread over/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars

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.

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

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hax

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...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tibilicus

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hax

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

---

Israel enjoys bombing Palestinians? :laugh4:

Quote:

---

I think honouring military alliances is wrong, yes.

---

Nothing to say but: :dizzy2:

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

I am neither pro-Israel nor pro-Palestine

---

Sure...

Quote:

---

Israel enjoys bombing Palestinians? :laugh4:

---

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

Quote:

---

Nothing to say but: :dizzy2:

---

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

Quote:

---

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

---

Once again; to each his own

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hax

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.