Criticism of the UN? Inadmissible!

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Oh, so wait, the fact that Palastine is not a real place, is why the Arabs living there, have no human rights worth protecting.

Please quote where I said anything like that.

[CBR]

Link please. So your denying the Romans named the region Palestine?
Ive heard of Holocaust deniers but your the first Israel denier Ive heard from. Palestine isnt even an arab word.

The name is derived from the land of the Philistines. Herodotus used the Greek equivalent of the word and later the Romans used a latin version(Palaestina)

Herodotus might not have meant the whole area that we now consider Israel/Palestine but we can be pretty sure that at least part of the area used that name a long time before the Romans.


CBR

[Gawain of Orkeny]

The name is derived from the land of the Philistines. Herodotus used the Greek equivalent of the word and later the Romans used a latin version(Palaestina)

It was reffred to as the lands of the Philistines then Philistine Syria and the Romans changed it to the province of (Palaestina) when they decided to change it from the province of Judea. Even then it reffered to a region not a peoples. The people who lived there were forced to leave for the most part. You may have heard of them their called Jews.

And the Philistines have nothing to do with the people who now claim to be Palestinians. They did not speak Arabic. They had no connection, ethnic, linguistic or historical with Arabia or Arabs. The very fact that they call themselves arabs tells you their not originally from Palestine.

[Del Arroyo]

Perhaps Adrian was doing a little April Fool's?

Anyway, modern-day Palestinians do derive their identity almost solely from the struggle against Israel. The whole idea of a state of Palestine only came along because the Arab states figured that the all of the people displaced by conflict with Israel would eventually need a "homeland" of their own. The West Bank (of the Jordan river) was originally considered a part of Jordan, and this would still probably be the most stable long-term solution, though I doubt Jordan would even want to take responsibility for that firey kettle right now.

EDIT: That's right, Gawain. The Arabs who lived in the territory of Palestine before 1948 had absolutely no connection to that land, except for the fact that they were born there, all of their family lived near there, and their fathers' and their fathers' father's had lived there, too. The Zionist claim of racial prerogative is much more legitimate.

[CBR]

Yes a region with shifting names and several ethnic groups. Whats your point? That people who call themselves Arabs has no right to live in that area? Or that they cannot possible have any other identity but a generic Arab one?


CBR

[Papewaio]

I'm pretty sure all the World War I war memorials refer to the region as Palestine not Israel, now how did that happen if it was only made up after WWII? Has Doctor Who been putting graffiti on all the WWI war memorials?

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Whats your point? That people who call themselves Arabs has no right to live in that area?

I never said that. The point is the arabs say Jews have no right to call themselves Palestinians. Since when is Palestine part of Arabia? Just because Moslem nations once conquered the area it should be only for muslims now? It has nothing to do with whos land it was 60 years ago or even 2000 years ago. I just argue that from a historical point of view. It is now as it always has been. Well almost. The strong control the land. It was given to Israel by the winners of WW2. They can defend their borders and have done so on numerous occassions. It is only through their goodwill that they even allow Palestine to still exist. That and pressure from that horrible old US of A.

[Marshal Murat]

Well, if the area is named for Philistines, it should be changed, because Philistines, besides being culturally ignorant, are actually 'Sea People' who settled there. They were also defeated by the Israeli people before the Diaspora.

If the Arabs are allowed to have that land because they lived there before, it throws out their argument because they conquered the lands from the Byzantine soldiers, and Catholic crusaders. They won the land through force, and any relation to the original inhabitants of the land before is pure luck.

[Mooks]

The issue on whos land is whos is never going to be solved. And it doesnt matter at all. The jews who invaded have proved much tougher (and smarter) then the local arabs, and have took the land.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

I'm pretty sure all the World War I war memorials refer to the region as Palestine not Israel, now how did that happen if it was only made up after WWII? Has Doctor Who been putting graffiti on all the WWI war memorials?

Didnt I say until madated by the British? That would be after WW1 the Balflour Declaration and then later the British mandate.

The issue on whos land is whos is never going to be solved. And it doesnt matter at all. The jews who invaded have proved much tougher (and smarter) then the local arabs, and have took the land.

And thats all that counts. Its too late to argue now. Itr was won by the sword and lost by the sword. To the strong go the spoils. Sorry people. So it has always been and so it always will. All the UN and you peacenicks do is prolong the suffering and make things worse in the long run. The Palestinians should realize theve lost and try to get as good a deal as they can. You know like Camp David. Since when do the losers dictate terms?

[Tuuvi]

I'm still not exactly sure why the Israeli government doesn't just make all the palestinians citizens, then the jews and the arabs can mix and they all live happily ever after.

[Mooks]

I'm still not exactly sure why the Israeli government doesn't just make all the palestinians citizens, then the jews and the arabs can mix and they all live happily ever after.

Uhh. Your kidding right? I mean, your not actually serios?

[Tuuvi]

Uhh. Your kidding right? I mean, your not actually serios?

kinda. I know why they don't, but I think it would be a good idea if they did.

[Beirut]

To the strong go the spoils. Sorry people. So it has always been and so it always will.

Is that not a justification of all evil in that might is right?

Where is the better part of human nature in that equation?

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Is that not a justification of all evil in that might is right?

The one with the might isnt always the evil one. Thats where many of you go wrong.

Where is the better part of human nature in that equation?

There is none

Were talking survival here. When it come to kill or be killed Ill take the kill part almost everytime. Again if the Palestinians had the power of Israel and the Islraelis had the power of the Palestinians I wouldnt give Israel a chance of existing for another month.

[Adrian II]

Link please. So your denying the Romans named the region Palestine?
Ive heard of Holocaust deniers but your the first Israel denier Ive heard from. Palestine isnt even an arab word.

If you really care what it was called during the New Kingdom, you should consult Chicago where they study and translate the Medinet Habu inscriptions. Or else Pritchard, J., Ancient Near Eastern Texts, New Jersey, Princeton University Press, 1969.

A link to Herodotus, well, I can't be bothered. Try Histories 1.105. And if you feel really up to it, try 7.89 about the Palaisteinei marching in Xerxes' army - but beware, that passage could be the justification for a Greater Palestine from Southern Syria to the Egyptian border! Ouch!

I must disappoint you about Alexander the Great, old chum. He ran into trouble with AOL and his weblog hasn't been updated for a while. But you might find his inventory on the Web if you bother to look for it.

And as I stated above, even the oldest extant Jewish text calls the area Palestine. Where does that leave your claim?

Oh, and by the way I'm not denying Israel's past, I'm just debunking some fairytales here. Please go on, give me some more. It made me smile all day yesterday.

[Ironside]

Uhh. Your kidding right? I mean, your not actually serios?

Well, it's the only one-state solution that doesn't include genocide. Says quite a bit on how big odds there's for a one-state solution doesn't it?

[Banquo's Ghost]

And thats all that counts. Its too late to argue now. Itr was won by the sword and lost by the sword. To the strong go the spoils. Sorry people. So it has always been and so it always will. All the UN and you peacenicks do is prolong the suffering and make things worse in the long run. The Palestinians should realize theve lost and try to get as good a deal as they can. You know like Camp David. Since when do the losers dictate terms?

This kind of moral bankruptcy would seem to be a good argument for the violence perpetrated by Palestinian terrorists to continue. If they don't accept they have lost yet, they can still aspire to win by the sword - or the suicide bomb. After all, Israelis beat off a much stronger power (which to all intents and purposes had "won") by bombing the King David Hotel, among other asymmetric acts of war.

Israel employed quite similar guerrilla tactics against the other powers that "won" their land by the sword. Who says when it is too late to argue? I wonder, if your homeland was occupied, when would you give up knowing you'd lost? When they told you to? When they bulldozed your house? Or when your children were shot?

My people refused to accept they had lost to a great power for 800 years. The Israeli people for another thousand or so. When precisely was it too late for them to argue?

(To be clear, I am not advocating such violence. Unlike the "amoral strong" you propose, Israel is a vibrant democracy capable of negotiating wisely for peace, which means the door is open for a non-military solution.

I would like to see the Israeli nation grow up and have the confidence in their own strength - and the fact that their existence is guaranteed by the US - to be magnanimous enough to work the problem. I have long said that the Palestinians have absolutely nothing to gain save continued misery by prolonging the war, and need courageous leaders who would advocate peace. But these leaders are likely to be from the militant strong men - as the leaders of Israel who have been able to further the peace process have been.

A Palestinian leader who has not bled for his people is unlikely to have the support to make the compromises that bring peace. The terrorists are the only people that can stop the terror, ergo, they must be talked to).

[Beirut]

The one with the might isnt always the evil one. Thats where many of you go wrong.

Often they are, though. Rome. Mongolia. England. France. Germany. The USSR. The USA. All have been very powerful and all have gone bonkers with that power.

There is none

Were talking survival here. When it come to kill or be killed Ill take the kill part almost everytime.

Yet many people risked death hiding Jews from the Nazis. And many more died fighting the Nazis.

I'll take the better part of human nature, you can keep the killing part.

[Vladimir]

I'm for the side that doesn't want to kill me .

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Often they are, though. Rome. Mongolia. England. France. Germany. The USSR. The USA. All have been very powerful and all have gone bonkers with that power.

So Rome was evil ? Didnt most of these you mentioned civilize the world? That sometimes they abused their power only makes them human.

Yet many people risked death hiding Jews from the Nazis. And many more died fighting the Nazis.

I'll take the better part of human nature, you can keep the killing part.

Its one thing to be willing to die for your country , Its another thing entirely to be willing to let your country and peoples die because you wont fight for it.

If they don't accept they have lost yet, they can still aspire to win by the sword - or the suicide bomb. After all, Israelis beat off a much stronger power (which to all intents and purposes had "won") by bombing the King David Hotel, among other asymmetric acts of war.

No they hope to win by propaganda. They have hope because many people like some here support them.

Israel employed quite similar guerrilla tactics against the other powers that "won" their land by the sword

Name one Israeli suicide bomber. You cant compare the Irgun to modern Palestinian terrorists.

I wonder, if your homeland was occupied, when would you give up knowing you'd lost? When they told you to? When they bulldozed your house? Or when your children were shot?

Its not their homeland.

and the fact that their existence is guaranteed by the US

Their existence is guaranteed by the Israeli armed forces. Even wiithout US support they would survive.

The terrorists are the only people that can stop the terror, ergo, they must be talked to).

You might as well talk to the wall.

[Suraknar]

Few words are as politically or emotionally charged as terrorism. A 1988 study by the US Army counted 109 definitions of terrorism that covered a total of 22 different definitional elements. Terrorism expert Walter Laqueur in 1999 also has counted over 100 definitions and concludes that the "only general characteristic generally agreed upon is that terrorism involves violence and the threat of violence". For this and for political reasons, many news sources avoid using this term, opting instead for less accusatory words like "bombers", "militants", etc.

Terrorism is a crime in many countries and is defined by statute (see below for particular definitions). Common principles amongst legal definitions of terrorism provide an emerging consensus as to meaning and also foster cooperation between law enforcement personnel in different countries.

Among these definitions, several do not recognize the possibility of the legitimate use of violence by civilians against an invader in an occupied country, and would thus label all resistance movements as terrorist groups. Others make a distinction between lawful and unlawful use of violence. Russia for example includes in their terrorist list only those organizations which represent the greatest threat to their own security. Ultimately, the distinction is a political judgment.

It has also been argued that the political use of violent force and weapons that deliberately target or involve civilians, and do not focus mainly on military or government targets, is a common militant, terrorist, or guerilla tactic, and a main defining feature of these kinds of people. Most governments and "legitimate" military leaders do not openly attempt to use civilians as shields or aim at them during times of political conflict. Whereas the definition of a terrorist can specify that a militant or a militant group has the criminal intent, planning, and actions to violently use civilian targets and civilian shields for political and economic ends.

As terrorism ultimately involves the use or threat of violence with the aim of creating fear not only to the victims but among a wide audience, it is fear which distinguishes terrorism from both conventional and guerrilla warfare. While both conventional military forces may engage in psychological warfare and guerrilla forces may engage in acts of terror and other forms of propaganda, they both aim at military victory. Terrorism on the other hand aims to achieve political or other goals, when direct military victory is not possible. This has resulted in some social scientists referring to guerrilla warfare as the "weapon of the weak" and terrorism as the "weapon of the weakest"

from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definition_of_terrorism

When the Nazis occupied France, and the French began resisting, the Nazis called them terrorists.

The Issue is certaintly complicated, but it can only have two solutions:

1 - Fight forever

2 - Decide to Live in Peacefull coexistance - independently of Religion or Language. Same rights for both sides, no second class citizenships, equal governement representation. Sacrifices and tolerance have to be made from both sides.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

When the Nazis occupied France, and the French began resisting, the Nazis called them terrorists

The old one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter routine. If you cant tell the difference I dont know what to say? Did the French resistance go around blowing up innocent German civilians? Do the Palestinians really think that suicide bombing gets them anywhere or will defeat Israel by using that tactic? Does anyone else doubt that in reality this is why they dont have their state? How can any people be so damn stupid.

[Banquo's Ghost]

You might as well talk to the wall.

Yes, on reading your responses I have that feeling.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Yes, on reading your responses I have that feeling.

I guess Im the only one who believes you cant negotiate with terrorists LOL.
Terrorist
"Look what we want is you dead. "

What do you negotiate the manner of your death ?

[Reenk Roink]

*A couple of "might is right" posts*

This kind of moral bankruptcy...

Hi Banquo, how are you?

I just wanted to point out that, personally (right now), I agree with the "might is right" doctrine as any (of my) attempts to build any ethical system fall apart due to infinite regresses or begging the question unless it appeals to some absolute (and wholly arbitrary [though only morally so]) authority. Ethical (moral) skepticism (bankruptcy) and straight up voluntarism are the only (seemingly "rational") options that remain. The latter would probably be preferential to the former, except that it's so hard to actually choose which authority.

Anyway, I probably digress, as I suspect that some of the people who bring up "might is right" actually mean "might is right when that might backs me up".

[Banquo's Ghost]

I guess Im the only one who believes you cant negotiate with terrorists LOL.
Terrorist
"Look what we want is you dead. "

What do you negotiate the manner of your death ?

No, not the only one. For example, Dr Ian Paisley refused ever to talk to terrorists and wrapped himself forever in the flag of No Surrender.

I wonder who is in his new cabinet? I wonder which country allowed them to be supported financially and politically while they chose the manner of death for innocents?

[Banquo's Ghost]

Hi Banquo, how are you?

I just wanted to point out that, personally (right now), I agree with the "might is right" doctrine as any (of my) attempts to build any ethical system fall apart due to infinite regresses or begging the question unless it appeals to some absolute (and wholly arbitrary [though only morally so]) authority. Ethical (moral) skepticism (bankruptcy) and straight up voluntarism are the only (seemingly "rational") options that remain. The latter would probably be preferential to the former, except that it's so hard to actually choose which authority.

Hi Reenk Roink - you have been missed.

I can see your point - you must be far more worried that the sun ain't going to rise tomorrow.

[Reenk Roink]

Hi Reenk Roink - you have been missed.

I can see your point - you must be far more worried that the sun ain't going to rise tomorrow.

Gah, you know the reason for my hiatus...

After watching the sun set on a Thrusday evening, I suffered a massive nervous breakdown. I was institutionalized for a week, where high dosages of suppositories and constant therapy improved my condition. Due to good behavior, I was released early, but on the condition that I would go and look at the daisies, which is exactly why I came back to the ORG that is gardened by you...

[Gawain of Orkeny]

I'm still not exactly sure why the Israeli government doesn't just make all the palestinians citizens, then the jews and the arabs can mix and they all live happily ever after.

Because that would give them a majority and then what? Of course they did offer citizenship to those who stayed in 48.