| Home | Community | Message Board |
|
You are not signed in. Sign In New Account | Forum Index Search Posts Trusted Vendors Highlights Galleries FAQ User List Chat Store Random Growery » |

This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.
|
| Shop: |
| |||||||
|
Registered: 05/31/07 Posts: 17,582 Loc: Americas |
| ||||||
Quote: Can you cite with particularity what you rely on to demonstrate the residents or property owners were made to leave? A quick review of the wikipage linked seems to suggest the exodus were refugees from the wars and conflicts as well as people heeding the calls of arab leaders and fearing jewish oppression/retaliation. As such, I'm unsure what particularly you are claiming establishes your position. Quote:Quote: What is your position then? Without knowing the criteria you use to determine the justification of Israel's existance/continuation, it is difficult to evaluate the merits of such. As zappa seems to be exploring, it seems quite possible that your view is based on ad hoc criteria created for convenience. Your recognition of the arab conquest as establishing legitimate rights for the muslims yet rejecting the alleged later conquest by the jews, that itself hasn't been established as having occurred at all rather than a simple conveyance of the land from the prior sovereign, is also troubling. While you claim some objection to ethical analysis as a whole, essentially suggesting the results are arbitrary and that no truth exists, it is somewhat difficult to reconcile that with your view that "the use of force for selfish gain" is not supported. I don't see how you can even decide what is selfish without ethics, but whatever. Quote: No, I don't accept either position. My present view is that Israel obtained soverignty in what seemed to be a legal transaction from a bona fide owner, the UK, and hence is presumptively valid as a state. You've said you object to the UK's soverignty but haven't said clearly why. I am not aware at present of any decent factual argument that the state of Israel should not have come into being legally or morally or that it was stolen or any of the other common claims. Quote: I have not justified as acceptable such a thing and therefore will not explain how I have done so as the premise is faulty. I'm not aware of the particulars or veracity of the premise, moreover, so I wouldn't even care to comment on the case in general untill I know just what is referred to and how its claimed attributable to Israel. Quote:Quote: You claimed the link cited refuted the claim Seuss made and did not explain how. Moreover, the link seemed clearly not to refute Seuss's claims as explained previously, as it concerned pre-Israel agricultural production by ethnicity when no apparent nor proffered argument establishes this as relevant, let alone contradictory, to Seuss's argument >I take it you didnt actually read the link then as it has everything to do with the unsubstantiated belief that you attempted to parade as a justification for the behaviour of the European Jews. You alleged the link was relevant and contradictory. Later you alleged information reveals Seuss was incorrect >Seuss made a completely unsubstantiated comment and that 10 seconds in google was enough to turn up information that could indicate he was talking out of his back side. No fail there old boy. These were the claims not substantiated.
| |||||||
|
Refraction Registered: 10/15/02 Posts: 4,773 Loc: London UK Last seen: 4 months, 13 days |
| ||||||
Quote: Maybe 700,000 people just decided to go on holiday at the same time and couldnt find their way home afterwards? Quote: I believe I have amply stated my position in this thread. Quote: Why is it troubling? I dont agree with the actions of the Arabs in the dim and distant past but I also dont agree that than can be used to excuse the same behaviour on the part of the Jews in the future. Im not really sure why you seem to be struggling to grasp this very simple concept. Quote: Now that Israel has established itself I would support its continuance within pre 1967 borders because it would be impossible to go back any further without causing undue harm to many innocent Israelis. I object to Israels continued expansion into land that is not theirs and I object to the way they treat the Palestinians in general. I see nothing that legitamises the creation of Israel in the first place. To my mind it was simply imperial powers playing games with peoples lives to serve their own selfish ends. The only thing that gave them the right to do this was superior force. I will never support actions based on greed and enabled by force. Quote: You want me to read the link for you? Sorry, read it yourself. If you disagree feel free to tell me why. The real point is the way you ignored the fact that any burden of proof lay upon Seuss's original statement but couldnt wait to lay the burden on me. Do you deny any burden of proof lies with Seuss when he says: "Even more interesting, the original land that formed Israel was a bunch of worthless desert where few people lived. The nice areas in the region, which were populated, were not used to form Israel (which is why the original borders of Israel are so convoluted). The lust for Israel's land didn't come about until the Israeli people (not just the Jewish people) managed to turn their small parcel of worthless desert into a thriving oasis" The link I provided asserts that the Palestinians played a major part in making the desert bloom before Israel came into existence. The source is the Jewish chronicle. They base their arguments on surveys made by the British Authorities. What more exactly would you require from me to satisfy this supposed burden of proof when the only claim I made was that the link COULD indicate Seuss was wrong, I didnt say it did indicate Seuss was wrong did I? I think you should just concede this point John because you are completely wrong. -------------------- Always Smi2le
| |||||||
|
horrid asshole Registered: 02/11/04 Posts: 81,741 Loc: Fractallife's gy Last seen: 7 years, 11 months |
| ||||||
|
Goldberg has an agenda but Abbas does not? He did his proper job as a journalist, which is to find conflicting statements by politicians and call them on it. As that and the other link provide, many if not most of the Palestinians who left left on their own. There are still millions of Palestinians living in Israel? How come they weren't kicked out?
You say the pre '67 borders are alright with you but have argued repeatedly that none of the borders are legitimate because somebody disputes them. Quite the argument of convenience. At any rate returning the borders to pre '67 puts the West Bank as part of Jordan. Jordan and Israel long ago reached agreement there. The Gaza Strip would go back to being Egypt. Egypt and Israel had long ago reached agreement on that and in fact your solution would mean taking it away from the lunatics who currently reside there Because Israel gave it to them. And now get constant rocket attacks on what is, in your mind, now an acceptable Israel border. So reverting to the 1967 borders does not give the Palestinians a state. It increases the land of Jordan, Egypt and Syria. No Pally state there. And why do you suddenly find those borders legitimate when they fail to rise to the ludicrous standard you previously espoused. By your criteria those borders are no more legit than the current ones. Even less so since Jordan and Egypt, the former owners, already agreed to cede the territory to Israel. The Palestinians do not even deserve the level of treatment they get from Israel. They have repeatedly asserted a desire to eradicate the entire state. It is part of the Hamas charter. Then there are the repeated calls from Iran to destroy Israel. If the Pallies stop fighting there will be no war. If the Israelis stop fighting there will be no Israel.
| |||||||
|
Refraction Registered: 10/15/02 Posts: 4,773 Loc: London UK Last seen: 4 months, 13 days |
| ||||||
Quote: All land illegally stolen since 67 would have to be returned as an initial starting point but as you rightfully point out this would not provide a Palestinian state so further negotiations would need to take place Quote: Not really, just a concession to reality. Quote: Can you provide any evidence for this claim? Quote: Finally we agree on something. Nobody deserves the level of treatment those bastards dish out to the Palestinians. -------------------- Always Smi2le
| |||||||
|
horrid asshole Registered: 02/11/04 Posts: 81,741 Loc: Fractallife's gy Last seen: 7 years, 11 months |
| ||||||
|
No. They never should have been given the Gaza Strip and every one of them who voted for a terror organization should be imprisoned.
If the Pallies stop fighting there will be no war. If the Israelis stop fighting there will be no Israel. Do I really need to give you a fucking link about rocket attacks on Israel from Gaza? Please say, "yes". Because that will firmly cement for all time your status as an incredibly ignorant poster. You've done pretty well in that regard but that would be the clincher.
| |||||||
|
Refraction Registered: 10/15/02 Posts: 4,773 Loc: London UK Last seen: 4 months, 13 days |
| ||||||
Quote: So where would you have the Palestinians live? There are those who would use terror to achieve their aims on both sides of this equation but you are so blinded by hatred you cannot acknowledge this, I cant believe you dont see it though. Quote: Absolute nonsense. It is a well known fact that far more Palestinians have been killed by the Israelis yet you still persist in the pathetic delusion that the Israelis are simply acting defensively. Acting defensively would not include bulldozing homes and expanding their territory in violation of international law. This brings us to another point which highlights the ridiculous nature of your position, you will happily quote contravention of UN resolution as ample justification for imposing sanctions and invading Iraq but you do not care that Israel has broken more resolutions than practically any other nation on Earth. List of broken resolutions Quote: I think it would be a good habit for you to get into to actually check the information you post. Obviously the fact that the Israelis continue to launch their own air strikes and attacks and as per usual continue to kill more Palestinians is irrelevant to you. I dont support the Palestinians who fire rockets and I do not support the Israelis who do so either. It is obvious that the only solution to this problem lies in peaceful reconciliation and not continued violence from both sides. In my opinion, the notion that one side is entirely responsible for the current situation would indicate a mind devoid of any vestige of intelligence. Just out of interest what do you make of the Neturei Karta? I think you should spend a good while reading what they have to say on the matter. -------------------- Always Smi2le
| |||||||
|
Registered: 05/31/07 Posts: 17,582 Loc: Americas |
| ||||||
Quote: What is the relevance of this question? Are you going to provide some justification for your claim, some citation demonstrating the exodus was attributable to Israel? Why are you asking this question? Seems like yet another straw man argument: I never suggested the exodus was spotaneous and voluntary. This is quite a different matter from the questio of whether Israel is bad. Quote:Quote: Then cite where it has been stated. I can identify several positions you've claimed and then equivocated on. Quote:Quote: Because you've not established this is what happened in the first place, and hence the uncertain premise is not saved by any presumed theory of statehood. You yourself charecterize the behavior of the "Jews" as requiring 'excuse'. But isn't this the entire question? By your criteria it would seem the Jews would need no excuse- it was their land. By your premise establishing the Jews behavior as requiring some excuse you beg the question entiretly Again, what is your justification for this apparently dispartate treatment and how do you judge who's in the right/wrong, et cet? Quote:Quote: Okay, can you explain the relevance here? How does what behavior you would accept and what borders you would accept answer the question of what your position is on the, as I asked: 'justification of Israel's existance/continuation'? I'm not asking what borders you would support or whatever, I'm asking whether Israel's existance is wrong or its continuation is wrong- these other issues are besides the point, only relevant to the extent they inform the prior consideration, something you've not alleged. Quote: Your bare conclusions and naked statement of opinion is not what is asked for. I'm trying to see what makes Israel's formation or continuance wrong, morally or legally. Moreover, you've not established that Israel's actions were 'based on greed and enabled by force', 'imperial powers playing games with peoples lives to... their own ends'. I've suggested several ways inn which the soverignty is caimed justly and you've not disputed this clearly- UK's ceeding the land, Ottoman's conquering in just war, your proposed criteria of the 'jews beign their first', and the arab conquests you admit were wrong per your criteria. Quote:Quote: This is another straw man argument. I have not asked for this and you've not shown how I have. You have the burden of establishing the relevance of what you claim. Quote: No Quote: Then your argument was irrelevant, as the question was not whether Seuss 'COULD' be wrong, but whether he was. Nobody denies seuss is fallible. To equivocate in such a mater as to suggest that your suggestion was meerly that Seuss might possibly be in error is to render your replies completely superfluous- arguing an irrelevant, universallly agreed, point not at issue. Quote: What am i wrong about? Your assurance that I am wrong about some unstated point is not helpfule: it does not constitute a particular identifiable claim as to what I've said, and your conclusory assertions have no apparent relevance.
| |||||||
|
Refraction Registered: 10/15/02 Posts: 4,773 Loc: London UK Last seen: 4 months, 13 days |
| ||||||
Quote: It is blatantly obvious that one of the main factors which caused the exodus was the increase in Zionist influence and power along with Zionist military advances. I have provided links which back this up. Also you asked Quote: Regardless of why the exodus took place since it happened the Palestinians have been denied the right of return so land and property that belonged to them has effectively been stolen from them. Quote: I have not established what happened? What presumed theory of statehood? Seriously, cant you just communicate in a more understandable manner? I have a good command of the English language but I find your posts difficult to decipher half the time. Quote: Yes, the behaviour of the Zionists does require excuse, as in my opinion their behaviour was reprehensible. Im getting really bored of having to restate my position to you. Quote: Once again I am struggling to understand your point. Please indulge me and try and rephrase it in simpler terms for me. Quote: Disparate treatment of who? Quote: I am explaining that I find no justification for Israels existence or more accurately creation but I do find justification for their continuation. Quote: You basically believe the the British Mandate of Palestine was just. I believe the mandate was not just as this rule was imposed on the Palestinian people and they had absolutely no say in the matter. I realise this was merely the latest in a long line of impositions of rule but I dont believe that just because the British won a war the league of nations had any real right to give them control over the Palestinian people. I dont see how this process can be described in any other way than Imperialistic. Control of the Palestinian people was ceded to the British as a spoil of war and I see no moral basis for this action. The British mandate: "conferred an international legal status upon the territories and people which had ceased to be under the sovereignty of the Ottoman Empire as part of a 'sacred trust of civilization'. Article 7 of the League of Nations Mandate required the establishment of a new, separate, Palestinian nationality for the inhabitants." The original covenant is then seemingly ignored by the Balfour declaration of 1917: "His Majesty's government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country." The sentiments at the end seem to have been merely tacked on to satisfy good conscience without any real motivation to stick to them. Note this declaration was made in a letter to Baron Rothschild, a prominent member of that family of international bankers who would have surely held significant sway of the financial future of the British, especially after the ending of World War I. I feel this backs up my claims of the creation of Israel being "based on greed and enabled by force" Ambiguously the Balfour declaration was followed in 1918 by the Anglo-French declaration: "The goal envisaged by France and Great Britain in prosecuting in the East the War let loose by German ambition is the complete and final liberation of the peoples who have for so long been oppressed by the Turks, and the setting up of national governments and administrations deriving their authority from the free exercise of the initiative and choice of the indigenous populations. In pursuit of those intentions, France and Great Britain agree to further and assist in the establishment of indigenous Governments and administrations in Syria and Mesopotamia which have already been liberated by the Allies, as well as in those territories which they are engaged in securing and recognising these as soon as they are actually established. Far from wishing to impose on the populations of those regions any particular institutions they are only concerned to ensure by their support and by adequate assistance the regular working of Governments and administrations freely chosen by the populations themselves; to secure impartial and equal justice for all; to facilitate the economic development of the country by promoting and encouraging local initiative; to foster the spread of education; and to put an end to the dissensions which Turkish policy has for so long exploited. Such is the task which the two Allied Powers wish to undertake in the liberated territories." The ambiguity between the Balfour declaration and the Anglo-French declaration was noted by Balfour himself in these revealing comments: "The contradiction between the letters of the Covenant [of the League of Nations] and the policy of the Allies is even more flagrant in the case of the ‘independent nation’ of Palestine than in that of the ‘independent nation‘ of Syria. For in Palestine we do not propose to even go through the form of consulting the wishes of the present inhabitants of the country though the American [King-Crane] Commission is going through the form of asking what they are. The Four Great Powers [Britain, France, Italy and the United States] are committed to Zionism. And Zionism, be it right or wrong, good or bad, is rooted in age-long traditions, in present needs, and future hopes, of far profounder import than the desires and prejudices of the 700,000 Arabs who now inhabit that ancient land. In my opinion that is right. What I have never been able to understand is how it can be harmonized with the [Anglo-French] declaration, the Covenant, or the instruction to the [King-Crane] Commission of Enquiry." Balfour clearly states that Allied policy was in flagrant contradiction of the covenant of the league of nations. In other words, international law was flaunted to press on with supporting the Zionists in their goal. It also seems clear that despite any claims to the otherwise Palestinian self determination was never going to be considered as a realistic aim. Quote: So if you do not deny any burden of proof lies on Seuss why did you fail to pick him up on this? Quote: What argument are you talking about? I merely posed a question as part of the ongoing discussion. Please provide the exact quote from me where I made an argument regarding this matter. In my own way I was pointing out that Seuss's bare conclusions and naked statements were not helpful and I feel you are simply being disingenuous by not acknowledging this, especially as this is one of your favourite lines to trot out. Quote: I refer you to my previous post where I clearly explain no burden of proof lies on me because I made no claim simply posed a question and presented some information. You failed to call out one of your cronies on whom the burden of proof fell simply because you agree with what he had to say and then erroneously tried to apply burden of proof to a question and a link I posted. -------------------- Always Smi2le
| |||||||
|
Registered: 05/31/07 Posts: 17,582 Loc: Americas |
| ||||||
Quote: k... And what does this have to do with anything? You keep making these claims that don't seem to have anything to do with the question at hand. What does it matter whether they left due to 'increase in Zionist influence and power along with Zionist military advances"? How do you justify your claim that you've provided 'links which back this up'? I've asked for some specific citation to whatever your relying upon and you've not replied. Quote: Quote: Okay, and how is that relevant? Do Palestinians who used to live in an area which comprises Israel at present have some right to live there at an arbitrary date? Again, I don't know what the point of all this is. Quote:Quote: Yes, as I said: you have not established this is what happened. The presumed theory of statehood referred to is any presumed theory of statehood, as stated. Quote: This appears to just be more personal bullshit. If there's anything constructive here than please identify it. I see no particular request to be satisfied if I were inclined to do so. Quote:Quote: You have not established that you to repeat your position, and I'm not sure why you have. The justifiability of your position is what is asked. You repeating the same baseless claim is not helpful. back it up or withdraw it. I note that you have failed to answer the question posed and have not otherwise replied as to explain how you're not simply begging the question here. Quote:Quote: I don't understand what you are asking for here unless you don't understand the vocabulary/terms of art, in which case you should familiarize yourself with them and then ask more particular questions as to what you don't understand. Your question presumes as part of the given facts that the behavior of the Jews requires excusing. As these jews are alleged to have created Israel and acted for Israel, you're premise begs the question. As such, its fallacious as applied to this matter: you've assumed the answer rather than demonstrating it. Quote:Quote: Dispartate treatment of the two cases: the Arab conquest and the formation of Israel. You allege the Israelis or those who'd become such were not sovereign due to coming to the area- that the sovereign was the original people. You don't, however, apply this same calculus to the case of the arab, Islamic, conquest, as you apparently regard them as the sovereign in the later case at the time of the formation of Israel. Basically: you claim the first in the area gets sovereignty but claim that gives sovereignty to the muslims despite being newcomers and arriving through conquest. Quote:Quote: Yes, I understand this. I was not asking what your position is, I'm asking what relevance it has. It doesn't seem to matter what you think as that is not the question. Quote:Quote: What is the relevance what I believe? It doesn't matter: the question is whether Israel is wrong. Quote: You've not established this as true. Whow was the sovereign you recognize at this time? I presume it is not the Ottomans as I would imagine you must reject this to not recognize the transfer to the UK, but you've not shown who you do recognize. Without an alternative, it is difficult to see how the transfer was unjust or illegal, and therefore the land not he UK's to create the new state. Quote: So what? That wasn't what was alleged. They got that land because they defeated the sovereign in a lawful war and therefore became sovereign. They recieved that power from the Ottomans, not from the league of nations. Quote: I disagree and you've not shown this to be true. The sovereignty was granted over the land, not the people. They were free to leave if they didn't like it and the UK would have no power over them. Quote: What is the point here and how do you justify your conclusion? Quote: What does the presumed sway of Rothschild have to do with anything? You just declare it but do not show how your presumption that Rothschild would have had sway means Israel was created based on greed. It seems pretty inconsistant that Israel was created as an independant state if the purpose was for greed. How exactly has the UK realized any profit or even endeavored to gain such via the creation of Israel? Quote:Quote: Because i didn't care enough whether it was true or not to ask him. He didn't offer an opinion in that post on the merits of the question but rather commented on one of the arguments against Israel that he found unpersuasive. As such, it didn't address the point and I didn't care. Quote:Quote: That I am biased because I didn't ask Seuss to justify his claim or that this demonstrates bias, or whatever you argued at the time. Quote: lol I'm not going to reply to the remainder which suggests you know what I feel as to the truth of falsity of Seuss's claim. You've not shown how you could or do know such, and the whole thing seems premised upon a contrived foundation.
| |||||||
|
Registered: 05/31/07 Posts: 17,582 Loc: Americas |
| ||||||
|
At this point I'll ask:
Again, does anyone have any clear reason for how the creation of Israel was wrong or its continuance is- legally or morally? So far we seem to have a lot of irrelevant appeals and other bullshit, but little in the way of relevant argument. The two arguments against Israel that seem relevant: that they threw out the natives and had no legitimate sovereignty, both seem unsupported (the later of which claiming the original people in a place have sovereignty seems to support the Israelis- though its claimed to support the arab muslims for some reason).
| |||||||
|
Refraction Registered: 10/15/02 Posts: 4,773 Loc: London UK Last seen: 4 months, 13 days |
| ||||||
|
At this point I will ask:
Does anyone have any clear reason for how the creation of Israel was right or its continuance is- legally or morally? Do you choose not to comment on the fact that the British acted in contradiction of the original League of nations covenant? This points to the course taken from 1917 up until the creation of Israel as having started from an illegal standpoint. Or that as Balfour said, their actual intentions of how to deal with the Palestinians were completely different to the ones publicly stated. - morally wrong. Quote: Can you explain how you arrive at this conclusion? I cannot see any logic to it whatsoever. -------------------- Always Smi2le Edited by GazzBut (05/19/11 12:16 PM)
| |||||||
|
horrid asshole Registered: 02/11/04 Posts: 81,741 Loc: Fractallife's gy Last seen: 7 years, 11 months |
| ||||||
Quote: Right of conquest. Just like every other nation. Quote: The League of Nations was moot. It was disbanded and replaced. Quote: Balfour is no authority I accept. The Palestinians reject any Israeli presence. Fuck them.
| |||||||
|
Refraction Registered: 10/15/02 Posts: 4,773 Loc: London UK Last seen: 4 months, 13 days |
| ||||||
Quote: As I have said all along your argument boils down to might is right. Quote: At the time they were the arbiters of international law. John was interested in the legal basis for the creation of Israel, I have shown that the British acted in contravention of the mandate they agreed with the League, actions which lead to the creation of Israel. Quote: So as I have already pointed out you are only interested in quoting international laws and agreements etc when they suit your agenda. How convenient. -------------------- Always Smi2le
| |||||||
|
horrid asshole Registered: 02/11/04 Posts: 81,741 Loc: Fractallife's gy Last seen: 7 years, 11 months |
| ||||||
Quote: Right, wrong, whatever, it is what it is. Your argument is...............what? That Gazzbutt decides what are legitimate borders? As is abundantly clear you only have a problem with the borders of Israel. Why do you persistently ignore the fact that other actors, namely Jordan and Egypt, agreed to cede territory. Do you dispute their borders as well? If so I sure as shit haven't seen it. Quote:Quote: The League of Nations was disbanded and superceded by the United Nations. Nothing the League of Nations did that was later changed by the United Nations has any force, whether Gazzbutt likes it or not. Further there are other borders that had been later agreed upon by Jordan and Egypt. Quote:Quote: Israel was created by the United Nations. The Balfour declaration was a statement of policy, not law, in 1917, long before there even was a United nations. The actual creation of the state of Israel did not come until much later when the League of Nations was disbanded and replaced. The Balfour declaration was superceded by later events. Do you think we should still count Negroes as 3/5ths of a person in the United States? Also a policy that has been superceded.
| |||||||
|
Registered: 05/31/07 Posts: 17,582 Loc: Americas |
| ||||||
Quote: I don't, though their seems to be decent arguments for its permissability and the major acts' of relevance complying with international law. I'm not aware of any legitimate argument countering such. The Ottomans were sovereign over palestine by pretty much all accounts. They initiated an aggressive, illegal, war and lost. Thereafter the UK took the land, one of the victors, persuant to the mandate system. (I don't really agree with the mandate system's overall legality but I don't know of any relevance here to Israel- I just think the value of lands should have been counted for purpose of reperations under the surrender treaties). The UK then had enough of the bullshit that still is going on to this day (plus the political pressure for creation of a Jewish state) and got rid of the territory voluntarily. Therefore, Israel was created legally as they obtained sovereignty from the previous sovereign and have thereafter excercised such over the lands they claim. Quote: Well, I didn't comment on it previously, but I don't really understand your claim. What exactly did they do in violation of the League of Nations' era law and how does that affect matters? Haven't your authorities been various letters and policy statements issued by the UK? I don't see how any of those things creates any rights of contract or otherwise and therefore any change from said policy would seem to require no notice or compensation to anyone who relied thereon. Basically: its there land, they can say whatever they want unless they breach contract, and I'm aware of nothing suggesting they have. What exactly is the argument and facts here? Quote: As alleged, this is wrong for the UK, but does this affect the status of Israel? I don't really see it and I question the relevance of the various declerations anyways, given the factors previously discussed: they created no rights so a change of policy would not deprive anyone of any property or considerations rightly held. Its the same thing as Obama lieing about crap constantly- its his prerogative. Quote:Quote: The inhabitants of the land prior to the arab conquests included Jews (ethnically and religiously) and such existed before the muslim conquests. Thereafter the muslims conquered the land and established a government- a government which would not be legitimate by my understanding of your claim. As such, the Ottoman Empire never had sovereignty over Palestine and the Israeli state couldn't have violated such. This is based on my understanding of your explanation for the fault you find in Israel: that it was a new state created in allready populated lands that had signifigant immigrant composition.
| |||||||
|
Refraction Registered: 10/15/02 Posts: 4,773 Loc: London UK Last seen: 4 months, 13 days |
| ||||||
|
We are going round in circles gents. I think we all know where we stand on the issue, have a pleasant evening!
-------------------- Always Smi2le
| |||||||
|
Registered: 12/04/06 Posts: 1,021 Loc: Last seen: 12 years, 1 month |
| ||||||
Quote: This ignore the will of the palestinians themselves to create their own country if they wish it so. The populations should be respected, i really care little about the technicalities of palestine never existing as an independant state. to create a country like the zionist did and priviledge one part of the population is colonialism and genocide, cultural or whatnot. Israel, now and before, does not care about promoting palestinian culture like Canada does for example with french canadians, and even if we suffer from colonialism and there are so many example of it such as the biased media, our situation is not comparable to the suffering of the palestinians, yet we still have 40% of our people who would vote yes to a referendum for sovereignty, i have no doubt that the palestinians would vote around 90% in favor of a non-jewish state in israel. Arafat was arguing for a one state solution, not to ethnically cleanse the jews out of israel, and it was refused Because the zionist want their own state in order to prevent future holocaust, there is no other reason really. Even if a second holocaust is hard to imagine for most of us living in multicultural countries which have accepted immigration as a fact of life, the population in israel is constantly kept in terror that any arabs would shoot a nuclear weapon at israel if they had the chance to. The jewish population outside of israel often is pressured to give money for israel's defense, again the holocaust is used to stimulate funding. this is the reality of politics, the holocaust is a very traumatic event for all jews, there is even a religious day devoted to it. because unlike our shitty catholic institutions who remain old,rotten and unable to adapt to modernity. The jewish religion seems to add stuff every once in awhile, and it keeps the whole thing alive in my opinion. A one state solution where israel and palestinians are living side by side in harmony would not be as effective to fight an anti-semitic government around the world, israel has nuclear weapons . it could very well, deliver the equivalent of an holocaust to a country that would be systematically discriminating and slaughtering jews during a conflict like in world war 2. The important part is that it has the power to do so. the jews want that power i believe. I feel that they are sick of listening to their elders waiting for the messiah to come and go back to israel. This is key, because those people are then, not following their religion, and can as such, be called infidels, by the radical christians or muslims. It's very sad to see messianists groups in canada and the united states supporting israel becuase they believe it will bring them the new messiah faster.
| |||||||
|
horrid asshole Registered: 02/11/04 Posts: 81,741 Loc: Fractallife's gy Last seen: 7 years, 11 months |
| ||||||
|
I can assure you that that is not why I support Israel. It will all be moot after tomorrow, anyway.
| |||||||
|
Φύσις κρύπτεσθαι ὕψιστος φιλεῖ Registered: 08/28/09 Posts: 82,455 Loc: Onypeirophóros Last seen: 4 years, 4 months |
| ||||||
|
why after tomorrow?
what did i miss? oh yea, nevermind, christians.
| |||||||
|
Vote Republican! Registered: 05/10/09 Posts: 939 |
| ||||||
|
I support anyone and everyone that opposes Islam.
| |||||||
| |||||||
| Shop: |
|
| Similar Threads | Poster | Views | Replies | Last post | ||
![]() |
Kurdistan / Israel... Good idea / Bad idea? | 784 | 11 | 12/28/02 08:07 PM by Ellis Dee | ||
![]() |
Israel-US Approved Ethnic Cleansing ( |
4,671 | 20 | 09/03/01 08:05 PM by zetek | ||
![]() |
israel/Palestine and Larry Miller | 1,678 | 9 | 10/20/02 01:58 AM by Anonymous | ||
![]() |
Israel's Democracy Dilemma ( |
4,311 | 22 | 11/08/03 10:19 AM by Psilocybeingzz | ||
![]() |
Continued from an OTD thread ( |
2,121 | 20 | 06/03/02 09:49 AM by nugsarenice | ||
![]() |
Israel threatens walk out of U.N. race conference | 1,086 | 2 | 09/04/01 05:01 AM by madscientist | ||
![]() |
Israel states that killing Arafat is "an option". ( |
10,295 | 163 | 10/01/03 04:47 PM by Phred | ||
![]() |
Get Israel Out of Gaza | 482 | 1 | 10/28/03 04:26 AM by GazzBut |
| Extra information | ||
| You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled Moderator: Enlil, ballsalsa 6,914 topic views. 3 members, 4 guests and 10 web crawlers are browsing this forum. [ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ] | ||

