PDA

View Full Version : Legal Palestine, and the relative rule of moderation.


Direckshun
07-08-2010, 07:39 PM
I thought that this might be relevant to recognize.

I have had a couple conversations on this board, most recently a particularly worthwhile though frustrating conversation about Israel, where I have been asked why "moderate Palestinians" and "moderate Muslims across the Middle East" don't do more to stop the crazies as the crazies attack us, Israel, and the Western World.

The answer is not a political answer. It's a psychological answer.

In times of relative desperation, populations do not embrace moderation. They embrace radicalism. It's counterintuitive, perhaps. But that's what psychology teaches us, and history instructs us.

That's why Palestinians, living in some seriously dire circumstances, might appear to us to be run by radical crazies while the moderates stand by. But we'd be mistaken, because there is no meaningful moderate population in Palestine.

I didn't mean to make this a thread about Palestine, but they're the best and most recent example. Since Palestine is in such dire, desperate times, where they literally fear for their lives and their wellbeing, they're going to desperately cling to the radicals that appear to them to want to provide security and meet humanitarian needs. So they democratically vote in Hamas. It's like a nationwide Stockholm Syndrome, to a certain extent.

Desperation breeds radicalism.

I just think it bears repeating, because you see people in the Iran thread committing the same lazy fallacies. Some folks see the desperate peoples in struggling countries and just dismiss the problem as the people "doing it to themselves."

To a certain extent, they are. But not because they're bad people. Not because they put a lot of thought into it and decided that radicalism was the way to go. Because circumstances, however justified some of them may be, have driven them there.

As I hop off the soapbox...

Saul Good
07-08-2010, 07:55 PM
So their recent behavior is just a short phase that they are going through? That's a relief. I think I'll turn my font to black in order to show my solidarity with their cause.

petegz28
07-08-2010, 08:11 PM
Well, I am willing to believe that there is no meanigfull moderate population in Palestine. Although, if I were Palestinian I would be in fear for my life from some crazy hiding behind me as he launched his rockets.

ForeverChiefs58
07-08-2010, 08:17 PM
great idea! put all the palestinians in iran.

Donger
07-08-2010, 08:20 PM
I don't really care about Palestine, since it doesn't exist.

petegz28
07-08-2010, 08:25 PM
The whole thing about Palestine is the U.N. created Israel and somehow they and the rest of the world look at it as our fault.

ForeverChiefs58
07-08-2010, 08:26 PM
I don't really care about Palestine, since it doesn't exist.

yes, and since iran cares so much for the palestinians, they can create it in iran. what a great place for a little palestinian to grow up to be a great big terrorist without all the friends of america and isreal around to police him.

Direckshun
07-08-2010, 08:36 PM
So their recent behavior is just a short phase that they are going through? That's a relief. I think I'll turn my font to black in order to show my solidarity with their cause.

Well, kinda.

The good news is that their current radicalism is not permanent. It's the sum total of circumstances, which can be reversed and alleviated.

A moderate population in Palestine is possible. But it currently doesn't exist.

Direckshun
07-08-2010, 08:37 PM
Well, I am willing to believe that there is no meanigfull moderate population in Palestine. Although, if I were Palestinian I would be in fear for my life from some crazy hiding behind me as he launched his rockets.

That's because you're not a Palestinian.

Palestinians fear the Israeli government more than anything. Period.

Direckshun
07-08-2010, 08:38 PM
The whole thing about Palestine is the U.N. created Israel and somehow they and the rest of the world look at it as our fault.

That's not the whole thing about Palestine.

petegz28
07-08-2010, 08:39 PM
That's not the whole thing about Palestine.

I know. There is that whole "kill all the jews" thing that has been going on for a couple thousand years.

petegz28
07-08-2010, 08:39 PM
That's because you're not a Palestinian.

Palestinians fear the Israeli government more than anything. Period.

Then they probably shouldn't launch rockets at Israel or get on buses or go into pizza parlors with bombs, heh?

Direckshun
07-08-2010, 08:40 PM
I know. There is that whole "kill all the jews" thing that has been going on for a couple thousand years.

That's not the whole thing about Palestine.

Direckshun
07-08-2010, 08:42 PM
Then they probably shouldn't launch rockets at Israel or get on buses or go into pizza parlors with bombs, heh?

Uh, I agree. They shouldn't launch rockets at Israel.

petegz28
07-08-2010, 08:42 PM
That's not the whole thing about Palestine.

Pretty much, yeah it is.

Donger
07-08-2010, 08:44 PM
The whole thing about Palestine is the U.N. created Israel and somehow they and the rest of the world look at it as our fault.

That depends. The Land of Israel existed long before the UN came to fruition.

Direckshun
07-08-2010, 08:44 PM
Pretty much, yeah it is.

Then why not kill them all, Pete?

If they exist only as a tribe of potential murderers, why not carpet bomb the Gaza Strip?

petegz28
07-08-2010, 08:46 PM
Then why not kill them all, Pete?

If they exist only as a tribe of potential murderers, why not carpet bomb the Gaza Strip?

Good question? Why not?

petegz28
07-08-2010, 08:46 PM
That depends. The Land of Israel existed long before the UN came to fruition.

I agree. But I am speaking in modern day terms of the argument.

Direckshun
07-08-2010, 08:47 PM
Good question? Why not?

How rational, exactly, do you consider the proposition?

Inquiring minds, etc.

ForeverChiefs58
07-08-2010, 08:47 PM
Then why not kill them all, Pete?

If they exist only as a tribe of potential murderers, why not carpet bomb the Gaza Strip?

include iran and would be one way to solve some problems.

Donger
07-08-2010, 08:48 PM
I agree. But I am speaking in modern day terms of the argument.

I mention that only because many people (probably including Direckshun) think that Israel was a creation in 1948. It is, and has been, their homeland for thousands of years. They are hardly newcomers.

petegz28
07-08-2010, 08:49 PM
How rational, exactly, do you consider the proposition?

Inquiring minds, etc.

It's a means to an end. Is it not?

Direckshun
07-08-2010, 08:49 PM
include iran and would be one way to solve some problems.

How rational, exactly, do you consider the proposition?

petegz28
07-08-2010, 08:50 PM
I mention that only because many people (probably including Direckshun) think that Israel was a creation in 1948. It is, and has been, their homeland for thousands of years. They are hardly newcomers.

Like Zohan said when he was told by the Palenstinian that this was "their land" and he said .."oh, yea, my ancestors never stepped foot on this ground"

Direckshun
07-08-2010, 08:50 PM
It's a means to an end. Is it not?

So you would consider it a rational proposition.

Is this something you advocate?

petegz28
07-08-2010, 08:51 PM
So you would consider it a rational proposition.

Is this something you advocate?

Rational? Depends how you look at it. If the other option is constant war for decades to come then maybe it is rational.

Direckshun
07-08-2010, 08:52 PM
Rational? Depends how you look at it. If the other option is constant war for decades to come then maybe it is rational.

Is it something you advocate?

petegz28
07-08-2010, 08:53 PM
So you would consider it a rational proposition.

Is this something you advocate?

Oh, and just to add, do I advocate it? I am split on such a decision. The humane side of me of course doesn't. But the other half, call it what you wish, seems to say these people, and not just Palestine, seem to crave war, constantly target innocent people, treat their own people, especially women, like total shit, want to perpetuate their backwards, 13th century, religous based beliefs and laws on everyone else and there really is little tolerance in me for such.

Direckshun
07-08-2010, 08:56 PM
Oh, and just to add, do I advocate it? I am split on such a decision. The humane side of me of course doesn't. But the other half, call it what you wish, seems to say these people, and not just Palestine, seem to crave war, constantly target innocent people, treat their own people, especially women, like total shit, want to perpetuate their backwards, 13th century, religous based beliefs and laws on everyone else and there really is little tolerance in me for such.

So allow me to summarize: you're "split" on ethnically cleansing Isreal of Palestinians.

I may have to start a related thread about the DC forum and moderation...

Donger
07-08-2010, 08:59 PM
Why should Israel contemplate peace (not to mention giving territory) to an enemy who does not even recognize Israel's right to exist?

Donger
07-08-2010, 09:00 PM
So allow me to summarize: you're "split" on ethnically cleansing Isreal of Palestinians.

I may have to start a related thread about the DC forum and moderation...

Have you asked this question of Palestinians and whether or not they'd like to "ethnically cleanse" the Israelis?

petegz28
07-08-2010, 09:02 PM
So allow me to summarize: you're "split" on ethnically cleansing Isreal of Palestinians.

I may have to start a related thread about the DC forum and moderation...

Not sure I would call it ethnic cleansing, but moreso belief cleansing. Get the fuck in the 21st century. Stop starting wars with everyone, especially those who can and want to help you, and save all the Imam bullshit. It's old hat.

We sit here talking about this shit as Iran was just about to stone a woman to death after they already have flogged her 99 times because she had sex. And where is the UN or even Obama? He wants to talk to them and have NASA make them feel good about themsevles. Saudi Arabia still has such brutal rules as well. Are all Arabs and Arab countries like this? No. But most are. If there were a nice, neat way to separate the innocent and modern thinking from the religously crazed war mongers it would make things a lot easier. But until you can do that you are faced with 3 choices...

1. Continue these wars for decades if not longer
2. Wipe them the fuck out
3. Hope for peace, which takes you make to #1

ForeverChiefs58
07-08-2010, 09:04 PM
How rational, exactly, do you consider the proposition?

i look at it as a cure all. yes, def should do it the whole thing kapooey wipe em all out, iran, afghanistan, pakistan, couple other places that end in "stan" and yemen, that place sucks bad with terrorist asshats too.

Donger
07-08-2010, 09:08 PM
This is a repost, but most certainly an important one for those belly-aching about the Palestinians.

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/KrM0dAFsZ8k&amp;hl=en_US&amp;fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/KrM0dAFsZ8k&amp;hl=en_US&amp;fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

Celebrating and showing the V for victory sign upon the death of thousands of Americans on 9/11.

But, by all means, yes, let's be concerned about THEIR well-being. They certainly do and did about ours, right?

Why do the Palestinian supporters never address this candid display?

Direckshun
07-08-2010, 09:10 PM
i look at it as a cure all. yes, def should do it the whole thing kapooey wipe em all out, iran, afghanistan, pakistan, couple other places that end in "stan" and yemen, that place sucks bad with terrorist asshats too.

Whenever you want to be serious, we've got a thread you can use.

stevieray
07-08-2010, 09:18 PM
So allow me to summarize: you're "split" on ethnically cleansing Isreal of Palestinians.

...iris' for intellectual and daisies for dishonesty.

ForeverChiefs58
07-08-2010, 09:20 PM
i think we should wipe out terrorists wherever they are, so yes i think we should help isreal wipe out the terrorists they live right next too. hamas, hezbully, should be completly annihlated no one left. iran, syria, pakistan whatever rock they crawl out from should be destroyed. when ever aljazeera makes another terrorist video, we can go back and carpet bomb as needed.

Direckshun
07-08-2010, 09:24 PM
Not sure I would call it ethnic cleansing, but moreso belief cleansing. Get the **** in the 21st century. Stop starting wars with everyone, especially those who can and want to help you, and save all the Imam bullshit. It's old hat.

We sit here talking about this shit as Iran was just about to stone a woman to death after they already have flogged her 99 times because she had sex. And where is the UN or even Obama? He wants to talk to them and have NASA make them feel good about themsevles. Saudi Arabia still has such brutal rules as well. Are all Arabs and Arab countries like this? No. But most are. If there were a nice, neat way to separate the innocent and modern thinking from the religously crazed war mongers it would make things a lot easier. But until you can do that you are faced with 3 choices...

1. Continue these wars for decades if not longer
2. Wipe them the **** out
3. Hope for peace, which takes you make to #1

Well then there you have it. I appreciate your candor.

I do think that you shouldn't tell too many people that you feel that way, though.

petegz28
07-08-2010, 09:24 PM
Well then there you have it. I appreciate your candor.

I do think that you shouldn't tell too many people that you feel that way, though.

Why not? Do you think most people condone 13th century, religous based rule? I have nothing to hide. Fuck em' in the ass, even. These are chicken shit, dumbass, war mongers who hide behind the innocent. And the innocent tolerate it for one reason or another. And some I would have to say even accept it as their part. Fuck that shit. You want to start wars and hide behind women and children then you can't cry when your women and children get killed.

Direckshun
07-08-2010, 09:26 PM
i think we should wipe out terrorists wherever they are, so yes i think we should help isreal wipe out the terrorists they live right next too. hamas, hezbully, should be completly annihlated no one left. iran, syria, pakistan whatever rock they crawl out from should be destroyed. when ever aljazeera makes another terrorist video, we can go back and carpet bomb as needed.

Take all the time that you need. I'm here when you're serious.

ForeverChiefs58
07-08-2010, 09:27 PM
Well then there you have it. I appreciate your candor.

I do think that you shouldn't tell too many people that you feel that way, though.

why not? i bet more people side with his view than don't

Direckshun
07-08-2010, 09:30 PM
Why not? Do you think most people condone 13th century, religous based rule?

Uh, no.

Wiping the earth clean of an entire race of people is 15th century rule. I'm not terribly interested in that, either.

ForeverChiefs58
07-08-2010, 09:31 PM
Take all the time that you need. I'm here when you're serious.

I am completly totally 100% serious not kidding. i don't believe in just condemning terror, i believe in destroying it.

Direckshun
07-08-2010, 09:31 PM
why not? i bet more people side with his view than don't

Primarily because it's advocating genocide, but so be it.

petegz28
07-08-2010, 09:34 PM
Primarily because it's advocating genocide, but so be it.

You are the only one talking about genocide. I am not nor has anyone else talked about wiping them out because of who they are. But because of what they do. There is a difference. You can sit here and spin your genocide BS all you want but that is just what it is.

If these people would come into the now, act civily and participate in a real process of peace and cooperation I would have no problems supporting them.

That's a far cry fromy your claims of genocide.

ForeverChiefs58
07-08-2010, 09:34 PM
Primarily because it's advocating genocide, but so be it.

only of terrorists though so its ok, no need to feel bad, feel great instead knowing the usa is standing with you direckshun against the teorrists and those that support them.

petegz28
07-08-2010, 09:34 PM
Uh, no.

Wiping the earth clean of an entire race of people is 15th century rule. I'm not terribly interested in that, either.

So then quit your crying about the whole Irsael\Palestine thing. You are getting what you asked for.

Direckshun
07-08-2010, 09:35 PM
I am completly totally 100% serious not kidding. i don't believe in just condemning terror, i believe in destroying it.

You believe in wiping out entire countries in order to "destroy terror."

Somebody explain that to me.

petegz28
07-08-2010, 09:37 PM
You believe in wiping out entire countries in order to "destroy terror."

Somebody explain that to me.

We had to wipe out Germany to stop Nazism. We had to wipe out Japan to stop them. What's your point?

Direckshun
07-08-2010, 09:37 PM
You are the only one talking about genocide. I am not nor has anyone else talked about wiping them out because of who they are. But because of what they do. There is a difference. You can sit here and spin your genocide BS all you want but that is just what it is.

If these people would come into the now, act civily and participate in a real process of peace and cooperation I would have no problems supporting them.

That's a far cry fromy your claims of genocide.

Genocide is, among other things, a systemic extermination of a cultural group.

You're advocate giving an entire culture an ultimatum, with genocide being a consequence.

That's not spin. Don't run from your view.

ForeverChiefs58
07-08-2010, 09:37 PM
You believe in wiping out entire countries in order to "destroy terror."

Somebody explain that to me.

nope. just their sanctuaries and those that support them.

Direckshun
07-08-2010, 09:38 PM
only of terrorists though so its ok, no need to feel bad, feel great instead knowing the usa is standing with you direckshun against the teorrists and those that support them.

I feel great every day, FC.

Direckshun
07-08-2010, 09:39 PM
So then quit your crying about the whole Irsael\Palestine thing. You are getting what you asked for.

Not really. I've actually gotten very little of what I asked for.

Direckshun
07-08-2010, 09:40 PM
We had to wipe out Germany to stop Nazism. We had to wipe out Japan to stop them. What's your point?

We didn't "wipe out" Germany. We went to war with an opposing military, beat them into submission, and spared the civilians.

You haven't hinted that you'd use such restraint in your hypothetical extermination of the Palestinians.

Direckshun
07-08-2010, 09:42 PM
nope. just their sanctuaries and those that support them.

You know that you'd have to destroy at least half the planet to accomplish that.

Terrorists can find sanctuary on all six continents.

petegz28
07-08-2010, 09:42 PM
Genocide is, among other things, a systemic extermination of a cultural group.

You're advocate giving an entire culture an ultimatum, with genocide being a consequence.

That's not spin. Don't run from your view.

Yes, but the reasoning behind it is where you are at fault. I am not saying wipe them out because of their ethnicity. I am saying wipe them out because of what they do.

You are such a maroon anymore. We gave Germany and Japan the same ultimatum.

I am not running from your view. You are spinning my view. I am for wiping out those who would be deemed our enemy. It's not a perfect world, no matter how much Obama tells you that it is.

I don't want to destroy the existence of the group for who they are. I want to destroy those who threaten us and the rest of the world, for that matter.

Genocide is what Hitler and Malosevich practiced. Genocide is what the Arabs practice against the Jewish. They killed\kill people simply for who they are, regardless if they were peacfull or not.

ForeverChiefs58
07-08-2010, 09:43 PM
what you don't get is it's not against a people, its against their actions.

petegz28
07-08-2010, 09:45 PM
We didn't "wipe out" Germany. We went to war with an opposing military, beat them into submission, and spared the civilians.

You haven't hinted that you'd use such restraint in your hypothetical extermination of the Palestinians.

We didn't wipe out Germany? Tell that to all the non-military people who died when we carpet bombed the country multiple times. Same with Japan. Tell all the civilians that died when we dropped 2 A-bombs on the country we didn't wipe them out.

ForeverChiefs58
07-08-2010, 09:45 PM
Yes, but the reasoning behind it is where you are at fault. I am not saying wipe them out because of their ethnicity. I am saying wipe them out because of what they do.

You are such a maroon anymore. We gave Germany and Japan the same ultimatum.

I am not running from your view. You are spinning my view. I am for wiping out those who would be deemed our enemy. It's not a perfect world, no matter how much Obama tells you that it is.

I don't want to destroy the existence of the group for who they are. I want to destroy those who threaten us and the rest of the world, for that matter.

Genocide is what Hitler and Malosevich practiced. Genocide is what the Arabs practice against the Jewish. They killed\kill people simply for who they are, regardless if they were peacfull or not.

:clap: yes. thank you

petegz28
07-08-2010, 09:46 PM
what you don't get is it's not against a people, its against their actions.

See, according to Direckshun we are supposed to play the Liberal game where we are accused of doing or wanting to do what the enemy, in this case terrorists in Palestine are they themselves doing. But we are supposed to pretend they aren't really doing it. They hate Jews, want to wipe them off the face of the earth for no other reason than they are Jews, but not really.

Direckshun
07-08-2010, 09:48 PM
Yes, but the reasoning behind it is where you are at fault. I am not saying wipe them out because of their ethnicity. I am saying wipe them out because of what they do.

You are such a maroon anymore. We gave Germany and Japan the same ultimatum.

I am not running from your view. You are spinning my view. I am for wiping out those who would be deemed our enemy. It's not a perfect world, no matter how much Obama tells you that it is.

I don't want to destroy the existence of the group for who they are. I want to destroy those who threaten us and the rest of the world, for that matter.

Genocide is what Hitler and Malosevich practiced. Genocide is what the Arabs practice against the Jewish. They killed\kill people simply for who they are, regardless if they were peacfull or not.

The definition of genocide (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/genocide) does not include motive. It includes three elements: (a.) a deliberate and systemic (b.) extermination (c.) of a cultural group.

You're inventing the motive part to make yourself feel better about your opinion, because you don't want to believe that you'd be sympathetic to supporting genocide.

Pete, if you support exterminating an entire culture of people, you're advocating genocide.

Direckshun
07-08-2010, 09:49 PM
what you don't get is it's not against a people, its against their actions.

It's still genocide.

Direckshun
07-08-2010, 09:50 PM
See, according to Direckshun we are supposed to play the Liberal game where we are accused of doing or wanting to do what the enemy, in this case terrorists in Palestine are they themselves doing. But we are supposed to pretend they aren't really doing it. They hate Jews, want to wipe them off the face of the earth for no other reason than they are Jews, but not really.

Swing and a miss.

petegz28
07-08-2010, 09:51 PM
The definition of genocide (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/genocide) does not include motive. It includes three elements: (a.) a deliberate and systemic (b.) extermination (c.) of a cultural group.

You're inventing the motive part to make yourself feel better about your opinion, because you don't want to believe that you'd be sympathetic to supporting genocide.

Pete, if you support exterminating an entire culture of people, you're advocating genocide.

And for the 3rd if not 4th time I don't want to eliminate a cultural group. I want to eliminate the threat. If the threat stops then I will say differently. But as long as a group of people continue to start wars then they are a target. PERIOD. Get that through your head. And there is motive behind genocide. Again, were we committing genocide when we killed innocent German, Italian and Japanese??? Or were we attacking the threat? They stop being a pain in the ass for the world and I am cool and as I said, would support helping them. That's a far cry from genocide.

ForeverChiefs58
07-08-2010, 09:55 PM
You know that you'd have to destroy at least half the planet to accomplish that.

Terrorists can find sanctuary on all six continents.

i never said it would be easy.

petegz28
07-08-2010, 09:57 PM
i never said it would be easy.

Nothing ever is. Direckshun lives in the typical, liberal world where Utopia can be had.

Direckshun
07-08-2010, 10:00 PM
And for the 3rd if not 4th time I don't want to eliminate a cultural group. I want to eliminate the threat. If the threat stops then I will say differently. But as long as a group of people continue to start wars then they are a target. PERIOD. Get that through your head. And there is motive behind genocide. Again, were we committing genocide when we killed innocent German, Italian and Japanese??? Or were we attacking the threat? They stop being a pain in the ass for the world and I am cool and as I said, would support helping them. That's a far cry from genocide.

You're shifting the point to shield yourself.

I asked (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showpost.php?p=6868625&postcount=17) you "why don't we just kill them all," meaning the Palestinians.

You eventually answer (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showpost.php?p=6868666&postcount=29) "it's an option I'm torn on."

I call it (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showpost.php?p=6868822&postcount=51) genocide.

Now you're saying (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showpost.php?p=6868836&postcount=57) "I just meant the bad guys, I didn't actually mean everybody."

So to answer my original question: you don't advocate killing them all, because innocent people deserve to live.

If you had only answered that the first time around, you could have saved yourself a little anxiety.

Direckshun
07-08-2010, 10:01 PM
i never said it would be easy.

Or sane.

petegz28
07-08-2010, 10:02 PM
You're shifting the point to shield yourself.

I asked (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showpost.php?p=6868625&postcount=17) you "why don't we just kill them all," meaning the Palestinians.

You eventually answer (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showpost.php?p=6868666&postcount=29) "it's an option I'm torn on."

I call it (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showpost.php?p=6868822&postcount=51) genocide.

Now you're saying (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showpost.php?p=6868836&postcount=57) "I just meant the bad guys, I didn't actually mean everybody."

So to answer my original question: you don't advocate killing them all, because innocent people deserve to live.

If you had only answered that the first time around, you could have saved yourself a little anxiety.

No, if you would use that thing God gave you between your ears people wouldn't have to draw pictures for you.

petegz28
07-08-2010, 10:03 PM
Or sane.

Since when is war sane?

You really are in a Liberal La-La-Land.

Direckshun
07-08-2010, 10:05 PM
No, if you would use that thing God gave you between your ears people wouldn't have to draw pictures for you.

k

So after being "split" earlier in the thread about whether "killing them all" was a good idea, you've decided that now it is definitely not a good idea.

I'm just glad you came back to earth.

Bill Parcells
07-08-2010, 10:06 PM
I think Direckshun should have his penis cut off. please do not reproduce!

ForeverChiefs58
07-08-2010, 10:06 PM
Or sane.

if killing terrorists is wrong, then i don't want to be right!:bang::bang:

Direckshun
07-08-2010, 10:07 PM
Since when is war sane?

You really are in a Liberal La-La-Land.

Sane, as in reasonable?

I can think of plenty of scenarios where war is reasonable.

Direckshun
07-08-2010, 10:09 PM
I think Direckshun should have his penis cut off. please do not reproduce!

I actually reproduce by a cloud of spores, so cutting my penis off wouldn't do you any good.

Pete would probably be mad at the 13th century justice, though.

petegz28
07-08-2010, 10:10 PM
k

So after being "split" earlier in the thread about whether "killing them all" was a good idea, you've decided that now it is definitely not a good idea.

I'm just glad you came back to earth.

If killing them all is what it takes to make the threat go away then that's tough tits. That is not the same as advocating wiping them out just to wipe them out. Which is what you keep trying to imply. My guess is after you killed enough of them, trying to focus on the legitimate threats of course, then they would come around and total annhialation could be avoided.

This is something they bring on themselves, Direckshun, by using allegedly innocents as shields.

ForeverChiefs58
07-08-2010, 10:11 PM
Direckshun would you be against the annihlation of hamas and hezbullah? what about farc, or the ira or other groups like that? or are you just against isreal?

petegz28
07-08-2010, 10:12 PM
Sane, as in reasonable?

I can think of plenty of scenarios where war is reasonable.

War is never reasonable. War is the epitome of insanity. Sane people avoid war. Unfortunately when it comes to war the insane usually drag the sane down to their level. But sometimes you have to fight fire with fire.

Direckshun
07-08-2010, 10:14 PM
If killing them all is what it takes to make the threat go away then that's tough tits. That is not the same as advocating wiping them out just to wipe them out.

Either way, as I've made clear, it's genocide.

Which, unfortunately, you've come back to considering.

petegz28
07-08-2010, 10:16 PM
Either way, as I've made clear, it's genocide.

Which, unfortunately, you've come back to considering.

No, it isn't. That's just you being a tool. You think we wouldn't have wiped out every German if we had to do so to win?

Direckshun
07-08-2010, 10:16 PM
Direckshun would you be against the annihlation of hamas and hezbullah? what about farc, or the ira or other groups like that? or are you just against isreal?

Define "annihilation."

If you mean the dissolution of those entities, then yes. I would support that.

If you mean killing them, I would need a fuller description of the circumstances.

And for the record, I'm not "against Israel," whatever that means.

Direckshun
07-08-2010, 10:18 PM
No, it isn't. That's just you being a tool.

What's the definition of a genocide, Pete.

Allow me to help: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/genocide?&qsrc=

petegz28
07-08-2010, 10:18 PM
Define "annihilation."

If you mean the dissolution of those entities, then yes. I would support that.

If you support killing them, I would need a fuller description of the circumstances.

And for the record, I'm not "against Israel," whatever that means.

Well you aren't going to get them to quit by giving them a hug. ROFL


You really are in your own little world.

Direckshun
07-08-2010, 10:19 PM
War is never reasonable. War is the epitome of insanity. Sane people avoid war. Unfortunately when it comes to war the insane usually drag the sane down to their level. But sometimes you have to fight fire with fire.

I love how you open this post by saying "war is never reasonable."

Then conclude it by providing a reason for it. ROFL

I don't know if you're being ironic or stupid. But I can make a really good guess.

Direckshun
07-08-2010, 10:21 PM
Well you aren't going to get them to quit by giving them a hug.

You aren't going to get them to quit, period.

You can drastically limit what they can do, however, and marginalize them, through means other than genocide.

ForeverChiefs58
07-08-2010, 10:23 PM
Either way, as I've made clear, it's genocide.

Which, unfortunately, you've come back to considering.

no, its taking out a threat-palestinian, iranian, arab, pakastani, jewish, african, mexican whatever. we just so happen to be talking about palestine, i am also for taking out farc once and for all too. If you consider terrorists and people supporting them doing nothing about their attrosities a culture then yeah sure.

petegz28
07-08-2010, 10:25 PM
What's the definition of a genocide, Pete.

Allow me to help: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/genocide?&qsrc=

JFC....


Genocide is the deliberate and systematic destruction, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group.[1]

While a precise definition varies among genocide scholars, a legal definition is found in the 1948 United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (CPPCG). Article 2 of this convention defines genocide as "any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life, calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; [and] forcibly transferring children of the group to another group."[2] Because of the insistence of Joseph Stalin, this definition of genocide under international law does not include political groups.

So first of all, my intent is not to prevent future births. It's to eliminate a threat in which they are perfectly capable of removing on their own and thus no need for war.

Secondly when you mix your political parties with your religion you have stepped out of the genocidal realm.

Thridly I am not out to deliberately inflict harm on the group. I am addressing a threat. Again a threat they could remove on their own by being peacful. Therefore my actions would not be deliberate but rather a reaction to their action.


I know this is all a little over your head but this is how it works in the real world.

Direckshun
07-08-2010, 10:25 PM
no, its taking out a threat-palestinian, iranian, arab, pakastani, jewish, african, mexican whatever. we just so happen to be talking about palestine, i am also for taking out farc once and for all too. If you consider terrorists and people supporting them doing nothing about their attrosities a culture then yeah sure.

The important thing, however, is that you would not dare wipe out the Palestinian people, after suggesting you might earlier in the thread. And for that, you deserve a hearty pat on the ol' back.

petegz28
07-08-2010, 10:27 PM
You aren't going to get them to quit, period.

You can drastically limit what they can do, however, and marginalize them, through means other than genocide.

Then it isn't genocide. It's the removal of a real and harmful threat. If they don't want to quit, that's their choosing and the consequences they will suffer. Just the same as if every German chose to fight to the death. They would all have been wiped out, for the most part. Is that genocide? No. That's protecting yourself from a harmful threat. Perhaps the rather obvious nuance is lost on you?

petegz28
07-08-2010, 10:27 PM
The important thing, however, is that you would not dare wipe out the Palestinian people, after suggesting you might earlier in the thread. And for that, you deserve a hearty pat on the ol' back.

Do you just read in spurts or literally not comprehend?

Direckshun
07-08-2010, 10:28 PM
So first of all, my intent is not to prevent future births. It's to eliminate a threat in which they are perfectly capable of removing on their own and thus no need for war.

Secondly when you mix your political parties with your religion you have stepped out of the genocidal realm.

Thridly I am not out to deliberately inflict harm on the group. I am addressing a threat. Again a threat they could remove on their own by being peacful. Therefore my actions would not be deliberate but rather a reaction to their action.

I know this is all a little over your head but this is how it works in the real world.

I don't know how much you know about psychology but that's actually not how it works in the real world.

People don't stop acting a certain way, and being a certain way, for no reason. Their circumstances generally need to change first.

Which brings me back to the OP.

petegz28
07-08-2010, 10:30 PM
I don't know how much you know about psychology but that's actually not how it works in the real world.

People don't stop acting a certain way, and being a certain way, for no reason. Their circumstances generally need to change first.

Which brings me back to the OP.

Yeah and as in the case of the Nazi's they faced the choice of changing their ways or being wiped out. And don't kid yourself, we would have wiped them off the face of the earth had they not changed.

And yes, that is exactly how it works in the real world. If anything you have just supported my argument.

Direckshun
07-08-2010, 10:30 PM
Then it isn't genocide. It's the removal of a real and harmful threat. If they don't want to quit, that's their choosing and the consequences they will suffer. Just the same as if every German chose to fight to the death. They would all have been wiped out, for the most part. Is that genocide? No. That's protecting yourself from a harmful threat. Perhaps the rather obvious nuance is lost on you?

Whatever you have to tell yourself.

Honestly. I'm not really invested in it.

The thing is, you're never going to stop terrorism. And trying to take it out by killing vast segments of the population only makes terrorism worse.

Direckshun
07-08-2010, 10:32 PM
Yeah and as in the case of the Nazi's they faced the choice of changing their ways or being wiped out. And don't kid yourself, we would have wiped them off the face of the earth had they not changed.

And yes, that is exactly how it works in the real world. If anything you have just supported my argument.

You can't compare terrorism to an army, though. It's apples and oranges.

petegz28
07-08-2010, 10:34 PM
JFC, Direckshun, you only need look to recent history to understand what we are telling you. Ever heard of that thing called the Cold War? Know what M.A.D. is? The constant threat of being totally wiped out finally broke the Russians and they changed.

Do you think we were being genocidal in our threats to eliminate them from the planet? Or were we addressing the threat in the way it needed to be addressed?

ForeverChiefs58
07-08-2010, 10:34 PM
Whatever you have to tell yourself.

Honestly. I'm not really invested in it.

The thing is, you're never going to stop terrorism. And trying to take it out by killing vast segments of the population only makes terrorism worse.

with that logic, then why hasn't japan turned into a breading ground of terrorism?

Direckshun
07-08-2010, 10:35 PM
JFC, Direckshun, you only need look to recent history to understand what we are telling you. Ever heard of that thing called the Cold War? Know what M.A.D. is? The constant threat of being totally wiped out finally broke the Russians and they changed.

Do you think we were being genocidal in our threats to eliminate them from the planet? Or were we addressing the threat in the way it needed to be addressed?

Apples. Oranges.

This is terrorism we're talking about. Not state-on-state combat.

petegz28
07-08-2010, 10:35 PM
Whatever you have to tell yourself.

Honestly. I'm not really invested in it.

The thing is, you're never going to stop terrorism. And trying to take it out by killing vast segments of the population only makes terrorism worse.

I will agree you will never stop terrorism. Terrorism is a tactic. But you can stop the majority of the people and states that preach, produce and support such.

Direckshun
07-08-2010, 10:35 PM
with that logic, then why hasn't japan turned into a breading ground of terrorism?

Terrorism follows different rules than state-on-state warfare.

petegz28
07-08-2010, 10:36 PM
Apples. Oranges.

This is terrorism we're talking about. Not state-on-state combat.

Don't kid yourself. Just because the terrorists don't play by our rules of wearing uniforms doesn't mean this isn't state on state combat. You're a bigger fool than I thought if you believe that.

Direckshun
07-08-2010, 10:36 PM
I will agree you will never stop terrorism. Terrorism is a tactic. But you can stop the majority of the people and states that preach, produce and support such.

I agree.

Direckshun
07-08-2010, 10:36 PM
Don't kid yourself. Just because the terrorists don't play by our rules of wearing uniforms doesn't mean this isn't state on state combat. You're a bigger fool than I thought if you believe that.

There's no possible way I can be a bigger fool than you thought.

petegz28
07-08-2010, 10:37 PM
Terrorism follows different rules than state-on-state warfare.

In some ways yes, in some ways no.

petegz28
07-08-2010, 10:37 PM
There's no possible way I can be a bigger fool than you thought.

Don't sell yourself short.

Direckshun
07-08-2010, 10:38 PM
In some ways yes, in some ways no.

I agree.

Direckshun
07-08-2010, 10:40 PM
Don't sell yourself short.

I'll do what I can.

ForeverChiefs58
07-08-2010, 10:48 PM
Define "annihilation."

If you mean the dissolution of those entities, then yes. I would support that.

If you mean killing them, I would need a fuller description of the circumstances.

And for the record, I'm not "against Israel," whatever that means.

all serious i think hamas should be ran out and rounded up like hamas did to fatah. however they do it, it should be done. i think isreal can work with the palestinian authority, but they have to be willing to stop the rockets, and the bombing of innocents would have to come to an end.

SDChiefs
07-11-2010, 01:18 PM
We didn't "wipe out" Germany. We went to war with an opposing military, beat them into submission, and spared the civilians.

You haven't hinted that you'd use such restraint in your hypothetical extermination of the Palestinians.

Israel has already done that. Palenstine continue to cowardly bomb innocent civilians. If Germany would have kept up after the war we would have destroyed them. See Hiroshima and Nagaski.

patteeu
07-11-2010, 02:54 PM
Then why not kill them all, Pete?

If they exist only as a tribe of potential murderers, why not carpet bomb the Gaza Strip?

If your theory in the OP is correct, that might not be a bad idea.

Direckshun
07-11-2010, 05:33 PM
all serious i think hamas should be ran out and rounded up like hamas did to fatah. however they do it, it should be done. i think isreal can work with the palestinian authority, but they have to be willing to stop the rockets, and the bombing of innocents would have to come to an end.

What do you think Israel should be doing differently than it is right now?

Anything?

The Mad Crapper
07-11-2010, 05:44 PM
What do you think Israel should be doing differently than it is right now?

Anything?

Lavender for East Village!

ForeverChiefs58
09-01-2010, 08:59 AM
Thought I would put this here instead of a new thread.

Palestinians crack down on Hamas after shooting

RAMALLAH, West Bank – Palestinian security forces arrested more than 250 Hamas members in an overnight sweep throughout the West Bank after the Islamic militant group claimed responsibility for shooting dead four Israelis on the eve of new Mideast peace talks.

With the Wednesday arrests, the government of Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas appeared to be trying to send a stern message to both its Hamas rivals and to Israel that it is committed to the new peace talks. Hamas condemned the crackdown as "treason."

In Washington, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said late Tuesday he would not let the shooting derail the negotiations.

Israel and the Palestinians are in Washington to begin talks aimed at creating an independent Palestinian state alongside Israel. The talks are to focus on core issues of the conflict, including the status of east Jerusalem, which the Palestinians want as capital of their future state.

In a possible hint on the Israeli position on Jerusalem, Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak indicated in a newspaper interview Wednesday that Israel would be willing to reach a compromise on the status of the city.

"West Jerusalem and 12 Jewish neighborhoods that are home to 200,000 residents will be ours. The Arab neighborhoods in which close to a quarter million Palestinians live will be theirs," Barak told the Israeli daily Haaretz.

He said "a special regime" would be needed around the Old City — home to sensitive Jewish, Christian and Muslim holy sites.

Barak's office confirmed the remarks were accurate, but would not say whether he expressed his personal views or official government policy. There was no immediate reaction from Netanyahu, who has said he would never agree to divide Jerusalem.

The Tuesday shooting immediately cast a shadow over President Barack Obama's push for Mideast peace, which was set to formally kick off later Wednesday with a White House dinner. It will be the first direct talks between Israeli and Palestinian leaders in nearly two years.

It also was a vivid reminder that while Hamas is locked out of the peace efforts, it remains a key player in determining the outcome of negotiations. The Iranian-backed group rules the Gaza Strip, one half of the territory claimed by the Palestinians for a future state, and has the power to sabotage negotiations at any moment.

During a visit to a West Bank army base Barak said the military "will do everything possible to quickly bring the perpetrators to justice." But he urged residents to show restraint.

A Palestinian security official, speaking on condition of anonymity under official guidelines, confirmed a crackdown was under way, but gave few details. He said the assailants from the shooting had not been found.

Hamas lawmaker Omar Abdel-Razek said some 250 low and midlevel activists had been rounded up by midday — the biggest single day sweep by Palestinian security in years.

"It's unprecedented," he said. "It is an act of treason."

Abbas, a Western-backed moderate, has carried out frequent crackdowns on Hamas since the Iranian-backed group defeated his forces and overtook Gaza three years ago. In turn, Hamas has frequently targeted members of Abbas' Fatah movement in Gaza.

Tuesday's attack occurred near Hebron, when a gunman opened fire on a passing vehicle, killing all four passengers inside — two men and two women from settlements in the area. The dead included a married couple with five children.

On Wednesday, hundreds of mourners attended a funeral in Beit Haggai, a settlement near Hebron where two of the victims lived.

Hebron has been a frequent flashpoint of violence in the past. Some 500 ultranationalist Jewish settlers live in heavily fortified enclaves in the city, surrounded by more than 100,000 Palestinians.

Hamas, which refuses to recognize Israel's right to exist and has condemned the new peace talks, quickly took responsibility for the shooting and vowed that more attacks would follow. About 3,000 Palestinians joined a rally in Gaza to celebrate the attack.

The shooting occurred shortly before Netanyahu landed in Washington, where he told reporters that he would not let the violence disrupt the peace efforts. "We will not let terror decide where Israelis live or the configuration of our final borders," he said.

Netanyahu has said protecting Israeli security would be his top priority as he negotiates the contours of a future Palestinian state with Abbas.

The shooting drew strong condemnations from Abbas' prime minister, Salam Fayyad, who accused Hamas of hurting the Palestinian dream of independence, the European Union and the United States.

The violence also added to Netanyahu's domestic troubles.

As leader of a hardline coalition dominated by ultranationalist and religious parties, Netanyahu is under heavy internal pressure to resume construction in West Bank settlements when a freeze expires on Sept. 26.

Netanyahu imposed the 10-month freeze last November to lure the Palestinians to the negotiating table. Settlers and their supporters in the government want an immediate resumption in construction, but the Palestinians have threatened to walk out of negotiations if building resumes.

Netanyahu has not said what he will do.

Following Tuesday's shooting, the Yesha Council, which represents the settlers, said it would unilaterally resume construction in West Bank settlements on Wednesday evening.

"The Palestinian leadership speaks softly in English while in Arabic it kills," said Yesha director Naftali Bennett. He said the settlements protect "the entire West from the onslaught of radical Islam."

It's not clear how much the settlers can realistically build. Police refused to say how they would respond.

The future of the settlements is one of the thorniest issues in the negotiations.

Some 300,000 Israelis now live in West Bank settlements, along with nearly 200,000 others in east Jerusalem. The Palestinians claim both areas, captured by Israel in the 1967 Mideast war, for their future state.

ForeverChiefs58
09-01-2010, 09:10 AM
How anyone could possibly defend Hamas is beyond comprehension. I read yesterday one of the women they shot to death was pregnant.

I applaud Abbas for the condemnation of these acts, and hope he is serious about cracking down on these evil monsters. Hamas needs to be overthrown and taken out if there is ever real peace because all they want to do is kill Jews. They have zero desire to ever have peace with Isreal.

Brock
09-01-2010, 09:16 AM
How anyone could possibly defend Hamas is beyond comprehension. I read yesterday one of the women they shot to death was pregnant.

ROFL You think IDF has never done that and worse?

Ugly Duck
09-01-2010, 09:20 AM
The whole thing about Palestine is the U.N. created Israel and somehow they and the rest of the world look at it as our fault.

There was no U.N. when a buncha Europeans & Americans went to Palestine to create a settler-state where indigenous people already lived. The U.N. was created afterward. The indigenous people still want their land back from the settlers.

Brock
09-01-2010, 09:24 AM
There was no U.N. when a buncha Europeans & Americans went to Palestine to create a settler-state where indigenous people already lived. The U.N. was created afterward. The indigenous people still want their land back from the settlers.

The indians probably want America back too, who gives a shit? The world has moved on.

patteeu
09-01-2010, 09:32 AM
There was no U.N. when a buncha Europeans & Americans went to Palestine to create a settler-state where indigenous people already lived. The U.N. was created afterward. The indigenous people still want their land back from the settlers.

The Jews were indigenous too.

stevieray
09-01-2010, 09:38 AM
There was no U.N. when a buncha Europeans & Americans went to Palestine to create a settler-state where indigenous people already lived. The U.N. was created afterward. The indigenous people still want their land back from the settlers.

...the Palestinians built King Solomon's temple?

KC Dan
09-01-2010, 09:41 AM
The Jews were indigenous too.
details.....

Iowanian
09-01-2010, 10:53 AM
Shouldn't you be posting in red for the murdered Jooooish settlers?

Mr. Kotter
09-01-2010, 11:04 AM
Desperation is no excuse for terrorism.

Desperation is understandable, but under no circumstances is it an acceptable excuse.

Ugly Duck
09-01-2010, 11:51 AM
The Jews were indigenous too.

?? Huh? They went there from Europe & the US after WWII - quite recent for a settler state. Long after setting up colonies on other peoples land was over everywhere else. This is the wrong era to create a settler state & its not working out too well...

Donger
09-01-2010, 12:06 PM
?? Huh? They went there from Europe & the US after WWII - quite recent for a settler state. Long after setting up colonies on other peoples land was over everywhere else. This is the wrong era to create a settler state & its not working out too well...

:spock:

mlyonsd
09-01-2010, 12:15 PM
:spock:

Evidently not a Charlton Heston fan.

patteeu
09-01-2010, 12:17 PM
?? Huh? They went there from Europe & the US after WWII - quite recent for a settler state. Long after setting up colonies on other peoples land was over everywhere else. This is the wrong era to create a settler state & its not working out too well...

There were tens of thousands of Jews in the land now known as Israel before the first zionist immigrations started. There were 500,000 Jews in Israel just before WWII ended. There were somewhere in the neighborhood of 200,000 to 300,000 Jews in Israel before the Nazis implemented their Nuremburg laws in the mid 1930s. Jews have been in the land of Israel since biblical times and there were substantial populations there well before the WWII inspired immigrations.

Link (http://palestineisraelpopulation.blogspot.com/)

go bowe
09-01-2010, 12:40 PM
Not sure I would call it ethnic cleansing, but moreso belief cleansing. Get the **** in the 21st century. Stop starting wars with everyone, especially those who can and want to help you, and save all the Imam bullshit. It's old hat.

We sit here talking about this shit as Iran was just about to stone a woman to death after they already have flogged her 99 times because she had sex. And where is the UN or even Obama? He wants to talk to them and have NASA make them feel good about themsevles. Saudi Arabia still has such brutal rules as well. Are all Arabs and Arab countries like this? No. But most are. If there were a nice, neat way to separate the innocent and modern thinking from the religously crazed war mongers it would make things a lot easier. But until you can do that you are faced with 3 choices...

1. Continue these wars for decades if not longer
2. Wipe them the **** out
3. Hope for peace, which takes you make to #1or 4. declare victory and leave /vietnam era option...

go bowe
09-01-2010, 12:59 PM
Desperation is no excuse for terrorism.

Desperation is understandable, but under no circumstances is it an acceptable excuse.it certainly is no excuse to the victims of terrorism...

but our adversaries think otherwise...

ForeverChiefs58
09-01-2010, 01:38 PM
?? Huh? They went there from Europe & the US after WWII - quite recent for a settler state. Long after setting up colonies on other peoples land was over everywhere else. This is the wrong era to create a settler state & its not working out too well...


WTF???

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/bK-Dqj4fHmM?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/bK-Dqj4fHmM?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

ForeverChiefs58
09-01-2010, 02:05 PM
details.....


The U.N did not create Israel. Saying the UN created Israel is simply, historically, and factually inaccurate.

The reality of the matter is this: The United Nations does not appropriate to itself the authority to create states. The United Nations only authorizes itself to recognize states for membership, states that are formed or proclaimed by the people of said state. The State of Israel was created by the Jewish leaders of the area that became Israel. Period. The United Nations recognized that creation and subsequently admitted Israel to UN membership. While this may seem to be a small distinction, it is salient.

Yes, it's true that prior to the formation of the state by the local Jewish leaders then living in Palestine that the United Nations had recommended that the former British Mandate of Palestine be bifurcated into two distinct areas, but this was only a recommendation, and did not carry the weight of international law, and certainly did not create the State of Israel.

Israel has been the ancient homeland of the Jewish people, who maintained a continuous presence there for over 3,000 years.

There wasn't a country there before Isreal. It was a colony the UK seized from the Ottomans. There hasn't ever been an independent country there that wasn't Israel. It has always been Israel. It will always be Israel.


There was a long running conflict between the Arab and Jewish communities in British Mandate Palestine. It started when Jews began immigrating with British permission (under the 1917 Balfour Declaration) with the intention of establishing a homeland for the Jewish people. Zionist organizations and private individuals bought land and Jews settled there. Many Arabs welcomed the newcomers, but many didn't. In particular, Hajj Amin al-Husseini, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, hated Jews, and incited his followers to attack them. After a number of bloody riots (eg the Hebron massacre of 1929), the Jewish community began to form a defense organization. Jewish immigration continued sporadically, over Arab objections, and the conflict between the communities grew in intensity and ferocity. WWII brought the Holocaust to the Jews, and refugees desperately tried to get into Palestine (or anywhere else that would take them), but the British heartlessly turned most of them back, in many cases back to death camps where they were killed. The Arabs were even more unsympathetic; Hajj Amin al-Husseini went to Berlin and allied himself with Hitler, He offered Hitler his help in treating Palestinian Jews the same way Hitler was treating European Jews, and is said to have personally encouraged Hitler to use gas chambers for extermination.

After WWII ended in 1945, more Jewish refugees wanted to come to Palestine, and the conflict between the Jewish and Arab communities continued to escalate. The British decided to abandon Palestine, and the UN decided to partition it into Jewish-majority and Arab-majority states, because it was clear that they couldn't live together in peace.

The Jews accepted partition, but the Arabs didn't, and vowed to destroy any Jewish state. On the day Israel declared independence, Arab armies from all the surrounding countries invaded. They declared their intention to annihilate the Jews. But the Jews, having no alternative, and three years after the Holocaust, fought back and won. Many Arabs fled from their homes, and Israel captured areas around the original area of the partition.

KC Dan
09-01-2010, 02:10 PM
Israel has been the ancient homeland of the Jewish people, who maintained a continuous presence there for over 3,000 years.

/sarcasm dude

BIG_DADDY
09-01-2010, 02:18 PM
?? Huh? They went there from Europe & the US after WWII - quite recent for a settler state. Long after setting up colonies on other peoples land was over everywhere else. This is the wrong era to create a settler state & its not working out too well...

ROFL

ForeverChiefs58
09-01-2010, 02:36 PM
/sarcasm dude

Ha ha. wow. I really went on a rant too. Sorry, my meter is on the fritz again. But there are a few on here who really are clueless.

Radar Chief
09-01-2010, 02:41 PM
?? Huh? They went there from Europe & the US after WWII - quite recent for a settler state. Long after setting up colonies on other peoples land was over everywhere else. This is the wrong era to create a settler state & its not working out too well...

^This post makes teh baby Jebus cry.

KC Dan
09-01-2010, 02:56 PM
But there are a few on here who really are clueless.Truer words have never been spoken here. btw, that was a great rant :)

Ugly Duck
09-01-2010, 03:24 PM
There were tens of thousands of Jews in the land now known as Israel before the first zionist immigrations started. There were 500,000 Jews in Israel just before WWII ended.

13,000 before the 1st Zionist immigrations started was a tiny minority of the population. The vast, overwhelming bulk came in from from Europe and America. That does not an indigenous population make, but rather a nation of settlers coming from overseas. Tragically, they were settling a country that was already occupied.

vailpass
09-01-2010, 03:52 PM
13,000 before the 1st Zionist immigrations started was a tiny minority of the population. The vast, overwhelming bulk came in from from Europe and America. That does not an indigenous population make, but rather a nation of settlers coming from overseas. Tragically, they were settling a country that was already occupied.

"Zionist"? Hmmmmm
You know what kind of people use that word in the tone and context in which you are using it along with the competely inaccurate "facts" you present?

Iowanian
09-01-2010, 03:55 PM
13,000 before the 1st Zionist immigrations started was a tiny minority of the population. The vast, overwhelming bulk came in from from Europe and America. That does not an indigenous population make, but rather a nation of settlers coming from overseas. Tragically, they were settling a country that was already occupied.


Whatever, Hamas Duckins.

Ugly Duck
09-01-2010, 04:21 PM
"Zionist"? Hmmmmm
You know what kind of people use that word in the tone and context in which

Dude... I copied & pasted that phrase from patteeu. Talk to him about it.

Listen folks... I'm not stupid - I just act that way. I know that there's supposed to be some kinda divine reason for God's Chosen People to make Palestine into Israel. There is no way one can argue with a notion of Divine Providence. It rises above all fact and reason. You guyz are a small minority in world context, ya know. And that cannot all be explained away by insinuations of antisemitism. Ya might wanna take a few minutes to ponder why that is...

patteeu
09-01-2010, 04:31 PM
13,000 before the 1st Zionist immigrations started was a tiny minority of the population. The vast, overwhelming bulk came in from from Europe and America. That does not an indigenous population make, but rather a nation of settlers coming from overseas. Tragically, they were settling a country that was already occupied.

1. You're changing your story now. Your first position was that the Jews came after WWII. As I've pointed out, there were a couple hundred thousand Jews living there before WWII started and over half a million there before it ended.

2. You're having trouble reading the table. There were 25,000 Jews living there before the first wave of zionist immigration in 1882, not 13,000. (Over 60 years before WWII ended, btw.)

3. The immigration that took place before Israel's independence was legal immigration and the immigrants bought the land that they settled, they didn't take it from anyone. Arabs in the area didn't lose their land until the partition and the Arab-initiated war at the time of Israel's independence.

Bottom line: the Jews were indigenous in both the sense that they had been present in the region for millenia and in the sense that a large population, partially composed of legal immigrants, was in place well before anyone "settled" on land that was "already occupied". It's pretty clear that you've got a cartoon-level understanding of the history of this region and that you've just become a sponge for whatever anti-Israeli propaganda your leftwing thought leaders choose to feed you.

vailpass
09-01-2010, 04:41 PM
Dude... I copied & pasted that phrase from patteeu. Talk to him about it.

Listen folks... I'm not stupid - I just act that way. I know that there's supposed to be some kinda divine reason for God's Chosen People to make Palestine into Israel. There is no way one can argue with a notion of Divine Providence. It rises above all fact and reason. You guyz are a small minority in world context, ya know. And that cannot all be explained away by insinuations of antisemitism. Ya might wanna take a few minutes to ponder why that is...

Sorry UD. The way I read it sounded like you were using it like the hate groups and middle eastern whcak jobs use it.
My bad.

Question: who are the "you guys" you refer to in your post?

Ugly Duck
09-01-2010, 06:32 PM
Bottom line: the Jews were indigenous in both the sense that they had been present in the region for millenia and in the sense that a large population, partially composed of legal immigrants, was in place well before anyone "settled" on land that was "already occupied". It's pretty clear that you've got a cartoon-level understanding of the history of this region and that you've just become a sponge for whatever anti-Israeli propaganda your leftwing thought leaders choose to feed you.

This idea that Israel in not a nation of immigrants must be something new... I must be a lot older than you or something. Here's what the Professor of Sociology and Dorot Professor of Judaic Studies at Brown University sez: Over the last 50 years, over 2.5 million immigrants arrived in Israel from diverse countries of origin. They were added to a 1948 base population of 650,000. And the vast majority of Jews in Palestine before Balfour came there from overseas during the earlier Zionist migrations (look it up). Maybe its politically correct now to believe otherwise or something... can't figure out why else its actually a point of contention.

http://www.allbusiness.com/public-administration/national-security-international/709271-1.html

BucEyedPea
09-01-2010, 06:54 PM
1. You're changing your story now. Your first position was that the Jews came after WWII. As I've pointed out, there were a couple hundred thousand Jews living there before WWII started and over half a million there before it ended.

2. You're having trouble reading the table. There were 25,000 Jews living there before the first wave of zionist immigration in 1882, not 13,000. (Over 60 years before WWII ended, btw.)

3. The immigration that took place before Israel's independence was legal immigration and the immigrants bought the land that they settled, they didn't take it from anyone. Arabs in the area didn't lose their land until the partition and the Arab-initiated war at the time of Israel's independence.

Bottom line: the Jews were indigenous in both the sense that they had been present in the region for millenia and in the sense that a large population, partially composed of legal immigrants, was in place well before anyone "settled" on land that was "already occupied". It's pretty clear that you've got a cartoon-level understanding of the history of this region and that you've just become a sponge for whatever anti-Israeli propaganda your leftwing thought leaders choose to feed you.


They were indigenous only if they're Sephardic Jews. Those were the ones kicked out in 70 AD. There were some migrationsunder Queen Isabella who deported mass Jews. Though they were Sephardic Jews who lived side by side peacefully with their Semite brothers—the Arabs.

What you fail to understand, when labeling Ugly Duck's understanding as cartoonish, is that the this migration movement started by Theodor Herzl was political zionism with the intent to eventually form a state. In 1898 he wrote Der Judenstaadt ( The Jewish State). It was both acclaimed and controversial at the same time even then. Many of them used money from Rothschilds to buy the land from absentee Turkish landlords. But these were largely white European Jews who were descended from Ashkenazis who were converts to Judaism—not the native Sephardic Jews of ancient Israel who are the same blood as the Arab. Still even those early migrations from Europe were not massive and they lived peacefully side by side.

The migrations from Europe get huge after WWII along with the intent to create a state on the land that was to be Jewish in nature. That's where it started to get messy and there were attacks on Jews. It became seen as white Europeans invading and taking over. But even then many of them were still friends with each other. Hostilities really break out when the UN makes Israel a state. The organization that was to end war created a war and it's never ended. Israel won militarily eventually but they did not win the peace. Hence, terrorism—urban guerrilla warfare erupting.

Rent the movie Exodus. I rented for my daughter's Mid East studies course. It's really sad on both sides. You'll see how the Irgun developed and how the two parties in Israel came to be today as well as the friendships breaking up etc. The whole thing is a tragedy. Both have a right to live there. But you can't put white native Europeans in the same category as the indigenous Sephardic Jews. They are not the same ethnic group or people—just the same religion.

Ugly Duck
09-01-2010, 07:25 PM
They were indigenous only if they're Sephardic Jews. Those were the ones kicked out in 70 AD. There were some migrationsunder Queen Isabella who deported mass Jews. Though they were Sephardic Jews who lived side by side peacefully with their Semite brothers—the Arabs.

What you fail to understand, when labeling Ugly Duck's understanding as cartoonish, is that the this migration movement started by Theodor Herzl was political zionism with the intent to eventually form a state. In 1898 he wrote Der Judenstaadt ( The Jewish State). It was both acclaimed and controversial at the same time even then. Many of them used money from Rothschilds to buy the land from absentee Turkish landlords. But these were largely white European Jews who were descended from Ashkenazis who were converts to Judaism—not the native Sephardic Jews of ancient Israel who are the same blood as the Arab. Still even those early migrations from Europe were not massive and they lived peacefully side by side.

The migrations from Europe get huge after WWII along with the intent to create a state on the land that was to be Jewish in nature. That's where it started to get messy and there were attacks on Jews. It became seen as white Europeans invading and taking over. But even then many of them were still friends with each other. Hostilities really break out when the UN makes Israel a state. The organization that was to end war created a war and it's never ended. Israel won militarily eventually but they did not win the peace. Hence, terrorism—urban guerrilla warfare erupting.

Rent the movie Exodus. I rented for my daughter's Mid East studies course. It's really sad on both sides. You'll see how the Irgun developed and how the two parties in Israel came to be today as well as the friendships breaking up etc. The whole thing is a tragedy. Both have a right to live there. But you can't put white native Europeans in the same category as the indigenous Sephardic Jews. They are not the same ethnic group or people—just the same religion.

Wow. I was beginning to think I learned my history all wrong.... thank you.

patteeu
09-01-2010, 07:37 PM
This idea that Israel in not a nation of immigrants must be something new... I must be a lot older than you or something. Here's what the Professor of Sociology and Dorot Professor of Judaic Studies at Brown University sez: Over the last 50 years, over 2.5 million immigrants arrived in Israel from diverse countries of origin. They were added to a 1948 base population of 650,000. And the vast majority of Jews in Palestine before Balfour came there from overseas during the earlier Zionist migrations (look it up). Maybe its politically correct now to believe otherwise or something... can't figure out why else its actually a point of contention.

http://www.allbusiness.com/public-administration/national-security-international/709271-1.html

I understand that you don't want to admit that you were wrong and that you'd rather pretend that your argument was something different now that I've educated you. But now that you're on to a different argument, you should notice that you've lost most of the power of the claim that invading Jews stole the land from it's rightful owners.

There's nothing wrong with legal immigration. Prior to Israel's independence, the immigrants that you're now talking about (but apparently didn't know about before) arrived in the area over a 50 year period and purchased the land they settled on from willing sellers. That makes them an indigenous population at the time of the partition. Most of the displacement took place after the neighboring Arab states decided to perform a partial birth abortion on Israel as she emerged as an independent state.

patteeu
09-01-2010, 07:44 PM
They were indigenous only if they're Sephardic Jews. Those were the ones kicked out in 70 AD. There were some migrationsunder Queen Isabella who deported mass Jews. Though they were Sephardic Jews who lived side by side peacefully with their Semite brothers—the Arabs.

What you fail to understand, when labeling Ugly Duck's understanding as cartoonish, is that the this migration movement started by Theodor Herzl was political zionism with the intent to eventually form a state. In 1898 he wrote Der Judenstaadt ( The Jewish State). It was both acclaimed and controversial at the same time even then. Many of them used money from Rothschilds to buy the land from absentee Turkish landlords. But these were largely white European Jews who were descended from Ashkenazis who were converts to Judaism—not the native Sephardic Jews of ancient Israel who are the same blood as the Arab. Still even those early migrations from Europe were not massive and they lived peacefully side by side.

The migrations from Europe get huge after WWII along with the intent to create a state on the land that was to be Jewish in nature. That's where it started to get messy and there were attacks on Jews. It became seen as white Europeans invading and taking over. But even then many of them were still friends with each other. Hostilities really break out when the UN makes Israel a state. The organization that was to end war created a war and it's never ended. Israel won militarily eventually but they did not win the peace. Hence, terrorism—urban guerrilla warfare erupting.

Rent the movie Exodus. I rented for my daughter's Mid East studies course. It's really sad on both sides. You'll see how the Irgun developed and how the two parties in Israel came to be today as well as the friendships breaking up etc. The whole thing is a tragedy. Both have a right to live there. But you can't put white native Europeans in the same category as the indigenous Sephardic Jews. They are not the same ethnic group or people—just the same religion.

Not only did I not misunderstand any of that, I said much of it and linked to a source that described the population surge and I properly described it as Zionist immigration. What other form of Zionism is there than political Zionism?

In the context of Ugly Duck's original claim, the immigrant Jews who had arrived well before the 1948 independence declaration and war had just as much claim to the land as any Sephardic Jew or palestinian.

ForeverChiefs58
09-01-2010, 08:25 PM
The people of Israel (also called the "Jewish People") trace their origin to Abraham, who established the belief that there is only one God, the creator of the universe (see Torah). Abraham, his son Yitshak (Isaac), and grandson Jacob (Israel), are referred to as the patriarchs of the Israelites. All three patriarchs lived in the Land of Canaan, that later came to be known as the Land of Israel. They and their wives are buried in the Ma'arat HaMachpela, the Tomb of the Patriarchs, in Hebron.

The name Israel derives from the name given to Jacob (see the Torah). His 12 sons were the kernels of 12 tribes that later developed into the Jewish nation. The name Jew derives from Yehuda (Judah) one of the 12 sons of Jacob (Reuben, Shimon, Levi, Yehuda, Dan, Naphtali, Gad, Asher, Yisachar, Zevulun, Yosef, Binyamin). So, the names Israel, Israeli or Jewish refer to people of the same origin.

The descendants of Abraham crystallized into a nation at about 1300 BCE after their Exodus from Egypt under the leadership of Moses (Moshe in Hebrew). Soon after the Exodus, Moses transmitted to the people of this new emerging nation, the Torah, and the Ten Commandments. After 40 years in the Sinai desert, Moses led them to the Land of Israel, that is cited in The Bible as the land promised by G-d to the descendants of the patriarchs, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

The people of modern day Israel share the same language and culture shaped by the Jewish heritage and religion passed through generations starting with the founding father Abraham (ca. 1800 BCE). Thus, Jews have had continuous presence in the land of Israel for the past 3,300 years.

The rule of Israelites in the land of Israel starts with the conquests of Joshua (ca. 1250 BCE). The period from 1000-587 BCE is known as the "Period of the Kings". The most noteworthy kings were King David (1010-970 BCE), who made Jerusalem the Capital of Israel, and his son Solomon (Shlomo, 970-931 BCE), who built the first Temple in Jerusalem as prescribed in the Tanach (Old Testament).

In 587 BCE, Babylonian Nebuchadnezzar's army captured Jerusalem, destroyed the Temple, and exiled the Jews to Babylon (modern day Iraq).

The year 587 BCE marks a turning point in the history of the region. From this year onwards, the region was ruled or controlled by a succession of superpower empires of the time in the following order: Babylonian, Persian, Greek Hellenistic, Roman and Byzantine Empires, Islamic and Christian crusaders, Ottoman Empire, and the British Empire.

ForeverChiefs58
09-01-2010, 08:28 PM
After the exile by the Romans, the Jewish people migrated to Europe and North Africa. In the Diaspora (scattered outside of the Land of Israel), they established rich cultural and economic lives, and contributed greatly to the societies where they lived. Yet, they continued their national attachments and prayed to return to Israel through centuries. In the first half of the 20th century there were major waves of immigration of Jews back to Israel from Arab countries and from Europe. During the British rule in Palestine, the Jewish people were subject to great violence and massacres directed by Arab civilians or forces of the neighboring Arab states. During World War II, the Nazi regime in Germany decimated about 6 million Jews creating the great tragedy of The Holocaust.

In 1948, Jewish Community in Israel under the leadership of David Ben-Gurion reestablished sovereignty over their ancient homeland. Declaration of independence of the modern State of Israel was announced on the day that the last British forces left Israel (May 14, 1948).

ForeverChiefs58
09-01-2010, 10:35 PM
They were indigenous only if they're Sephardic Jews. Those were the ones kicked out in 70 AD. There were some migrationsunder Queen Isabella who deported mass Jews. Though they were Sephardic Jews who lived side by side peacefully with their Semite brothers—the Arabs.

What you fail to understand, when labeling Ugly Duck's understanding as cartoonish, is that the this migration movement started by Theodor Herzl was political zionism with the intent to eventually form a state. In 1898 he wrote Der Judenstaadt ( The Jewish State). It was both acclaimed and controversial at the same time even then. Many of them used money from Rothschilds to buy the land from absentee Turkish landlords. But these were largely white European Jews who were descended from Ashkenazis who were converts to Judaism—not the native Sephardic Jews of ancient Israel who are the same blood as the Arab. Still even those early migrations from Europe were not massive and they lived peacefully side by side.

The migrations from Europe get huge after WWII along with the intent to create a state on the land that was to be Jewish in nature. That's where it started to get messy and there were attacks on Jews. It became seen as white Europeans invading and taking over. But even then many of them were still friends with each other. Hostilities really break out when the UN makes Israel a state. The organization that was to end war created a war and it's never ended. Israel won militarily eventually but they did not win the peace. Hence, terrorism—urban guerrilla warfare erupting.

Rent the movie Exodus. I rented for my daughter's Mid East studies course. It's really sad on both sides. You'll see how the Irgun developed and how the two parties in Israel came to be today as well as the friendships breaking up etc. The whole thing is a tragedy. Both have a right to live there. But you can't put white native Europeans in the same category as the indigenous Sephardic Jews. They are not the same ethnic group or people—just the same religion.



You and Ugly Duck are both wrong. The UN did NOT create Israel, or make it a state. The United Nations does not have authority to just create states.

Ugly Duck
09-02-2010, 12:35 AM
I understand that you don't want to admit that you were wrong and that you'd rather pretend that your argument was something different now that I've educated you. But now that you're on to a different argument, you should notice that you've lost most of the power of the claim that invading Jews stole the land from it's rightful owners.

Whoa... I have no idea where all that comes from - makes no sense at all to me. But somehow I get the feeling its not worth it to go back & try n' figure out what the hey you are talking about...

BucEyedPea
09-02-2010, 05:28 AM
After the exile by the Romans, the Jewish people migrated to Europe and North Africa. In the Diaspora (scattered outside of the Land of Israel), they established rich cultural and economic lives, and contributed greatly to the societies where they lived. Yet, they continued their national attachments and prayed to return to Israel through centuries. In the first half of the 20th century there were major waves of immigration of Jews back to Israel from Arab countries and from Europe. During the British rule in Palestine, the Jewish people were subject to great violence and massacres directed by Arab civilians or forces of the neighboring Arab states. During World War II, the Nazi regime in Germany decimated about 6 million Jews creating the great tragedy of The Holocaust.

In 1948, Jewish Community in Israel under the leadership of David Ben-Gurion reestablished sovereignty over their ancient homeland. Declaration of independence of the modern State of Israel was announced on the day that the last British forces left Israel (May 14, 1948).

I think you should link that, because it's word for word from this site:
http://www.science.co.il/israel-history.asp

Oh but man, that leaves out so many other pertinent facts of history leading up to this conflict—most of it due to Western complicity: British, French with the assent of Russia. I've already commented at length on these events before. I was just commenting here on the migrations and the ethnic makeup of original Jewish people from Israel which is the same as the Arab people.

Now back to your post. There is NO sovereignty if one can't defend one's borders. That is part of the word's very definition. Israel can't do that on her own. Not only does she need aid and armaments from the US to survive she had the aid of the following events by western nations:

• Betrayal of the Arabs by Great Britain in promising them their independence on their own historic land in exchange for their help in defeating the Ottoman Turks with the Balfour Declaration which was payback for Baron de Rothschild's support in WWII

• Sykes-Picot Agreement- conflicting promises to the different groups

• British Mandate in Palestine - there were other conflicts in the region in Lebanon and Iraq, due to the West carving up the territory for their own benefit.


Jewish militias in Palestine, like the Haganah, formed a resistance movement to British rule, despite the fact that the British aided them earlier. They bombed British military headquarters and the King David Hotel. That's been labeled a terrorist act because it killed civilians with more killed than by any bombings in the Arab-Israeli conflict later. That was July 1946. Not all Jews supported these militants either. So Israelis had to win their independence from the British first.

The UN appointed a special committee to deal with the problem in Palestine
where they partitioned it—UNSCOP.

In September 1947, one month after Partition of India, UNSCOP recommended partition in Palestine, a suggestion ratified by the UN General Assembly on November 29, 1947.[44] The result envisaged the creation of two states, one Arab and one Jewish, with the city of Jerusalem to be under the direct administration of the United Nations.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Israel

After this partition fighting breaks out in November 1947 in a civil war between Arabs and Jewish communities. It wasn't until May 14, 1948 that Ben Gurion declared the State of Israel which was done in accordance with the 1947 UN Partition Plan.

The movie Exodus is about these events and is considered to be a movie about the establishment of Israel as a state. After this happens, the Arab-Israeli war starts with invasions by the Arabs.

BucEyedPea
09-02-2010, 05:35 AM
You and Ugly Duck are both wrong. The UN did NOT create Israel, or make it a state. The United Nations does not have authority to just create states.

Nope. You're the one that's wrong. You also stole your explanatory post entirely from an Israeli site.

BTW did you know there are Orthodox Jews who explicity reject modern Zionism because it's a political and military ideology and not part of the Torah.
According to them, the Jews were punished by God when kicked out of ancient Israel and have to live their lives elsewhere until they make amends. Then they win their homeland back in a peaceful manner with their Arab brothers. And Israel was founded on socialist principles too. It is rigidly socialist.

http://www.nkusa.org/AboutUs/Zionism/opposition.cfm
A small section:
The People of Israel oppose the so-called "State of Israel" for four reasons:


FIRST....The only time that the People of Israel were permitted to have a state was two thousand years ago when the glory of the creator was upon us, and likewise in the future when the glory of the creator will once more be revealed, and the whole world will serve Him, then He Himself (without any human effort or force of arms) will grant us a kingdom founded on Divine Service. However, a worldly state, like those possessed by other peoples, is contradictory to the true essence of the People of Israel.

THIRD -- Aside from arising from exile, all the deeds of the Zionists are diametrically opposed to the Faith and the Torah. Because the foundation of the Faith and Torah of Israel is that the Torah was revealed from heaven, and there is reward for those who obey it and punishment for those who transgress it. The entire People of Israel is required to obey the Torah, and whoever doesn't want to, ceases to be part of the congregation of Israel...

The Zionists claim that they are the saviors of Israel, but this is refuted by twelve things:

FIRST -- If one contemplates the two thousand years of our exile, take any hundred years even the hardest, one will not find as much suffering, bloodshed, and catastrophes for the People of Israel in the period of the Zionists, and it is known that most of the suffering of this century was caused by the Zionists, as our Rabbis warned us would be the case...

We bring three testimonies of the true opinion of the Torah.
3) The founders of Zionism were all atheists who denied the Torah. All the Torah Sages of that time opposed them and opposed Zionism, saying that Zionism would lead only to destruction.

ForeverChiefs58
09-02-2010, 08:04 AM
I would just dispute that it was not for the creation of two states, but recomendation of the partition of two states which is a huge difference. It didn't carry the weight of international law and it sure didn't create anything.

The UN General Assembly which did not and still doesn't have the power to make decisions, that power being reserved to the Security Council, voted to partition the remaining area of the British Mandate into two states on November 29, 1947, one Jewish and one Arab, but that did not create any state. The partition plan was never even implemented by the Security Council.

the United Kingdom announced its intention to unilaterally withdraw from Palestine by May 1948. During their withdrawal, the British refused to hand over territory or authority to any successor. With the UK's withdrawal, the Jewish community in Palestine published a Declaration of Independence as the State of Israel, and five Arab armies crossed into the former Mandate as the start of the 1948 Arab–Israeli War.


Also Israel IS a very sovereign nation and does defend her borders arguably moreso than any other nation in the world.
As far as aid and armaments goes, that is really ridiculous. I would love for you to list how many countries have survived as a result of the aid and/or armaments assistance from other nations?

ForeverChiefs58
09-02-2010, 08:36 AM
Nope. You're the one that's wrong. You also stole your explanatory post entirely from an Israeli site.

BTW did you know there are Orthodox Jews who explicity reject modern Zionism because it's a political and military ideology and not part of the Torah.
According to them, the Jews were punished by God when kicked out of ancient Israel and have to live their lives elsewhere until they make amends. Then they win their homeland back in a peaceful manner with their Arab brothers. And Israel was founded on socialist principles too. It is rigidly socialist.

http://www.nkusa.org/AboutUs/Zionism/opposition.cfm
A small section:


No, I didn't "steal" anything. I don't think you stole your info either, I just think your misinformed. Jews have had continuous presence in the land of Israel for the past 3,300 years. That is not propaganda, that is fact. Abraham, his son Yitshak (Isaac), and grandson Jacob (Israel), are referred to as the patriarchs of the Israelites. All three patriarchs lived in the Land of Canaan, that later came to be known as the Land of Israel. They and their wives are buried in the Ma'arat HaMachpela, the Tomb of the Patriarchs, in Hebron.
But it all doesn't really matter, Israel has the same rights as any other sovereign nation so deal with it. You really should get use to it, cause it isn't going to change.

BucEyedPea
09-02-2010, 11:42 AM
I would just dispute that it was not for the creation of two states, but recomendation of the partition of two states which is a huge difference. It didn't carry the weight of international law and it sure didn't create anything.

The UN General Assembly which did not and still doesn't have the power to make decisions, that power being reserved to the Security Council, voted to partition the remaining area of the British Mandate into two states on November 29, 1947, one Jewish and one Arab, but that did not create any state. The partition plan was never even implemented by the Security Council.
You're missing the entire point of what I posted to try to erect a strawman. You get very defensive on this issue I noticed.

I will repeat:

Israel's existence as a state WAS aided by outside intervention from the West, mostly Great Britain, including and up to the Partition Plan. The PP was recognized Jewish community in Palestine but was rejected by the Arab community. That rejection was supported by the Arab League. So scream all you want about international law the Jewish community accepted it. Since the other side did not a war broke out. These are FACTS.

the United Kingdom announced its intention to unilaterally withdraw from Palestine by May 1948. During their withdrawal, the British refused to hand over territory or authority to any successor. With the UK's withdrawal, the Jewish community in Palestine published a Declaration of Independence as the State of Israel, and five Arab armies crossed into the former Mandate as the start of the 1948 Arab–Israeli War.
If you're going to quote wiki verbatim you're supposed to link it.
I don't care where anyone gets their information but if you quote verbatim it's not yours so link it for credit.

That was still done in accordance with the UN Partition Plan. The partition plan started the war.


Also Israel IS a very sovereign nation and does defend her borders arguably moreso than any other nation in the world.
Not on it's own. It needs our munitions and armaments and money.
Instead of a conventional war continuing to be fought, it has to live with a constant on terrorism—urban guerrilla war using humans as bombs. This is wearing them down and there is attrition from it. This war has never ended.

As far as aid and armaments goes, that is really ridiculous. I would love for you to list how many countries have survived as a result of the aid and/or armaments assistance from other nations?
It's irrelevant to my point. There aren't that many truly sovereign nations.
And we're not doing a great job with our own border right now. That's lack of political will by our leaders though.

BucEyedPea
09-02-2010, 11:49 AM
I would just dispute that it was not for the creation of two states, but recomendation of the partition of two states which is a huge difference. It didn't carry the weight of international law and it sure didn't create anything.
It divided the land for two states to resolve the fighting that was going on there. It was the next step toward statehood but war broke out. They declared independence a day before the British Mandate ended. Even THAT mandate was granted from the League of Nations. But declaring something doesn't make it so unless it can compel others to accept by force. Same with our Independence.

The UN General Assembly which did not and still doesn't have the power to make decisions, that power being reserved to the Security Council, voted to partition the remaining area of the British Mandate into two states on November 29, 1947, one Jewish and one Arab, but that did not create any state. The partition plan was never even implemented by the Security Council.
Only because the Arabs refused to accept it and war broke out.

the United Kingdom announced its intention to unilaterally withdraw from Palestine by May 1948. During their withdrawal, the British refused to hand over territory or authority to any successor. With the UK's withdrawal, the Jewish community in Palestine published a Declaration of Independence as the State of Israel, and five Arab armies crossed into the former Mandate as the start of the 1948 Arab–Israeli War.
Repost. Thank you wikipedia.

Also Israel IS a very sovereign nation and does defend her borders arguably moreso than any other nation in the world.
That's laughable without US aid. If the two sides were just left alone to fight out to a clear winner or even a stalement with a compromise it probably would have ended.

As far as aid and armaments goes, that is really ridiculous. I would love for you to list how many countries have survived as a result of the aid and/or armaments assistance from other nations?

Irrelevant to my post. Not all nations are truly sovereign. The US is.

BucEyedPea
09-02-2010, 12:02 PM
In 1947, Great Britain relinquished to the UN the power to make decisions relating to the status of the Land of Israel. The General Assembly appointed a special committee that collected evidence and decided unanimously that Israel should be granted independence. Most of the committee members favored partitioning the land into two states, a Jewish state and an Arab state, with Jerusalem under international supervision. On November 29, 1947, the UN General Assembly accepted the partition resolution, 33 to 13.

http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Peace%20Process/Guide%20to%20the%20Peace%20Process/UN%20General%20Assembly%20Resolution%20181


So much for international law even for the British Mandate....that was just sheer force from winning a war and signing a treaty. Govt truly is force.

ForeverChiefs58
09-02-2010, 01:10 PM
You're missing the entire point of what I posted to try to erect a strawman. You get very defensive on this issue I noticed.

I will repeat:

Israel's existence as a state WAS aided by outside intervention from the West, mostly Great Britain, including and up to the Partition Plan. The PP was recognized Jewish community in Palestine but was rejected by the Arab community. That rejection was supported by the Arab League. So scream all you want about international law the Jewish community accepted it. Since the other side did not a war broke out. These are FACTS.

No strawman, just being clear. I agree with what you say here, but it IS different than saying that the UN just created Israel because they felt sorry or guilty about WW2. The UN did NOT just maigically create Israel.


That was still done in accordance with the UN Partition Plan. The partition plan started the war.

Nothing was done in accordance with the UN partition plan. The recomended plan was never implemented, never enforced, and the war started when 5 arab nations attacked Israel. Isael defeated them proving they are a sovereign nation.


Not on it's own. It needs our munitions and armaments and money.
Instead of a conventional war continuing to be fought, it has to live with a constant on terrorism—urban guerrilla war using humans as bombs. This is wearing them down and there is attrition from it. This war has never ended.


It's irrelevant to my point. There aren't that many truly sovereign nations.
And we're not doing a great job with our own border right now. That's lack of political will by our leaders though.

This is so crazy wrong. It is relevant though because most nations buy some sort of armaments, munition, weaon from various different nations, it doesn't take away from their sovereignty.
It is an actual historical fact that Israel IS a sovergn nation. She is a nuclear armed country that can defend herself fine on her own. To say otherwise is just simply and factually wrong.

BucEyedPea
09-02-2010, 01:18 PM
No strawman, just being clear. I agree with what you say here, but it IS different than saying that the UN just created Israel because they felt sorry or guilty about WW2. The UN did NOT just maigically create Israel.
Well, yeah, but I never said that either.



Nothing was done in accordance with the UN partition plan. The recomended plan was never implemented, never enforced, and the war started when 5 arab nations attacked Israel. Isael defeated them proving they are a sovereign nation.
What was in accordance with the UN plan was that it would be divided into two states. The Jewish community accepted that. They declared independence after that when the British left as they were now independent. A war broke out and yes Israel won the conventional military part with aid. They did not become sovereign on their own...and their war continued in another form. I read that my 2003 many more had left due to terrorism.

This is so crazy wrong. It is relevant though because most nations buy some sort of armaments, munition, weaon from various different nations, it doesn't take away from their sovereignty.
It was not relevant to my point which you missed. Buying armaments is one thing having others pay for them for you because you can't is another. That's dependency on another.

It is an actual historical fact that Israel IS a sovergn nation. She is a nuclear armed country that can defend herself fine on her own. To say otherwise is just simply and factually wrong.
What is not an actual historical fact is that Israel did NOT achieved that without the aid of the US. Please read what I actually wrote.

go bowe
09-02-2010, 01:21 PM
govt is force?

the force is strong in this one...

please neg rep me again, it makes me feel all warm and fuzzy...

and don't forget to say something vulgar and crotch related...

i know i can count on you...

BucEyedPea
09-02-2010, 01:25 PM
Oh so you don't like the payback for your own name calling? As I recall you introduced yourself to me with hostility and name calling yourself. If you don't like it don't do it to others.It's really very simple.

go bowe
09-02-2010, 01:36 PM
Oh so you don't like the payback for your own name calling? As I recall you introduced yourself to me with hostility and name calling yourself. If you don't like it don't do it to others.It's really very simple.payback?

LMAO LMAO LMAO

oh, btw, FUCK YOU!!!

and another btw, you should be banned for threatening to fuck with zach's rl business in your neg rep to him...

go bowe
09-02-2010, 01:40 PM
oh, and you are a chicken shit for not posting in patteeu's thread about you...

don't like being called out for the loon you are?

BucEyedPea
09-02-2010, 01:44 PM
Did you say something?

go bowe
09-02-2010, 01:45 PM
Did you say something?did you?

BucEyedPea
09-02-2010, 01:46 PM
Huh? Sorry, you were put back on iggy where you've been since my first month here. I just happened to look here.

go bowe
09-02-2010, 01:53 PM
Since when is war sane?

You really are in a Liberal La-La-Land.you say that like la-la-land is a bad thing...

BucEyedPea
09-02-2010, 01:54 PM
What's that noise in the peanut gallery?

go bowe
09-02-2010, 01:56 PM
Huh? Sorry, you were put back on iggy where you've been since my first month here. I just happened to look here.another fake iggy?

you are hilarious...

how do you see my posts if i'm on iggy?

you're just another lying sack of shit...

please threaten me irl like you did zach...

i won't laugh it off, i'll ask for you to be banned...

c'mon, just a little threat...

you can do it...

go bowe
09-02-2010, 01:57 PM
What's that noise in the peanut gallery?that noise is the old fuck proving his superiority again...

you are pathetic...

ForeverChiefs58
09-02-2010, 03:33 PM
In 1947, Great Britain relinquished to the UN the power to make decisions relating to the status of the Land of Israel. The General Assembly appointed a special committee that collected evidence and decided unanimously that Israel should be granted independence. Most of the committee members favored partitioning the land into two states, a Jewish state and an Arab state, with Jerusalem under international supervision. On November 29, 1947, the UN General Assembly accepted the partition resolution, 33 to 13.

http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Peace%20Process/Guide%20to%20the%20Peace%20Process/UN%20General%20Assembly%20Resolution%20181


So much for international law even for the British Mandate....that was just sheer force from winning a war and signing a treaty. Govt truly is force.


Right, but In 1948, the Jewish Community in Israel under the leadership of David Ben-Gurion reestablished sovereignty over their ancient homeland. Declaration of independence of the modern State of Israel was announced on the day that the last British forces left Israel (May 14, 1948).
A day after the declaration of independence of the State of Israel, armies of five Arab countries, Egypt, Syria, Transjordan, Lebanon and Iraq, invaded Israel. This marked the beginning of the War of Independence.

Arab states have jointly waged four full scale wars against Israel:

•1948 War of Independence
•1956 Sinai War
•1967 Six Day War
•1973 Yom Kippur War

Despite the numerical superiority of the Arab armies, Israel defended itself each time and won. This proves they are fine on their own so I don't know where you get that.

BucEyedPea
09-02-2010, 03:50 PM
Right, but In 1948, the Jewish Community in Israel under the leadership of David Ben-Gurion reestablished sovereignty over their ancient homeland. Declaration of independence of the modern State of Israel was announced on the day that the last British forces left Israel (May 14, 1948).
A day after the declaration of independence of the State of Israel, armies of five Arab countries, Egypt, Syria, Transjordan, Lebanon and Iraq, invaded Israel. This marked the beginning of the War of Independence.

Arab states have jointly waged four full scale wars against Israel:

•1948 War of Independence
•1956 Sinai War
•1967 Six Day War
•1973 Yom Kippur War

Despite the numerical superiority of the Arab armies, Israel defended itself each time and won. This proves they are fine on their own so I don't know where you get that.

Look, all I am saying is Israel could not have got to that point without the aid of Great Britain and the West through the bullited list I provided earlier. Additionally, they had superior fire power because Israel's militias were trained and armed by the British during the Mandate period. From about 1967 on we have provided considerable military aid and money.

They were not sovereign on their own....they had substantial help without which they may not have made it. Far more than we got during our war for Independence. Perhaps, their organizational skills would have done it without a war, since the Arabs were plagued with tribal rivalries and lack of organization.

ForeverChiefs58
09-02-2010, 05:37 PM
Look, all I am saying is Israel could not have got to that point without the aid of Great Britain and the West through the bullited list I provided earlier. Additionally, they had superior fire power because Israel's militias were trained and armed by the British during the Mandate period. From about 1967 on we have provided considerable military aid and money.

They were not sovereign on their own....they had substantial help without which they may not have made it. Far more than we got during our war for Independence. Perhaps, their organizational skills would have done it without a war, since the Arabs were plagued with tribal rivalries and lack of organization.


The Restoration of Israel Was Not a Product of European Imperialism
Another common argument put forward by the PLO is that Israel is really the product of European imperialism and hence it does not represent a legitimate national movement of its own. As a result, Zionism came to be portrayed in the Arab world as "a hyperaggressive variant of colonialism."16 This perception has also penetrated the discourse of Israel's European detractors. Initially, it is true that the idea of a restored Jewish homeland received its greatest push from the declaration in 1917 of the British Foreign Secretary, Lord Balfour, who called for its establishment after the British defeat of the Ottoman Empire. Yet, ironically, during the subsequent years of the British Mandate over Palestine, European (and especially British) imperial policies actually obstructed the emergence of the Jewish national home.

First, the territory of Transjordan was cut off from the Palestine Mandate and granted by the British to the Hashemite dynasty from Arabia, who had lost their ancestral homeland, the Hijaz, to the Saudi clan of eastern Arabia. Second, the British sought to further partition the remaining territory of western Palestine into Jewish and Arab states, reducing the area for Jewish settlement even more. Finally, with the 1939 White Paper, the British restricted Jewish immigration into Palestine just as Nazi Germany began its conquest of Europe and its Holocaust against European Jewry.

In this context, it is not surprising that Jewish underground movements waged an anti-colonial war in the 1940s against continuing British rule. In other words, Israel was anti-imperialist when it first emerged. By contrast, the Arab states at the time were aligned with the imperial powers. The Arab states that invaded the nascent State of Israel fielded armies that were trained and supplied by the French and British Empires. During Israel's War of Independence, British officers commanded the Arab Legion of Transjordan, while the Royal Air Force, defending Egyptian airspace, fought the Israeli Air Force over the Sinai Peninsula in 1949. And the nations of the world did not lift a finger when the Jews of Jerusalem were surrounded and faced annihilation, even though the UN had called for internationalization of the city. Only the Israel Defense Forces broke Jerusalem's siege and saved its Jewish residents. In short, Jewish independence in Israel was won by a native and indigenous community acting in its own defense with little help from outside.


http://www.jcpa.org/jl/vp507.htm

Direckshun
09-02-2010, 06:39 PM
I think this thread illustrates why this can be a frustrating forum to post on.

The folks who engaged me at the start of the thread started off with the position of wanting to kill all Palestinians, to not wanting to kill all Palestinians, to just wanting to kill terrorists (real brave of you there), all the while generally ignoring the psychological arguments I was making and accusing me of (a.) making excuses for terrorism, and (b.) being a radical dope. Without batting an eye regarding their own consistency or intellectual honesty.

Have at it. It's your alligator pit. And it's a fun place to visit, but I'm thrilled I don't have to live there.

Ugly Duck
09-02-2010, 06:50 PM
I think this thread illustrates why this can be a frustrating forum to post on.

The folks who engaged me at the start of the thread started off with the position of wanting to kill all Palestinians, to not wanting to kill all Palestinians, to just wanting to kill terrorists (real brave of you there), all the while generally ignoring the psychological arguments I was making and accusing me of (a.) making excuses for terrorism, and (b.) being a radical dope. Without batting an eye regarding their own consistency or intellectual honesty.

Have at it. It's your alligator pit. And it's a fun place to visit, but I'm thrilled I don't have to live there.

I am reminded of what a wise man (Woody Allen) once said . May it give us all a moment's pause: "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how to distort it..."

Mr. Kotter
09-02-2010, 09:22 PM
I think this thread illustrates why this can be a frustrating forum to post on.

The folks who engaged me at the start of the thread started off with the position of wanting to kill all Palestinians, to not wanting to kill all Palestinians, to just wanting to kill terrorists (real brave of you there), all the while generally ignoring the psychological arguments I was making and accusing me of (a.) making excuses for terrorism, and (b.) being a radical dope. Without batting an eye regarding their own consistency or intellectual honesty.

Have at it. It's your alligator pit. And it's a fun place to visit, but I'm thrilled I don't have to live there.

My only participaton was to point out/remind/call-it-like-it-is....that you wish to make excuses.

So, who the fugg R U talking about--or R U just conflating us all into the same "enemy," Mr. New-jAZZZ???

:shrug:

go bowe
09-02-2010, 09:25 PM
My only participaton was to point out/remind/call-it-like-it-is....that you wish to make excuses.

So, who the fugg R U talking about--or R U just conflating us all into the same "enemy," Mr. New-jAZZZ???

:shrug:not all of us, just you... :p :p :p

Direckshun
09-02-2010, 11:14 PM
My only participaton was to point out/remind/call-it-like-it-is....that you wish to make excuses.

So, who the fugg R U talking about--or R U just conflating us all into the same "enemy," Mr. New-jAZZZ???

:shrug:

I honestly cannot understand a single thing you just said.

You are welcome to restate it in a way I can understand so that I can reply.

Iowanian
09-03-2010, 01:25 PM
It's no wonder Direckshun is misguided, her North Arrow is bent.

vailpass
09-03-2010, 02:08 PM
It's no wonder Direckshun is misguided, her North Arrow is bent.

:D

planetdoc
04-23-2014, 03:29 PM
Palestinian Factions Announce Deal on Unity Government (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/24/world/middleeast/palestinian-factions-announce-deal-on-unity-government.html?hpw&rref=world&_r=0)

The two main Palestinian factions announced an agreement on Wednesday to heal a seven-year schism and form a unity government within five weeks that would prepare for Palestinian elections six months later.

The two factions also agreed to activate a temporary leadership committee of the P.L.O. with the intention of opening the way for Hamas and another militant group, Islamic Jihad, to join the organization.

U.S. says 'disappointed' by Palestinian unity deal (http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/04/23/us-palestinian-israel-usa-idUSBREA3M1NE20140423)