Israel

[NBVegita]

I have a question to ask of some people...why are some people so !@#$%^&* bent on the destruction of israel?

[SeVeR]

"!@#$%^&* bent on destruction" has a meaning all on its own.

 

I don't know why people would be !@#$%^&*-bent on the destruction of Israel. I know why alot of people are anti-zionist and want Israel peacefully dissolved; but !@#$%^&*-bent on destruction? I don't have an answer for that.

[NBVegita]

Ok well even give me a reason for a peaceful dissolving of said country.

[SeVeR]

1. Israel was created on Palestinian land.

2. The UN vote was won by America and it's supporters but all the regional countries of the Middle East rejected Israels creation. Would it be ok for China, Japan and India to decide the position of a Tibetan state in the middle of Europe or North America?

3. Harry Truman, America's president and the facilitator of Israel's creation, is actually quoted as saying Jews are more important to him due to having many Jewish cons!@#$%^&*uents/voters and very few Muslim cons!@#$%^&*uents. I can find the quote again if you really want me to.

4. The time at which Israel was created suggests sympathy for what went on during the holocaust. Why should the Palestinian people have to suffer in an attempt to make up for that? Israel belongs in Germany.

5. The Israeli's illegally grabbed additional land, which it won't give back despite international protest. Israel defies the very organisation that put them into existence.

[Confess]

The jews were there before you. You took the land from them, simple. Shutup.

If you came to America and said "I want the US dissolved, but peacefully", you can bet your !@#$%^&*es off that we're going to beat the !@#$%^&* out of you. Theres no such thing as peacefully dissolving, and the simple fact that because you "dont get your way", you go about bombing the Isreali's doesnt exactly help your case.

 

The simple fact is you guys want someone to pick on. You know that you cant !@#$%^&* with the US, so you decide to pick on Israel. But what would happen if Israel was truly taken out? You would go for another weaker country, its true.

 

Its my personal belief that we should just nuke the !@#$%^&* out of that part of the world. That would solve more problems then you know.

[NBVegita]

Yes the israelies were there a long time ago. And that land was forcefully taken from them. And guess what, palestine just happened to be the imperialism that owned it in the 20th century.

 

Napoleon suggested the establishment of a Jewish state in Palestine as early as 1799. [24]

 

Throughout the entire 19th century and early 20th century, the return of the Jews to the Holy Land was widely supported by such eminent figures as Queen Victoria, King Edward VII, John Adams, the second President of the United States, General Smuts of South Africa, President Masaryk of Czechoslovakia, British Prime Ministers Lloyd George and Arthur Balfour, President Woodrow Wilson, Benedetto Croce, Italian philosopher and historian, Henry Dunant, founder of the Red Cross and author of the Geneva Conventions, Fridtjof Nansen, Norwegian scientist and humanitarian. The French government through Minister M. Cambon formally committed itself to “the renaissance of the Jewish nationality in that Land from which the people of Israel were exiled so many centuries ago". Even in faraway China, Wang, Minister of Foreign Affairs, declared that "the Nationalist government is in full sympathy with the Jewish people in their desire to establish a country for themselves.

 

And you can add albert einstein to the list too...

[SeVeR]

NBV: i don't deny that there are and were zionists, jews, and religiously driven sympathizers. Its not really an argument for Israel's existence... anymore than the views of Communists were arguments for the Soviet Union before and during its existence.

 

Confess, NBV:

The jews were there before you. You took the land from them, simple. Shutup.

If you think the Jews deserve Palestine based on the fact that they occupied the region 2000 years ago, you should equally think that America should be given back to the Indians, Australia to the Aborigenes, Central America to the Aztecs and South America to the Incas. Or you can believe that any hostile takeover of land is a perfectly fine thing to do and we should continue to do it for all eternity. Which is it Confess? NBV?

 

There's an alternative, and if you don't deal in absolutes its easy to recognise. The difference between Israel and all the other land-takes in history is the period in time that it took place. We wouldn't stand for it in this time, we didn't stand for it in both world wars. Human civilisation has changed in the last few centuries with the birth of the international Law; the UN and the prior League of Nations are testament to that fact. Millenia ago there was no interntional law, we didn't care about who we invaded, human civilisation had not evolved to the level it is at now and shouldn't be held responsible for its wrongdoings. The Second and Third Reichs of Germany were held responsible, that shows you where we were at before Israel's creation.

 

Secondly, Islam is still at war with Israel, the war may be a shadow of what it was but its still an unresolved issue with daily attacks. Unresolved issues need resolving, hence the periodical "diplomatic missions". Israel's existence shouldn't be taken off the table just because 60 years have gone by, both sides are still where they were at back then.

 

If you came to America and said "I want the US dissolved, but peacefully", you can bet your !@#$%^&*es off that we're going to beat the !@#$%^&* out of you.

That isn't realistic for the reasons stated in this post but also because there isn't a population left to take back all the land. Would anyone give the whole of America back to a few thousand Indians who are already living well, aren't blowing up military convoys in anger, and who aren't being attacked and killed by the occupying forces. But all that's just secondary to the previous points.

 

The simple fact is you guys want someone to pick on. You know that you cant !@#$%^&* with the US, so you decide to pick on Israel. But what would happen if Israel was truly taken out? You would go for another weaker country, its true.

They !@#$%^&* with Israel because its on their door-step... the door-step they used to own you re!@#$%^&*. You think they'd go for another weaker country, why? What possible reason would there be?

 

Its my personal belief that we should just nuke the !@#$%^&* out of that part of the world. That would solve more problems then you know.

I'm glad you've shown us all who the real extremist is.

[NBVegita]

I fully support that the Native americans should be given their land back. And all over the united states we still have "Reservations" which are not owned by america, they are owned and governed by Native Americans, and as such they are exempt from all united states laws and taxes while on those reservations. But as you noted there are hardly enough Native Americans left to be given a country this size, or even a 10th of a country this size, but if they were given some areas they asked for, minus our major metropolitan areas, which would ruin our economy, give them some land!

 

As to your talk about civilization advancing...of course it has. That is why using things like the U.N. this was possible. If not, you would just have the super powers taking over any country smaller than themselves.

 

And its not like the palestinians (spell check) were just booted from the land. When the state of israel was created in 1948, for the first 2 years, Israel offered full un requited citizenship to all previous palestinians if they wished to take it. Instead they became hostile, which is understandible, and refused. So then Israel closed up shop because they did not want to admit any palestinians as civilians that were hostile towards their country.

 

And before you even go there, If the united states gave all of say New York state to the Native Americans, and the Native americans offered me full rights, I'd stay. I'm about 1/8th Native American anyway. The only way I'd leave is if my fiance wanted to leave.

 

I guess I don't see a problem with taking a group of people who have been battered and scattered to the wind so many times and giving them a place to call home.

[candygirl]

I fully support that the Native americans should be given their land back. And all over the united states we still have "Reservations" which are not owned by america, they are owned and governed by Native Americans, and as such they are exempt from all united states laws and taxes while on those reservations.

 

To this day native land is still being taken way from us. Point in question “Lansdowne ont and land in Quebec.

The land in Quebec was taken so they can build a golf course.

[SeVeR]

I guess I don't see a problem with taking a group of people who have been battered and scattered to the wind so many times and giving them a place to call home.

You would mind if it was your home they were getting.

 

I want the Jews to have a home, i just don't want them to displace another people in the process. Why is it better that the Israelis have homes and the Palestinians don't?

 

I fully support that the Native americans should be given their land back. And all over the united states we still have "Reservations" which are not owned by america, they are owned and governed by Native Americans, and as such they are exempt from all united states laws and taxes while on those reservations. But as you noted there are hardly enough Native Americans left to be given a country this size, or even a 10th of a country this size, but if they were given some areas they asked for, minus our major metropolitan areas, which would ruin our economy, give them some land!

Ok good, so what if there were hundreds of thousands of Indians wanting land; Or lets say "enough displaced people to fill the country they lived in 60 years ago"? What then?

 

As to your talk about civilization advancing...of course it has. That is why using things like the U.N. this was possible. If not, you would just have the super powers taking over any country smaller than themselves.

Yes exactly, there's no equivalence to 2000 years ago when the Jews were originally displaced, so why should the Palestinians be displaced from their homes in this enlightened age?

 

And its not like the palestinians (spell check) were just booted from the land. When the state of israel was created in 1948, for the first 2 years, Israel offered full un requited citizenship to all previous palestinians if they wished to take it. Instead they became hostile, which is understandible, and refused. So then Israel closed up shop because they did not want to admit any palestinians as civilians that were hostile towards their country.

 

And before you even go there, If the united states gave all of say New York state to the Native Americans, and the Native americans offered me full rights, I'd stay. I'm about 1/8th Native American anyway. The only way I'd leave is if my fiance wanted to leave.

Well i'm gonna have to go there because you know as well as i do that people don't just give up their land over some 300 year old war. You would, I might, but i don't think we speak for a majority. In this case the claim was 2000 years old, not 300, you're talking about Romans in Europe, even you have to draw the line somewhere.

[NBVegita]

First off its not like they took all of the palestine territories and made them into israel.

 

And ok, so you support the fact that through imperialism the ottoman empire gained control over the area. In essence that is exactly what happened here, except it was a world supported imperialism.

 

During WWI the British occupied and took over the palestine territories, which was then part of the ottoman empire. After WWI ended, the British mandate of Palestine was created by the UN granting the British administration over a large area of what was the ottoman empire including what is now Jordan, Israel and territories under Palestinian authority. This mandate was held in effect until one day before the UN created TWO states, the state of Israel, and melded the territories of Palestine into the state of palestine. Again, this was not done until the day after the British troops withdrew from the British Mandate.

 

So if you look at things your way, being the ottoman empire was imperialistic and took over the territory. It should still be theirs. But then the British occupied the territory, and in essence took the territory away from the Ottoman empire. So it should be theirs. But they decided to give 55% of it to the Jews, and 45% of the Palestinians. Awfully nice of them to do. So now you want to dissolve the state of israel and give it back to who? The ottoman empire? If anyone has claims on it, it should be britian.

[AstroProdigy]

Don't forget it was the Arabs who decided everything or nothing. The Jews wanted to live in piece with their Muslim brothers, but they were attacked from all sides and did exactly what they should have done. They fought back and through military mastery gained the spoils of war. The only reason there is a "Palestinian problem" is because the countries around them wanted to turn the refugees who spoke the same language and had the same culture and religion into second class citizens to keep the conflict going on. If anything this is a political driven conflict by Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, and Saudi Arabia. When the Germans lost lands during World War 2 the refugees were accomadated into the existing population and they lost a much larger proportion of land compared to their current size than the Arabs. The reason this is a problem for one group than the other is that one group is so extreme that losing even an inch of land is call for a holy war; so why appease extremists? The one thing I think America completely trumps Europe in is that we have some balls. Appeasement led to World War 2 and the Holocaust that forced the Jews to search for a homeland. People should remember their history lessons.

[NBVegita]

any other opinions?

[SeVeR]

i'll reply eventually, just don't have alot of time for forums right now.

[NBVegita]

I wasn't just refereing to you, I was bumping it to see if anyone else has opinions

[Badger3920]

1. Israel was created on Palestinian land.

2. The UN vote was won by America and it's supporters but all the regional countries of the Middle East rejected Israels creation. Would it be ok for China, Japan and India to decide the position of a Tibetan state in the middle of Europe or North America?

3. Harry Truman, America's president and the facilitator of Israel's creation, is actually quoted as saying Jews are more important to him due to having many Jewish cons!@#$%^&*uents/voters and very few Muslim cons!@#$%^&*uents. I can find the quote again if you really want me to.

4. The time at which Israel was created suggests sympathy for what went on during the holocaust. Why should the Palestinian people have to suffer in an attempt to make up for that? Israel belongs in Germany.

5. The Israeli's illegally grabbed additional land, which it won't give back despite international protest. Israel defies the very organisation that put them into existence.

 

 

I would also like to lend support to the argument that the Jewish were not taken over some pre-occupied land. They were the first known organized people to live in that area. I'm not arguing in support or against them, but I'm arguing against those who say that Palestinians deserve the land simply because they were there "first." They MAY deserve the land because of other reasons, although I think otherwise. In fact, I'm against them controlling any sort of land in that area. Look at what has happened since they have been given control. They are now in civil war, because Islamic radicals tend to be the new problem of the day. I'm not for religious war, but I'm against giving land to disorganized groups which will inevitably just fight one another.

[AstroProdigy]

If the Arab countries around them had simply accepted the military loss and !@#$%^&*imilated their refugees, a simple task for a group that is culturally, linguistically, and religiously the same, then there wouldn't be a problem.

[Aileron]

The reason why we in our modern society don't tolerate imperialism is because land isn't worth sending people to die for.

 

It is in the nature of the world for the strong to dominate the weak, but with that domination comes strength to the oppressed and corruption to their oppressors, causing the eventual reversal of fates. Were that it did not involve war, there would be nothing wrong with imperialism, for over the long term it brings about equality.

 

To that end Israel wasn't formed by a war. Nobody died in its creation. Therefore the critical fault, that of people dying for land, did not occur. Therefore it could not have been that terrible.

 

If Israel was weak and corrupt, their neighbors would easily be able to get them to leave by peacefull means. However, Israel is more enlightened than most of their neighbors, causing them to be unable to do as such.

 

Islamic radicals cannot accept reality for what it is, so they resort to violence and to dying for land.

[AstroProdigy]

Cypriots use nonviolent means of resistance against Turkey and are much more successful in pressuring the best solution to the problem for them than the Palestinians ever will. Case and point.

[SeVeR]

NBV:

First off its not like they took all of the palestine territories and made them into israel.

Plenty of Palestinians had all their land taken away. How about China, Japan and India agree to put Tibet in Texas? Afterall, its not all of America's territory...

 

And ok, so you support the fact that through imperialism the ottoman empire gained control over the area. In essence that is exactly what happened here, except it was a world supported imperialism.

1. Yes, 1300 years later this is what happened, has the world not moved on?

2. It was not world supported, the whole of the Middle East rejected putting a new country smack in the middle of their region with common borders. Just because one country thousands of miles away, which happened to be the most economically powerful country in the world, decided to campaign for Israel's existence, that doesn't mean we shoudn't have listened to the countries who would actually have to live with Israel on their doorstep.

 

During WWI the British occupied and took over the palestine territories, which was then part of the ottoman empire. After WWI ended, the British mandate of Palestine was created by the UN granting the British administration over a large area of what was the ottoman empire including what is now Jordan, Israel and territories under Palestinian authority. This mandate was held in effect until one day before the UN created TWO states, the state of Israel, and melded the territories of Palestine into the state of palestine. Again, this was not done until the day after the British troops withdrew from the British Mandate.

And somehow you think a British mandate over land in the Middle East is rightful ownership of that land, to give away to politically allied races? Maybe Britain shoud have held onto India then, with more people like you around they wouldn't have had a problem.

 

So if you look at things your way, being the ottoman empire was imperialistic and took over the territory. It should still be theirs. But then the British occupied the territory, and in essence took the territory away from the Ottoman empire. So it should be theirs.

Incorrect, it should be in the possession of a race who lived on that land. The Ottomon Turks lived in the Middle East and governed by Islamic Law they were regional occupiers who understood the people they governed over. Britain is not a regional power, they don't have any claim to the land as it is not in their sphere of influence and never was. For instance it would not have been right for Britain to remain in control of the Middle East after the Crusades, yet the Roman and Ottomon Empires were perfectly justified in expanding their borders.

 

I've done a little research and dug up the following facts:

 

Occupiers of the land now known as Israel:

930-720 BC - Kingdom of Israel

720-612 BC - !@#$%^&*yrian Empire

612-539 BC - Babylonian Empire

539-332 BC - Persian Empire

332-165 BC - Greek Empire: (Alexander the Great followed by the Seleucid Empire)

165-37 BC - Kingdom of Israel

37 BC - 390 AD - Roman Empire

390-634 AD - Byzantine Christian Empire (Eastern Roman)

634-1070 AD - Persian/Arab

1070-1291 AD - Turkish invasions + Crusades

1291-1516 AD - Arab rule

1516-1920 AD - Ottomon Empire

1920-1948 AD - British Mandate

1948-present - Israel

 

What i see here is about 350 years of Israeli rule compared to 1600 years of Muslim rule including the last 1300 years prior to the placement of Israel.

 

Astro:

The Jews wanted to live in piece with their Muslim brothers

I'm not surprised, the Jews got what they want, the Muslims lost their land. Who do you think would be offering peace (given they get to keep what they want) and who do you think would be unhappy enough to go to war?

 

Appeasement led to World War 2 and the Holocaust that forced the Jews to search for a homeland. People should remember their history lessons.

Righting a wrong is not appeasing the wronged in the way Hitler was appeased. Hitler was not wronged and deserved nothing. The holocaust is not an excuse for Israel's creation.

[NBVegita]

People like me? You talk with hypocracy and act like I'm wrong. Case in point the british through military power overan the territories. They were supported by the world majority to occupy the country. And then supported to divide it into two countries. Once they overran the territories they could have fought to keep the land them selves. And they didn't. So because they have allies that they gave SOME of the land to that makes it worse than overrunning the entire territory killing and or removing any resistance, and taking the country over themselves. Which is of course how every other power came into control of that area.

 

The point isn't that the United States said "hey lets give them the land" and so then the british invaded and gave it to them. You talk about texas? If U.N. supported forces came in and fully occupied texas, and the MAJORITY of the U.N. decided to give the land to a people who have never existed near that land, or on that continent for that matter...well you see how that is kind of a strange idea. Besides that nothing as irrational as that would ever happen, if we lost the land, and could not take it back, well !@#$%^&* there's not much we can do then eh?

 

I just think its funny that you support the arab occupation of that territory through imperialism, but because Israel was created through British imperialism...oh now that just wrong...

[AceSpades]

[Edited out alot of bull!@#$%^&* about Muslims]

 

I'm taking it you follow this Islamic law yourself? Or just like being a general !@#$%^&*hole.

[SeVeR]

Case in point the british through military power overan the territories. They were supported by the world majority to occupy the country. And then supported to divide it into two countries.

You keep saying "supported by the world" yet all the regional powers objected. Secondly, you keep ignoring the fact that the British had no right to remain there after World War One.

 

So because they have allies that they gave SOME of the land to that makes it worse than overrunning the entire territory killing and or removing any resistance, and taking the country over themselves. Which is of course how every other power came into control of that area.

They gave the land to an ally and therefore their influence has never left the region. It has been defended since that point of occupation including the massacres that took place in the wars since.

 

I just think its funny that you support the arab occupation of that territory through imperialism, but because Israel was created through British imperialism...oh now that just wrong...

I support the border expansion of a regional empire 500 years ago compared to a British occupation of Palestine years ago. Same with the Roman empire, they weren't Arabs, their borders were expanded to remove a neighboring threat. Britain could not be attacked from Palestine after WW1, they should have left, but stayed for some reason...

 

I'm taking it you follow this Islamic law yourself? Or just like being a general !@#$%^&*hole.

No, i don't follow this law and would like the Arab world to move away from Islamic law in the next couple of centuries, just as the Western world moved away from Christian law.

[NBVegita]

The romans were one of the most imperialistic civilizations in history. Along with the Persians...and the Brittish, and the Ottomans and the Greeks...shall I continue?

 

If you've read anything on the creation of Isreal, the majority of the world supported it. Or at least the majority of the U.N. at the time.

 

And why did the British have any less right than anyone else to be there? Everyone else was imperialistic enough to get the country. And no it was not a direct threat to them, but it was strategic for the allies as a whole. The British had just as much right as any other group that has occupied that area, and with the majority U.N. support had every right to do with it what they did.

 

And you keep saying Palestine like it was a state. It was a conglomerate of territories owned by the Ottoman Empire. It was not the state of Palestine until the U.N. made it so.

[SeVeR]

The romans were one of the most imperialistic civilizations in history. Along with the Persians...and the Brittish, and the Ottomans and the Greeks...shall I continue?

Yes but,

Romans: 2000 years ago

Greeks: 2500 years ago

Persians: 1500 years ago

Ottomans: (in Israel/Palestine) 500 years ago

British: (in Israel/Palestine) 90 years ago

 

The difference is in how long ago the event took place. Would you support an invasion of the Roman sort in this day and age? Two thousand years ago it would have been supported.

 

Britain had no need to occupy the Palestinian territory after WW1 and certainly no right to give it away to an ally ahead of the resident population. If you have a problem with the Romans then why don't you have a problem with this? They invaded the land at a time of war (something i don't have a problem with) then they kept the land for 25 years (something i do have a problem with as there was no need for it) then gave the resident people's land away to an ally (big problem with this). At least the Romans let the resident people still farm their own land! But yea, the Romans were 2000 years ago and imperialism was what powers needed to do to survive. In this age there is no need for imperialism... especially when the country is nowhere near your borders!

 

If you've read anything on the creation of Isreal, the majority of the world supported it. Or at least the majority of the U.N. at the time.

I've read plenty. All the regional powers rejected it. Don't you think the regional powers deserved more of a say about what happens on their doorstep? The USA supported it, and most of Europe therefore supported the USA. The USA had Europe's balls in a vice after WW2; By staying out of the war for so long the USA had acquired so much wealth from loan-deals and weapons trading that they pretty much owned the world. Green = Accepted, Brown = Rejected, Yellow = Abstained.

 

 

It's an absolute joke, the whole region in question rejected the par!@#$%^&*ion plan yet it passed due to the USA and it's allies posessing more votes in the UN.