»D1st0rt Posted March 23, 2008 Report Posted March 23, 2008 !@#$%^&* if I know. You can google "Ron Paul" and "anti-semite" (or "anti-semitic") and find a whole bunch of material though. If I can google "trees eat babies" and find a whole bunch of material, does that make it true? Think for yourself once in a while.
Aileron Posted March 23, 2008 Report Posted March 23, 2008 As absurd as it sounds SeVeR, yes there is infact a time limit beyond which people predisposed to peace would give up fighting, and it certainly does matter how long a war has been going on. Otherwise one can pull out all sorts of crap from history to fight over. The formation of Israel should be history by now. I wouldn't expect everyone to like it, though it should be expected that they accept it. Bak's example does show what I mean. Modern Native Americans don't go around shooting people currently. I mean sure, they don't like that their ancestors lost their lands, and they do use their right to speak out against it, but on the other hand they have realized that the war is over and they lost. The point is that if Israel were a foreign occupational force, it wouldn't have civilian support necessary to support itself for this long. It does. And because of that any true effort to eliminate Israel means routing millions of people from the homes they have lived in for decades. The question is then for what lofty purpose would we be routing those people for? Oh, so that a different group of people could move in... Look, I might give that fifty years ago the goal was to resist an occupational force, but today, they are fishing through history in order to conjure up an excuse to be violent.
»D1st0rt Posted March 23, 2008 Report Posted March 23, 2008 Wasn't Israel reestablished partly in response to the Holocaust?
Bak Posted March 24, 2008 Report Posted March 24, 2008 the holocaust happened in europe... why do the Palestinians get punished for it?
SeVeR Posted March 24, 2008 Author Report Posted March 24, 2008 (edited) That's what Ahmadinejad said. I don't think anyone can answer why the Palestinians lost their land, other than it's something the UN decided to do under the instruction of the US. Who instructed the US? I have a fairly good idea. The U.S. President, Harry Truman, at the time of the creation of Israel was urged by U.S. diplomats from the Middle East not to heed Zionist urgings. He replied: "I'm sorry, gentlemen, but I have to answer to hundreds of thousands who are anxious for the success of Zionism: I do not have hundreds of thousands of Arabs among my cons!@#$%^&*uents." This quote is hard to find because it shows the racial favouring of an American President who is largely responsible for the creation of Israel and the resultant creation of the continuous fighting in that region. At a Chicago rally in 1944, then Senator Truman said, "Today, not tomorrow, we must do all that is humanly possible to provide a haven for all those who can be grasped from the hands of Nazi butchers. Free lands must be opened to them." Opened? This kind of sympathetic justification is scorned by anyone who objects to the premise that two wrongs make a right. Truman wrote to Senator Joseph Ball of Minnesota on November 24, 1945: "I told the Jews that if they were willing to furnish me with five hundred thousand men to carry on a war with the Arabs, we could do what they are suggesting in the Resolution [favoring a state] - otherwise we we will have to negotiate awhile." Hundreds of thousands of Jews arrived in Palestine between 1880 and 1950, much to the dismay of the Arab population who had lived in that area for 1,300 years. The Jews bought up the land while Truman urged countries across the world to relax laws allowing this m!@#$%^&* immigration of Jews into Palestine. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel#Zionism_and_Immigration To draw a parallel think what it would be like if 300 million Chinese people immigrated to the USA in the next 70 years. Following this m!@#$%^&* arrival they then got a UN vote that gave them a significant chunk of the land in the USA. The people of the United States would rise up against the Chinese, leading to a war where China claims the rest of the land reserved for the US people; going against the very organisation that gave them land in the first place. Edited March 24, 2008 by SeVeR
SeVeR Posted March 24, 2008 Author Report Posted March 24, 2008 Aileron. The point is that if Israel were a foreign occupational force, it wouldn't have civilian support necessary to support itself for this long. It does. And because of that any true effort to eliminate Israel means routing millions of people from the homes they have lived in for decades. The question is then for what lofty purpose would we be routing those people for? Oh, so that a different group of people could move in... Well for starters, the Jews weren't an occupational force. There were already small Jewish communities in Palestine, and as my last post shows, immigration to Palestine was strongly encouraged by the US and it's allies to the extent where laws were changed. The UN par!@#$%^&*ioned the land, the next stage in the occupation, but by now the population was only 3:1 Arab. Even so the Jews got 55% of the land in the par!@#$%^&*ion while having one third the population. Thus, the Jews already had a base in the country, and homes to go to. The difference between this occupation and most others is that the Jews wanted to live on the land they occupied, and they succeeded for this reason, just as the Europeans did when they chose to live on the land of the American Indians. If the Indians were still fighting now then we should decide whether to support them in their efforts or not. Just to point out, the Indians were fighting long after 60 years of occupation They appear to be happy now. They were given citizenship, land to live on, and peace was made long ago. The same cannot be said for the Palestinians. There is no peace. They have not given up fighting since Israel's creation. I'm not sure what you're saying. Are you saying they should give up and let Israel win? Are you saying they're not committed to getting their land back? What is it you're saying.
NBVegita Posted March 24, 2008 Report Posted March 24, 2008 The only problem is that the land, due the the British Mandate, post WWI straight through the end of WWII was British controlled. Very similar to the way the ottomans gained power over the land to begin with. So in order for your statement to be accurate sever, it would be similar to if Russia were to fully occupy the United States, then have 300,000,000 immigrants from China enter the United States and have the country "given" to them. As much as I wouldn't exactly enjoy it, that is the way of the world. You don't have much say in a country if as a people you have no military or governmental control. You are simply at the mercy of the body(ies) that do. Also the British actually put limitations on Jewish immigration as they wanted to limit the number of immigrants leaving Europe. In fact the Jews actually attempted to revolt against Britian.
JDS Posted March 27, 2008 Report Posted March 27, 2008 cough , sounds to me like hitler was doing a good thing?
SeVeR Posted March 27, 2008 Author Report Posted March 27, 2008 The British obviously had no right to be there. Hitler was a racist and killed Jews for being Jewish (not a good thing). I want to see the peaceful disollution of Israel. The population of Israel happens to be primarily Jewish.
JDS Posted March 27, 2008 Report Posted March 27, 2008 it cant be a peaceful task if everyone has guns and are prepared to shoot for 'their' land.. so until everyone in that country is prepared to drop arms and talk,... lol if the word peace ever has a place over there.
NBVegita Posted March 27, 2008 Report Posted March 27, 2008 The British obviously had no right to be there. They had just as much right to be there as the Ottomans before them did.
SeVeR Posted March 27, 2008 Author Report Posted March 27, 2008 The Ottomans were defending their territory by expanding their borders. Most of the population were Arab and of similar descent to the Turks. The British came from half way around the world to take charge of a country that was no threat, and nowhere near their proper sphere of influence. The British had no ethnic links. That's only the first argument. Secondly, the Ottomans took Palestine many centuries ago when this was a normal thing to be doing. There was no international law, and rival kings often fell out with eachother resulting in wars. Taking control of neighboring lands was more a way of ensuring survival than it was imperialistic. The British were a democratic government in a time of international law, and what's worse is it was after WW1, which was supposed to be a fight against this sort of territory gaining expansion. I see many differences. Anyway, you are attempting to justify Israel's conquering of Palestine by comparing with the Ottomans. So are both takeover's right, or are both wrong? Would it be right for the US to conquer Thailand tomorrow if they decided to?
NBVegita Posted March 27, 2008 Report Posted March 27, 2008 The Ottomans were defending their territory by expanding their borders. lol? The ottomans were one of the most imperialistic empires in the world. The had a large presence on what 4 continents? Defending their borders my arse. the British came from half way around the world to take charge of a country that was no threat The ottomans fought with the germans in WWI, thus making them a threat. Even if the area of Palestine itself was not a huge threat the empire as a whole was. and what's worse is it was after WW1 Actually the British occupied Palestine during WWI. The British Mandate was not enacted until after WWI. Which ironically in the time they occupied the land the British made great strides in eradicating corruption and hunger while they were at it. As I've stated previously if you are a people who have no political or militaristic presence in your country, then you have no say over what goes on with your country. The state of Israel is no more right or wrong than any other state forged from war.
SeVeR Posted March 27, 2008 Author Report Posted March 27, 2008 You didn't answer my questions. You instead nit-picked at some points, which incidently, you failed to understand. Was Palestine a threat to the British after WW1? No. Was Palestine always a threat to the Ottomans by being on their border? Yes. You completely missed out the historical argument and the racial argument. Thanks for nitpicking. QUOTE and what's worse is it was after WW1 Actually the British occupied Palestine during WWI. The British Mandate was not enacted until after WWI. Why the "actually"? I was always talking about the British Mandate. Nevermind, this is probably why you didn't understand the earlier point.
Confess Posted March 28, 2008 Report Posted March 28, 2008 (edited) SeVer: I dont mind being labeled racist. I am racist - according to the liberal view/etc. Fact is, I dislike muslims that blow up my country - or any terrorist. But Muslims specificly state in their own Quran to go and conquer. Excerpt K 47:004Set 69, Count 136...when you meet in battle those who disbelieve, then smite the necks until when you have overcome them, then make (them) prisoners, and afterwards either set them free as a favor or let them ransom (themselves) until the war terminates...(as for) those who are slain in the way of Allah... Excerpt K 22:039Set 54, Count 119Permission (to fight) is given to those upon whom war is made... However, I dont hate the Muslims or terrorist. I feel deep pity for them. Edited March 28, 2008 by Confess
NBVegita Posted March 28, 2008 Report Posted March 28, 2008 The occupation of Palestine was done during war. With the disbanding of the Ottoman empire there was no governing body over the extremely corrupt territory of Palestine. In fact it was the Sykes-Picot Agreement in which the majority of the Ottoman empire was divided between the French and English. The boundries and such of the current states in the middle east were mostly decided by those two bodies. That is the problem when an entire empire goes to war and then dissolves. The outcome of Palestine after the British Mandate was no different than Jordan, Iraq, Turkey, Syria ect. Even after the land of Israel was "granted" to the jews, the day after they declared they were an independent state they were invaded by the Arabs. Israel was attacked by Egypt, Jordan, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, yemen, lebanon, syria and more. The Israelies won the war despite only having ~30,000 troops to start with. Had the Arabs won, they would have control of Israel today. Being they did not, they don't. So are both takeover's right, or are both wrong? As I've stated neither is any more right or wrong than the other. There will always be one side (the one being taken over) that views it as wrong, and one side (the one taking over) that views it as right. The occupation of an enemy territory during WWI, with the contuination of administration after the war due to no governmental body being in place is fine in my book. Would it be right for the US to conquer Thailand tomorrow if they decided to? If we were in a world war, and Thailand was fighting against us, yes it would be fine for us to "conquer" them.
SeVeR Posted March 28, 2008 Author Report Posted March 28, 2008 Had the Arabs won, they would have control of Israel today. Being they did not, they don't. The outbreak of war doesn't make each side equally deserving of victory. The occupation of an enemy territory during WWI, Right.with the contuination of administration after the war Wrong.due to no governmental body being in place is fine in my book. A poor excuse. Why not let them form their own government? From the people for the people..... (or was that forgotten somewhere along the line?) Was the Sykes-Picot agreement the right thing to do? The outcome of Palestine after the British Mandate was no different than Jordan, Iraq, Turkey, Syria ect. Really? So we allowed millions of Jews to immigrate to these countries before giving them the majority of the land? I see Jordan, Syria and Turkey being run my native people's of the region. They weren't transplanted there. The occupation by the British never ended, they just passed the buck to the Jews.
NBVegita Posted March 28, 2008 Report Posted March 28, 2008 The British tried to RESTRICT the immigration of Jews not facilitate. The continuing administration in wrong in YOUR book. Remember right and wrong are singularly exclusive points of view. Was the Sykes-Picot agreement the right thing to do? That is a very good question. The answer unfortunately is impossible to tell. As an advocate from the western world I say yes. Does that mean it was the right thing to do? Not neccesarily, but I believe it was. The outbreak of war doesn't make each side equally deserving of victory. No but the support of the majority of the international community and a war victory does.
Recommended Posts