more germans died than allies as well
Ed General Israel/Palestine discussion thread - Part 3
- Thread starter Mycroft
- Start date
- Status
Well, haven't heard about ISIS for a while
bottom line Israel has no other choice. no one wants to live in a country where another entity can come in and perform a Rawandan style massacre and respond by giving in to their demands.
dudalb
Penultimate Amazing
I keep on asking for a realistic alternative to Isreal that does not grant a huge victory to HAMAS, and I have yet to see one.
dudalb
Penultimate Amazing
You just cannot ecpext any nation to turn the other cheek to what happened on Oct.7th.
But that is exactly what many here advocate.
Dislike of Isreal is now Hard Left Dogma, and Hard Left DOgma must not be questioed.
But that is exactly what many here advocate.
Dislike of Isreal is now Hard Left Dogma, and Hard Left DOgma must not be questioed.
As I said before there really is nothing to discuss outside of a base question as to whether or not Israel as a concept is a legit one.
If you think Israel does have a right to exist in that spot then I don't know exactly what else there is to talk about and if you think Israel doesn't have a right to exist in that spot I also don't exactly know what exactly there's left to talk about.
There's SOME nuance in there beyond that, but not much.
If you think Israel does have a right to exist in that spot then I don't know exactly what else there is to talk about and if you think Israel doesn't have a right to exist in that spot I also don't exactly know what exactly there's left to talk about.
There's SOME nuance in there beyond that, but not much.
This is a cogent point
1) UN resolution 181
2) Hamas charter 1988, Hamas statement of principles 2017
Wanting an end to Israel as a 'Zionist' state is not the same as wanting to kill Jews. wanting to move away from Israel as a Jewish state and to become an Islamic state may offer the option for a middle state where Jews, Moslems, and Christians can be equal.
Last edited:
lobosrul5
Philosopher
Israel didn't take any land under UN 181, they were formed by UN 181.
ETA: and even saying the UN took land is false. It had been a British mandate for 30 years by that point, and was Ottoman before that, an empire that didn't exist in 1947.
Last edited:
webfusion
Philosopher
- Joined
- Nov 16, 2004
- Messages
- 9,787
I noticed that a founding member of Democratic Socialists has resigned, telling his colleagues as he walks out the door how disgracefully they've behaved towards Israel.
Is this guy questioning their dogma? Seems so. I wonder how he fares.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/rep-s...tic-socialists-of-america-over-hamas-comments
1. so Palestine was under British rule and the British allowed the UN to decide to partition it and that equals Israel took the land?? perhaps it was the Palestinians who 'took' their part of the land (which they rejected of course). no one 'took' anything.
2. Wanting an end to Israel as a 'Zionist' state is wanted to end Israel. or what do you think they mean? you have to disregard a lot of other (even recent) statements and actions (wink wink) to come to that conclusion. The Iranians also said they wanted to end the Zionist state, and threatened to use nuclear weapons to do it.
semantic games.
Last edited:
The land allocated to the the 'Jewish' state under 181 was far smaller than to the Palestinian residents as compared with now. Some how land has been transferred from that allocated to the indigenous Palestinians to the 'Jewish' state. The idea of co-equal Jewish and Palestinian states has been lost.The Palestinian state seems to have become a subject state of the Jewish state.
webfusion
Philosopher
- Joined
- Nov 16, 2004
- Messages
- 9,787
On the question of land borders -- you'll have to go back to Sykes-Picot for some insight.
Also, the 181 plan was accompanied by detailed maps regarding where the Arab (Palestinian?) State and Jewish State would be composed of. It was a set of wildly unrealistic maps that bore no reality to the events transpiring on the ground (a civil war emerging in 1947), and eventually the 'Partition' became superceded by the 1949 Rhodes Armistice Agreement appendices maps, which outlined the in-place cease fire between forces (Jordanian, Egyptian, Lebanese and Syrian).
It is THOSE maps which the current Palestinian National Authority is concerned about, when they claim their National Land is being occupied by Israel and that 'settlers' have infringed. While it is true that Israelis have established communities across the old, extinct, cease-fire lines, there is no political prohibition about them doing so, despite the calls of them being 'illegal settlers'
Last edited:
dudalb
Penultimate Amazing
French President Macron to visit Isreal on Tuesday; huge riots in Paris to follow despite the demonstration ban.
And if we go back far enough it's Pangea. At a certain point this kind of ontological inertia has to stop.
I've said many times this discussion is 99% arbitrarily deciding where the history of the conflict "starts."
I've said many times this discussion is 99% arbitrarily deciding where the history of the conflict "starts."
lobosrul5
Philosopher
Everything you say is true... I'm just pointing out the illogicality of blaming Israel for "stealing land" before Israel even existed. Its pretty damned nonsensical. And before they even officially became a nation the Arab factions were already waging war.
No Palestine was under British administration as the result of a league of nations* mandate. The British did not agree with but were subject to UN decision making. The UN allocated land to a future Jewish state, and to a future co-equal Palestinian state. The 'Jewish' state has occupied land originally allocated to the Palestinian state.
Even within Israel the idea of a Jewish state is problematic. That is what is a Jew (viz treatment of Ethiopian Jews). I think nearly eighty years after WW2 perhaps the need for an exclusive homeland for Jews could move on? Perhaps one could move to a state that treated Jews and Muslims and Christians as equal?
*Subsequently UN
The land allocated to the the 'Jewish' state under 181 was far smaller than to the Palestinian residents as compared with now.
and why is that? also, if Israel had been offered what the Palestinians were offered they would have accepted it and the Palestinians would still have rejected it. it isn't about the size of land it's ANY land for a Jewish state.
Some how land has been transferred from that allocated to the indigenous Palestinians to the 'Jewish' state.
now you gonna tell us that Jews aren't indigenous to Judea? all against overwhelming historical and archeological evidence.
The idea of co-equal Jewish and Palestinian states has been lost. The Palestinian state seems to have become a subject state of the Jewish state.
Israel does not want anything to do with ruling over the Palestinians. They exited gaza in 2005 completely. Israel is only in the w bank for security reasons and when the Palestinians stop their terror attacks there will be a pull out of the w. bank as well.
and why is that? also, if Israel had been offered what the Palestinians were offered they would have accepted it and the Palestinians would still have rejected it. it isn't about the size of land it's ANY land for a Jewish state.
Some how land has been transferred from that allocated to the indigenous Palestinians to the 'Jewish' state.
now you gonna tell us that Jews aren't indigenous to Judea? all against overwhelming historical and archeological evidence.
The idea of co-equal Jewish and Palestinian states has been lost. The Palestinian state seems to have become a subject state of the Jewish state.
Israel does not want anything to do with ruling over the Palestinians. They exited gaza in 2005 completely. Israel is only in the w bank for security reasons and when the Palestinians stop their terror attacks there will be a pull out of the w. bank as well.
I think you make a good point.
webfusion
Philosopher
- Joined
- Nov 16, 2004
- Messages
- 9,787
My goodness, I'm shocked that it's required to point out your misstatements of historical facts.
The Arab State in 1947 already EXCLUDED the French portion of Palestine (in the area of Syrian Golan and S. Lebanon) and EXCLUDED the entire eastern portion of the historical land of Palestine, all the way to the Iraqi border. (That had been ceded to the Hashemites in the 1920's, and the Kingdom of Jordan was formed).
As for the indigenous Arabs, that's false, because we know from contemporaneous British records that a multitude of Arab immigration (unrecorded) was flowing into the land, as the expanding Jewish Zionist efforts required such migrant labor. These new arrivals became Palestinians De-Luxe and when the UNRWA stepped into the picture during 1949, they all registered as 'refugees' and were placed on the dole. A dole that continues to this day.
As for the Palestinians being less than equal? I dunno, it's a challenging subject (See: Apartheid claims)
- Status