• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

The Creation of Israel Violated the Palestinian Right to Self-Determination

Comparing Israel defending itself against a terrorist attack with the holocaust is disgraceful.

Most of what Israel has done in Gaza is certainly not "self-defense". Totally dishonest and delusional to make such a claim.

Brutal, terribly disproportionate vengeance is not self-defense.
 
Last edited:
In other words, there is no genocide occurring in Gaza.
Israelis are quite glad that we're clearing up that nasty mess in Aisle 8.

As for the topic of this thread -- MEH.

The ICC will make that determination. I expect Bibi to hang once they are done. The sooner the better.
 
Last edited:
Comparing Israel defending itself against a terrorist attack with the holocaust is disgraceful.

which i did not do.

I compared what Israeli in power are saying with what Nazis have been saying - and I am pretty much the last one to make that comparison.

I think it would do you a world of good to read news from a variety of sources - you are certainly not getting the whole picture.
 
Is it substantially different from they way all of the Arab nations were carved out after the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire? I mean, the Brits basically gave most of the Saudi peninsula to their favored Sheik and both Jordan and Iraq were given to another favored Sheik from the Saudi Peninsula.

Also, how far back to invaders have to be to be considered native?
 
Last edited:
The stripping away of civil rights, seizing property , kicking Jews out of their jobs, deportations, harassment and actual pogroms that took place against the Jews in the Muslim world right after Israel was founded, shows that perhaps a creation of a Jewish state was actually necessary. Even for the 1 million Jews who lived in the Muslim and Arab world.

The question is where would an appropriate Homeland for these Jews be?

Hundreds of thousands of Jews to the east of Palestine in Iraq and Iran and Yemen. Hundreds of thousands of Jews to the west of Palestine in Morocco and Algeria and Libya and Egypt.

Having them all gather halfway between both areas in Palestine sort of make sense, plus it's a tiny little area with a long history of Jewish settlement and culture.

So if you look at it simply from a perspective of the persecuted Jews in the Muslim and Arab world a Jewish homeland in Palestine did actually make sense.

Was such a solution and situation fair to the Muslims of Palestine? Probably not but maybe the Muslims and Arabs of North Africa and the Middle East should have thought of that before they decided to treat their Jewish populations like ****.

Am I defending the discrimination and ethnic cleansing that the Arabs of Palestine suffered at the hands of the Zionists? No.

One crime does not justify another.
 
Last edited:
Is it substantially different from they way all of the Arab nations were carved out after the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire? I mean, the Brits basically gave most of the Saudi peninsula to their favored Sheik and both Jordan and Iraq were given to another favored Sheik from the Saudi Peninsula.

Also, how far back to invaders have to be to be considered native?

I asked Hlaforlaes this question several days ago. So far, he has refused to answer. Tricky questions like that tend to be avoided by the chronically dishonest.
 
Also, the Jews were the majority population of Jerusalem by the 1880s, and yet the 1947 Partition Plan took away any rights of control over Jerusalem from the Jews AND the Arabs.

Lots of unfairness all over the place in the Partition Plan.

THere was a lot of ethnic cleansing going on after WWII, look at how Poland got rid of their German ethnic minority no matter how many centuries they had lived there.
 
Those Germans voted for Hitler and supported the Nazi genocide upon Poland.

Some certainly supported the nazis but how did polish citizens vote for Hitler? These were communities that had been there long before poland was even a country.

I get it there is nothing wrong with ethnic cleansing as long as you can use collective guilt to tar the whole ethnicity.
 
Is it substantially different from they way all of the Arab nations were carved out after the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire? I mean, the Brits basically gave most of the Saudi peninsula to their favored Sheik and both Jordan and Iraq were given to another favored Sheik from the Saudi Peninsula.
Undeniably the general case. All part of a very imperfect era of imposing Western criteria that scarcely obeyed principle except on paper. The substantially different aspects of creating the Jewish state include:
  • Exceptionally large immigration numbers in a very short period of time and declaration of independence just one year prior to the Geneva Convention, which would have barred so doing, almost a CT-level coincidence.
  • Elimination of the area's other residents from similar consideration by all authorities. Simply dismissed into limbo, left to the miserable fortunes of a stateless people.

Also, how far back to invaders have to be to be considered native?
Generally, the preference should be for contemporaneous inhabitants. As already stated on one of the three threads, Israelis are contemporaneous, so they have rights, more so than anyone with an older claim. The same, of course, applied moments earlier to the hapless Palestinians. Too late now. Therefore, the extension of full political rights to all is the most equitable solution in line with democratic principle.

Once conquered and settled, the deed is done, with caveats. That does not mean this extends an additional right to dispossess others violently, just because it worked once moments before the Geneva bell sounded. The mistake, then, the grave mistake Israelis make, is their divine right to all of any sort of historical biblical map. They do not have one. Not at all. The ongoing violent takeover should be put down, and hard (Israelis slapped out of the West Bank with no consideration whatsoever).

The difference is important. Either Israel is a state conformant to international law, or its religious claims are on equal footing with those of ISIS wrt restoring the Caliphate, and sky gods supersede. No good. Same rules must apply to all, no favorites.

I asked Hlaforlaes this question several days ago. So far, he has refused to answer. Tricky questions like that tend to be avoided by the chronically dishonest.

I never refused anything, and you have never shown me to be dishonest. What you have shown is that I can have my way with you any darn time I like.
 
Last edited:
Some certainly supported the nazis but how did polish citizens vote for Hitler? These were communities that had been there long before poland was even a country.

I get it there is nothing wrong with ethnic cleansing as long as you can use collective guilt to tar the whole ethnicity.

Most of the deported Germans lived in areas of eastern Germany that were given to Poland after WW2.
 
Most of the deported Germans lived in areas of eastern Germany that were given to Poland after WW2.

As a sop against the territory of poland that the Russians took yes. But why should the residents have been ethnically cleansed from the regions please be specific.

When exactly do you support ethnic cleansing?
 
As a sop against the territory of poland that the Russians took yes. But why should the residents have been ethnically cleansed from the regions please be specific.

When exactly do you support ethnic cleansing?

Never.

But sometimes it happens right at the conclusion of a war.
 
I do not think a full two-state solution is a good idea, as I would prefer the same security forces to be in play, apart from moving away from ethnically-based politics, thus a single state.
I don't see how that could possibly work unless you displaced all of the Israelis (or all of the Palestinians) from the region.

I'm not sure of the relative populations but the single state would clearly be in the control of one of those races who would then persecute the other race.
 
I do not think a full two-state solution is a good idea, as I would prefer the same security forces to be in play, apart from moving away from ethnically-based politics, thus a single state. Exceptionally, those security forces might temporarily consist of a mix of other nationalities, and a special high-speed set of tribunals be set up to handle any and all civil disturbance and related cases quickly and openly. Its border force would be charged with ensuring no entry of or commerce in weapons.

OK, so that sounds like the British Mandate.

How did that work out again?
 

Back
Top Bottom